Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the American Jobs Act--a critical bill that would create jobs and help expand small businesses. It would close the tax loopholes that allow far too many large corporations to move jobs overseas. In doing so, it would establish, conversely, tax incentives for American small businesses so they can create jobs in America. We have seen for too many years--and the Presiding Officer, in New Mexico, has seen too many jobs in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, as I have in Cleveland and other cities, move overseas because of trade agreements and bad tax law. The Senate, we hope, is close to voting on extending unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidies through the extenders bill. Far too many Republicans seem to look at unemployment insurance as welfare. Unemployment insurance is what it is called--insurance. When you have a job, you pay into the unemployment fund. When you are laid off through no fault of your own, you can receive help from that insurance fund. It is as simple as that. We cannot forget why we are in this untenable position of needing to help small businesses and workers and strengthen the public programs that help Americans find new jobs. We are here because of reckless Wall Street practices brought on by unprecedented greed that has created a crippling recession. I rise to discuss the Wall Street reform bill, as it is now being negotiated in the conference committee, for a few moments. Last week, David Wessel noted in the Wall Street Journal--the paper of record for finance, if you will--that when surveyed by the newspaper, leading economists suggested the prevailing belief that the Senate bill didn't go far enough to address the issue of banks being too big to fail. During the Senate debate, I put forward a proposal with Senator Kaufman, of Delaware, that would have addressed the problem by capping the size of megabanks. Evidence backs up what has been abundantly clear in the last 2 years: Megabanks pose a greater risk and threat to our economy than smaller ones because of the heightened volatility of their assets and activities. Only 15 years ago, the largest six banks in the United States--their total assets were added up to be about 17 percent of GDP. Fifteen years ago, the combined assets of the six largest banks made up 17 percent of gross domestic product. Today, their combined assets make up about 63 percent of the GDP. Our proposal would have limited the size of bank holding companies at $1 trillion and investment banks at $400 billion. Mr. President, $1 trillion is $1,000 billion. I can't believe people in this institution would defend, as so many did, that that is not a bank that is too big. Too big to fail, as people as conservative as Alan Greenspan, who is as much to blame for all of this--for the government's total failure during the Bush years to regulate Wall Street--even he said too big to fail is simply too big. Only from the rarefied heights of a glass or ivory tower does $\1/2\ trillion appear too limited. Remember, Lehman Brothers had more than $600 billion in assets and liabilities when it failed and sent the markets into a tailspin. We can all agree that our financial system should never again be on the brink of total collapse and that taxpayers should never have to foot the bill for the mess created by Wall Street. If we want to prevent bailouts, we have to prevent banks from becoming so big that bailouts are necessary. Why wouldn't big banks behave in a risky way when they suspect a bailout will be given? That is why we must not rely on a reactive approach to risks that can undermine our economy. Instead, we must be much more proactive to prevent those risks from ever recurring. On June 3, Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas Fed, explained in an important speech why we need to address the size of the megabanks. He said: Ending the existence of ``too big to fail'' institutions is certainly a necessary part of any regulatory reform effort that could succeed in creating a stable financial system. It is the most sound response of all. If we are to neutralize the problem, we must force these institutions to reduce their size. This isn't some far-left or far-right economist; this isn't some bomb thrower; this is Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas Fed, emphasizing that too big to fail is, in fact, too big. The Brown-Kaufman amendment wasn't adopted into the Wall Street reform bill that passed this body. Yet I continue to believe that it is essential if we want to prevent giant institutions from driving down the economy. But it is not the only proposal that would address the instability created by the megabanks. There are several other amendments and issues in the House or Senate bills that I would briefly like to address. First, the Merkley-Levin amendment ending proprietary trading. Because of Republican obstruction, we were denied the opportunity to vote on that proposal to end the reckless Wall Street gambling called proprietary trading. Opponents of this, particularly from across the aisle, went to such great pains to avoid a vote because I think they knew it had strong support. The Merkley-Levin amendment would strengthen the Volcker rule in Senator Dodd's Wall Street reform bill. It would have barred banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading, which, in layman's language, is the ``casino gambling'' that has banks selling products to clients with one hand, while betting against the products and their clients with the other hand. That can happen only on Wall Street. Too many Wall Street banks used their proprietary trading operations to get rich at the expense of their own clients. When those risky bets go bad, American taxpayers are footing the bill. Lehman Brothers' risky bets led to the largest bankruptcy in our Nation's history. Soon thereafter, other Wall Street banks, which also engaged in reckless proprietary trading, brought our economy to the brink of collapse. It is time for Congress to end this self-serving practice where the conflicts of interest are obvious--and dangerous. Second, Senator Lincoln's amendment on derivatives. Remember that the five biggest banks control 97 percent of the banking industry's derivatives holdings--five banks, 97 percent. I support Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Lincoln's proposal, which would separate derivatives dealing from lending at commercial banks. This provision is important for the same reason as the Merkley-Levin amendment. Sprawling financial institutions increase their lucrative operations at the expense of other more fundamental and traditional banking activities. Right now, megabank speculation is detracting from their primary job: consumer and small business lending. The fact is, too many banks in New Mexico, Ohio, and all over are simply refusing to lend now. They are not lending the way our economy needs them to do it. This is part of the reason. The latest report by the Congressional Oversight Panel of TARP, chaired by Elizabeth Warren, looked at how TARP recipients are lending to small businesses. It found that between 2008 and 2009, Wall Street lending portfolios have shrunk by 4 percent, with their small business loan portfolios shrinking by 9 percent. Over the same period, banks' securities holdings increased by almost 23 percent. Traditional lending by the biggest banks, which received 81 percent of government bailout funds, has declined. At the same time, lending to small businesses from medium-size banks, which received 11 percent of the bailout, increased. Taxpayer-funded assistance, in other words, should not support a bank's gambling, but it should support sound economic growth. Third, Senator Collins' amendment on capital standards was adopted in the Senate bill. It would require the Nation's largest banks to meet, at a minimum, the same capital standards imposed on smaller banks. Under current law, regulators can often permit large financial institutions to follow more permissive capital standards, while smaller banks are held to a different standard. Capital standards applied equally to all banks would help reduce the risk presented by financial institutions as they grow in size or engage in reckless banking behavior. The principle behind this amendment is sound. Regulators should be empowered to apply and enforce capital standards equally and responsibly--regardless of a bank's size. Fourth, the amendment Representative Paul Kanjorski offered is a provision in the House bill that directs regulators to take action against any financial company that ``poses a grave threat to the financial stability or economy of the United States.'' The grave threat of a large financial institution results from excessive leverage, exposure to other risky institutions, or unstable sources of credit. Because of this provision, Federal regulators could apply stricter prudential standards, limit mergers and acquisitions, and force the selloff of business units and assets. Finally, there is a provision offered by Jackie Speier in the House which would impose a statutory 15-to-1 leverage ratio on systemically risky banks. Combining this with Senator Collins' new capital rule is essential. We tried something like this amendment as part of our larger amendment, with Senator Kaufman, in the breaking up of the largest five or six or seven banks. Placing limits on these banks' leverage--meaning their assets relative to their debt--is critical to ending taxpayer bailouts. They cannot just leverage and leverage, in ratios like Lehman Brothers did, at 30 and 40 to 1. Four of the five largest investment banks were leveraged 30, 35, or 40 to 1 at the time of the financial crisis. That means their assets far outbalanced their ability to cover the debt. According to the Kansas City Fed, the 20 biggest banks are more highly leveraged than community banks. Because the megabanks are bigger than ever before, bailing them out would cost taxpayers even more than they paid this time. It is unfair. More important, it is dangerous. The current distortions in the market give privileged, large banks a clear funding advantage. Their implicit government backing is worth up to $34 billion annually. That is Wall Street welfare where large financial institutions continue to receive cheaper rates--maybe 75 basis points is what most economists say--compared to smaller banks. As the Wall Street reform bill heads into conference, we should not dilute it to appease Wall Street. Wall Street lobbyists are all over this institution--all over the House, all over the Senate. They have already had too much impact on this bill. They have had almost total influence with Republicans. Frankly, they have had too much influence with my political party, too--the Democrats. We should keep our eye on the ball by stopping financial crises before they start. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2010, in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on June 9, 2010, 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The National Security Personnel System and Performance Management in the Federal Government.''

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on June 9, 2010, at 3 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 9, 2010, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws.''

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Local Perspectives on the Livable Communities Act.''

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I stand here a bit incredulous about the comments of Senator Durbin, the assistant majority leader, about the oil industry and Republican opposition to simply making them pay for potential problems they cause. I say I am incredulous, but as I think a little longer, I realize that is par for the course. I have only been in the Senate 3\1/2\ years. I have seen the Republicans side with the insurance companies on health care reform. I have seen them side with the drug companies on Medicare issues. I have seen them side with big Wall Street banks on Wall Street reform. Now they side with the oil industry, with BP, with Exxon and these companies that have had--literally, BP's profits were over $1 billion, several billion, multibillion-dollar profits per quarter. And my friends on the other side of the aisle--I don't know if it is the campaign contributions, social connections, what it is with the oil industry--it is always the oil industry first, taxpayers second, and the consuming public third with them. I don't get that. COBRA Subsidy Payments I wish to talk about an amendment Senator Casey is offering and of which I am a primary cosponsor dealing with COBRA, the health insurance issue. When this recession started and unemployment began to spike, most of us in Congress acted to help those in clear need with the stimulus package and with the extension of unemployment insurance. Remember, it is insurance; it is not welfare. People pay into the unemployment insurance fund when they are working, and when they lose their jobs, through no fault of their own, they get assistance from the unemployment insurance fund. Another part of that is, when someone in Joliet or Cleveland or Springfield, IL, or Springfield, OH, loses their job, they all too often lose their insurance. There is a Federal program, a Federal law, that you can continue to draw health insurance when you lose your job if you, the employee, pay for your part of it and you pay the employer contribution for your health insurance, which at least doubles, sometimes triples the amount of money you were paying for health insurance when you were working. That means simply, when you are working, you are paying X dollars, which is never cheap. When you lose your job, you are paying 2X or 3X, and almost nobody can afford that. If you have lost your job, how can you pay more money for health insurance than before you lost it? That is why in the Recovery Act a year and a half ago, I wrote legislation, later amended in the bill, to give a significant subsidy to those people who lost their job but are trying and struggling to keep their insurance. It allows newly unemployed workers to stay on their former employer's health plan with that subsidy. I have received countless letters and e-mails from Ohioans who describe how COBRA is more expensive than rent or food. That is why we stepped in. We did a 65-percent subsidy. In other words, if you lose your job, instead of paying your part of the insurance and your employer's part, instead of paying that combined amount, which was Federal law for years, we are subsidizing 65 percent of that amount. I cannot count the number of people I have talked with in the last year who have come up to me and said: I still have insurance because I was able--it is still difficult; it is not as though money is growing on trees for these people who lost their jobs. It is still difficult. But so many people have come up to me and said: I still have my insurance because of that subsidy. In this legislation, the House took away the COBRA subsidy under the view that we simply cannot afford this subsidy anymore. The Casey-Brown amendment says: Yes, we can, and we are going to do it. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Treasury concludes COBRA ``has been an important source of insurance coverage during the recession, especially for the middle class.'' It said that COBRA has ``significantly slowed the growth of the uninsured population, which had been skyrocketing through February 2009.'' In other words, this government report showed what we are doing is working. A lot more people have insurance as a result of the COBRA subsidy, just as a lot more people have jobs today because of the stimulus package. Granted, it is not good. There are too many people who have lost their insurance and too many people who have lost their jobs. More people have jobs because of the stimulus package and a whole lot more people have health insurance and are not a burden on the State, their community, or their families because they actually have insurance through COBRA. The COBRA subsidy expired for newly unemployed Americans on May 31, 9 days ago. The managers' amendment includes an extension of the unemployment insurance program, which is a good thing, but it does not include an extension of COBRA. This absence is striking, given the fact that a recent survey shows that 15 percent of unemployed insurance recipients rely on COBRA for affordable coverage. Unemployment insurance is an important lifeline. Of course, we need to do that. But it does not give enough money for a family to pay for their insurance. Again, look at the math. Your unemployment insurance is less than you were making when you were working. Your insurance payment for COBRA, if we do not subsidize it, is a lot more, a factor of two or three times, in most cases, what you were paying for insurance when you were working. You have less income and significantly higher health care costs. That is why that subsidy is so very important. That is why I am joining with Senator Casey in offering an amendment that will extend the COBRA Premium Assistance Program for another 6 months. Let me conclude with a couple letters from Ohioans who explain the personal side of this issue. We all come to the floor and talk about policy. We all are a little geeky sometimes. I like to come to the floor and read letters from people I represent in my State. Robert and Rachel are from Montgomery County. That is Dayton, Kettering, Huber Heights, West Carrollton--those communities: One month after I was laid off, my wife, a registered nurse, had a stroke. Since that time, we have struggled but managed to keep our heads above water because of the COBRA subsidy. We have four children, and simply cannot live without health insurance, because the cost can be devastating. Understand, too, if you lose your insurance, trying to get insurance again is so difficult and so expensive. We do not want this interrupted. Robert writes: We feel the need to be one more voice encouraging your colleagues to speak out for the families that have been hurt the most by this economic disaster. Please keep fighting for us. Montgomery County, Dayton, has been inflicted with a GM plant closing. National Cash Register, NCR, one of the oldest companies people associate with the city of Dayton--the CEO did not talk to anybody. He pulled the company up, left, and moved to Atlanta. DHL, a large cargo carrier, a German company, pulled out of Wilmington nearby. That was several thousand jobs. They have had that kind of economic hardship in Dayton. We absolutely need to extend the COBRA subsidy for people such as Robert and Rachel. The last note I wish to read is from Mary from Cuyahoga County, which is the northeastern Ohio area: I live in northeast Ohio and have been out of work 13 months. I live alone with no dependents, yet I can barely meet my monthly financial challenges. I became a cancer victim last year, but when my COBRA subsidy is stopped, it will feel like an additional cancer in my life. The COBRA subsidy has bought me time to explore what I hope to be an improving job market. We are seeing good signs in northeast Ohio of increased job numbers and companies hiring people. The COBRA subsidy has bought me time to explore what I hope to be an improving job market. And not only would it buy me time, it would renew my faith in government. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to continue the COBRA subsidy. It clearly is the right thing to do. It is going to matter to so many families. I don't understand why so many on the other side would oppose something such as this. It simply makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support the Casey-Brown amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, half of heart-related deaths in the United States are caused by a hard-to-diagnose condition called sudden cardiac arrest, SCA. Different from a heart attack, SCAs are caused by an electrical problem in the heart that, once triggered, requires immediate treatment: survival rates plummet 7 to 10 percent with every minute that passes. Each year, only 8 percent of the 295,000 people who suffer an SCA outside of a hospital survive. A few years ago, June 1- June 7 was designated as CPR/AED Awareness Week to share these startling statistics and to begin to change them. By educating and encouraging communities to establish organized programs that could provide CPR and AED training to the public, lives have already been saved. Anyone can suffer a sudden cardiac arrest, no matter one's age or gender. In fact, many victims appear healthy, not having a known heart disease or any other risk factors. For example, student athletes with no previous heart ailments have been stricken with SCA in the middle of practice or during games. Josh Miller was one such student athlete. The act that bears his name--the Josh Miller HEARTS, Helping Everyone Access Responsible Treatment in Schools, Act--creates a grant program through the Department of Education for public and private schools to purchase automated external defibrillators, AEDs, and to train staff in the use of CPR and defibrillation within the context of a coordinated emergency response plan. Josh was a 15-year-old high school honor student from Barberton, OH, who suffered sudden cardiac arrest during a high school football game. Though Josh had never previously demonstrated symptoms of a heart problem, he passed away before paramedics arrived at the scene. There were no AEDs on site that might have been used to save Josh's life. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Josh Miller HEARTS Act on June 2, 2009, and Senator George Voinovich and I introduced the bill in the Senate on June 8, 2009. Currently, the legislation has seven cosponsors and is pending before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The combination of early, immediate CPR and defibrillation helps restore normal heart rhythm before emergency personnel arrive and increases a victim's chances of survival. Tragically, lives are lost every day because there are not enough AEDs and persons trained in using the devices and performing CPR to provide this life-saving treatment. On average, response times for emergency medical teams run approximately 6 to 12 minutes. Yet according to the American Heart Association, the chance of survival of sudden cardiac arrest decreases by 7 to 10 percent with every passing minute. In order to have a strong emergency response system, communities need the resources to help save lives. I encourage my colleagues to follow the House's lead and take up and pass the Josh Miller HEART Act as soon as possible.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. When it is available tomorrow, it is the majority leader's intention to ask the Chair to lay down the House message with respect to H.R. 4213, the tax extenders legislation. Rollcall votes are expected to occur throughout the day in relation to the tax extenders legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. All of us have just come back to the Senate after a Memorial Day work period, where most of us were traveling our States, meeting with people. I was in Toledo, Youngstown, Cleveland, and around much of my State. While we have seen signs of recovery in Youngstown, in part because of the Recovery Act, in part because of where those dollars were absolutely well spent on infrastructure, making this expansion possible, in part because of a trade decision the President of the United States made on the dumping of Chinese steel. In real terms--in real English--the dumping of Chinese steel meant the Chinese were cheating. Now we have restored competitiveness to the market so that American companies, with very productive American workers, can make steel and sell that steel at competitive prices. We have seen an announced expansion and beginning of hiring in the auto industry, into the whole supply chain that leads into the automotive industry that makes the components--the so-called Tier I and Tier II suppliers. We have seen those signs of recovery. But if you are not working or your cousin is not working or your wife has lost her job or your sister or brother isn't working, you know there are still too many people who are hurting. We have not recovered, and we are not close to it, but we are making progress, while those families continue to struggle. Too many Americans are waiting for us to act and extend the unemployment insurance they earned and the COBRA insurance they need while they look for work. Let me talk about unemployment insurance for a moment. It is not a vacation. It is not a whole lot of money people get. It is people who have lost their jobs and are looking for work. They have to continue to look for work. They have to show the employment bureau in their States--in new Hampshire, Ohio, wherever-- that they are continuing to look for work. Unemployment insurance is insurance. It is not welfare. You pay in when you are working and you get some help when you are not working. Because of the persistent unemployment caused by several years of bad economic policy, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of Wall Street, a war that was not paid for--all the things that happened in the last decade which led us to this terrible economy--we have to help those workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own. We have to help pay for COBRA; that is, helping to keep their health insurance. It is more expensive than a mortgage for most people. How COBRA works is, if you lose your job, you can keep your insurance if you pay for your side of the insurance--the employee's side--and you pay for the employer's contribution to your insurance. You have to pay both. That is clearly expensive. If you lost your job, how would you do that? You are going to be able to do that because of the Recovery Act. The Congress and the President made a decision--with very few Republicans voting for it, for whatever reason. They do not think these people who are trying to keep their health insurance should be able to get help. But we were able to provide enough subsidy so that in my State tens of thousands of people--and I have met several dozen of them--have been able to keep their health insurance as a result. A laid-off mechanic, factory worker, electrician, engineer--ask them how it feels to be out of a job. When I see my colleagues voting against unemployment benefits, the question I really want to ask is, Do you know anybody who lost their job? Do you know anybody who really needs this unemployment insurance? Have you really talked to somebody who lost their health insurance and, with a little bit of help, could continue to keep their insurance through COBRA? Ask people in Ohio. Ask somebody in Dayton who has lost a job in the auto industry. Ask somebody in Chillicote who lost their job at a paper company. Ask somebody in Springfield who lost their job at DHL, the cargo company-- how they live with the stress of job loss, compounded by the small number of job openings, if they exist at all, in or around their communities. Unemployment insurance, as I said, is just that--it is insurance. Workers pay into an insurance fund while they are working. They have a safety net if they are unemployed, and there are requirements. Those collecting unemployment checks are required to actively seek work. I know people in my State. They come up to me when I do a townhall or roundtable meeting. Whether I am in Galion or Lima or St. Clairsville or Zanesville, people come up to me and say they send out 10 or 20 or 30 resumes a week. Most of these resumes are not even answered because the economy is far from fully recovered. We are making progress. We are on track to recovery. We are not there yet. People are still out of work in huge numbers. I hear lectures from those who believe emergency spending should not be used to help out-of-work Americans who lose their unemployment insurance. Yet many people in this body have no problem giving away-- extending tax credits, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, subsidizing the insurance companies, the drug companies, in the name of Medicare privatization, voting for a war. None of that was paid for. I didn't hear my Republican colleagues saying: We can't do that; it is going to add to the deficit. We can't go to war. We can't raise taxes to pay for the war; it is going to contribute to the deficit. They will vote for the Medicare privatization bill President Bush had--a giveaway to the drug insurance companies. They didn't say: How do you pay for it? They didn't say that. They didn't say we couldn't do those things. It is only when it is unemployment insurance and COBRA, things extending health insurance to people--it is only those things, and all of a sudden they are all concerned about the budget deficit. I am concerned about the budget deficit too. One of the reasons I voted against the Medicare giveaway to the drug insurance companies was because of the deficit. One of the reasons I voted against the Iraq war--the primary reason was it was the wrong thing to do, but I was very concerned about the fact that we were not paying for it. The tax cuts that went to the richest Americans--I didn't hear any Republicans saying we should not do this, with the exception of George Voinovich from my State, who raised that issue. I didn't hear any of them say we should not give those benefits because they are not paid for. Now that it is unemployed workers, people who have lost their insurance, all of a sudden they have some kind of deficit reduction issue in their minds. Lavishing goodies on the drug and insurance companies I guess does not qualify. That qualifies as emergency spending. That is OK. But helping working families stay afloat in a floundering economy is not OK. Every day that people do not receive their unemployment insurance is another day more American workers and families will slip into poverty. Do you know what happens if they can't get their unemployment checks, if they are cut, if they no longer get unemployment insurance? We are going to see more home foreclosures. How are you going to have economic recovery when somebody's home is foreclosed on, it is then vandalized, it then plummets in value, then infects houses in the neighborhood, and so they have the same problems and the value of their home gets lower and lower. How is that going to help us with economic recovery? It is a human tragedy, and it is an economic blow our country cannot afford. Poverty reduces consumer spending, and it increases the need for public assistance. That is two steps back. Not only is unemployment insurance a poverty prevention tool, it is a proven economic stimulus. Senator McCain, who ran, as we know, as Republican nominee for President--his chief economic adviser said unemployment insurance is the single best economic stimulus. Every dollar in jobless benefits, which were earned, as I said--you pay in as insurance, you get out--every dollar in unemployment benefits produces $1.64 in economic growth. Why is that? It is because they don't take their dollar and put it in their pocket; they spend it on their kids or spend it on the necessities of life. It goes right back into the community. That is why it supports and produces $1.64 in economic growth. In the first 6 months following passage of the Recovery Act--and we know that almost every economist, except for those who have their own ideological game going, will say that without the Recovery Act we would be in a much higher unemployment situation today. Frankly, we would have a higher budget deficit as a result because so many more people would be out of work. Unemployment insurance pumped $19 billion into the economy. Let me close with a couple of letters from Ohioans. Richard from Cuyahoga County--the northern part of the State on Lake Erie, just east of where I live--writes: People like me are trying hard to find a job but this economy is presenting challenges for unemployed workers. To those who object to the cost of unemployment insurance--what about the cost of not helping the folks looking for a job and trying to get by? Not helping us means the loss of a strong multiplier effect-- This guy obviously gets it-- spending on necessities like mortgage and rent and food and car payments, which stays in the community where we live. That is exactly right. It is another one of the things government does sometimes. When you help one person, you are helping society. Look back at what happened in the 1940s when Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI bill. About 7 million, I believe, veterans used GI benefits. So those 7 million people were helped personally, one at a time. They got health care benefits, they got education benefits, they bought homes-- whatever. But the GI bill didn't just help those millions of veterans. It created a prosperity like none the world has ever seen, postwar America, where everyone was lifted up. All of society was more prosperous because of this government program that helped one person at a time. So is unemployment insurance. When you do unemployment insurance, you send a life preserver, if you will, to those individuals, tens of thousands in my State. But you also create prosperity so your next-door neighbor does better because the guy down the street is getting unemployment insurance because he might work at the hardware store or might work in the grocery store where the laid-off worker goes to shop for her food. He is able to keep a job because there is some prosperity created. The last letter I would like to share for a moment is from David from Franklin county. Many people like me who are looking for a job are well educated, white collar workers with long work histories. As we continue to look for jobs, we hope businesses will hire again. Unemployment insurance benefits have been a lifeline. I have been able to pay my mortgage, feed my family, and clothe my children. Without these benefits-- This is really key-- I will lose my home, be forced to go on welfare, and see my children go hungry and my family possibly destroyed. Please urge your colleagues to support an unemployment insurance extension. In the richest, most productive country in the world, please do the right thing and stand up for us during our time of need. Forget about the statistics, forget about the economics of it. Think about somebody like David who knows that without these unemployment benefits--and he is not getting rich; he is barely getting along with a few hundred dollars. What it means is he can pay his mortgage. What it means is he can feed his family. What it means is he will go back, as he keeps looking for work, to being a productive member of society. We need to act now--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month--now. We must act now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 512 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I came to speak on the Merkley- Levin amendment, which I think is so important. I will speak about that in a moment. I am a little surprised to hear another health care debate comment. Last year, through much of the year, there was opposition--a lot of opposition--to the health care bill. Most of the opposition came about because of the kinds of things that were said on the Senate floor that simply weren't true: that this bill would mean the government would put a bureaucrat between your doctor and yourself as a patient, that it was a government takeover, that it was socialism. In fact, the arguments they used last year against the health care bill were the same arguments they used against Medicare in 1965: socialism, government takeover, and bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Those things didn't pan out with Medicare. The same arguments were used, but they clearly weren't true in 1965, when conservatives, including the John Birch Society and others similar to that, did everything they could to defeat Medicare. They were not successful then and they weren't successful on the health care bill now. When I hear that kind of discussion from colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when I hear the most conservative Members of this institution saying we should repeal the new health care bill, I guess the questions to ask are: Do they want to repeal the provision when my friend's 22-year-old daughter comes home from college or his son comes home from the military and they can't find a job with insurance? Are they going to repeal the section that says they can stay on their parents' health insurance? It was a great idea that the young men and women coming home from the Army or from school can stay on their parents' health care insurance until they are 27. I guess they want to repeal that. I guess they want to repeal the tax breaks that this health care bill gave to small businesses so they can insure their employees. I guess they want to repeal the support for those who fall into the doughnut hole for prescription drugs, those seniors continuing to pay their premiums and get that benefit from it. They want to repeal the benefit this bill is going to give them. They want to repeal the prohibition on preexisting conditions. During much of last year, I would come to the floor and read letters from constituents--Ohioans from Ravenna, Toledo, Hillsboro, to Wilmington. These letters would be mostly from people who thought they had good health insurance until they got sick and needed it. This legislation will not let insurance companies knock people off the rolls because of a preexisting condition or knock them off the rolls because they got too sick and expensive, will not let them knock them off the rolls if they had a child born with a preexisting condition. All of those issues were resolved, and we are beginning to see all of these benefits from this health care bill. The American public knows that. I wish my colleagues, rather than advocate for repeal of something that has moved this country forward, would work with us on issues such as the Merkley-Levin amendment. Let me for a moment discuss that amendment. It is a good amendment. It will make this final bill stronger. It is worthy of an independent up-or-down vote. It is worthy of a majority vote. If we get 51 votes, we ought to be able to adopt an amendment in this body to add to this legislation. Republicans have criticized this bill for weeks. They have blocked us from bringing it up for debate because they said it did not address the problem of too big to fail. But the first major amendment we considered which would have addressed the problem of too big to fail--that is, too big to fail is too big--would have meant those huge banks would have had to sell off a part of their assets. Let me give a number. The total assets of the six largest banks in this country 15 years ago was 17 percent of gross domestic product. The total assests of those six largest banks today are 63 percent of the gross domestic product. Too big to fail is, in fact, too big. Every Republican, with the exception of Senator Ensign from Nevada, Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, and Senator Shelby from Alabama, every single Republican voted against that, again siding with the big banks, the six big banks, against the country, against manufacturers in Dayton, OH, against the small-town bank in Dover or New Philadelphia, OH, against the regional banks in Cleveland, Cincinnati, or Columbus, against the small business guy or woman who wants to get a loan. By voting for the big banks and giving them even more advantage, it was discriminating against the regional banks, the community banks. It was hurting the manufacturer in Shelby, OH, or Mansfield, OH, that needs a loan to build their business. That was the first chance. I cannot think of another proposal that deals with the problem of too big to fail better than the Merkley-Levin amendment. There are all kinds of parliamentary shenanigans going on around this amendment trying to block it. Let me talk about the amendment for a moment. If they are successful in beating this amendment, it is clearly a win for the Wall Street banks. For too long these banks used their own capital or borrowed billions of dollars to invest in risky financial products. We know they did that. We know the damage it caused to our system, to our economy, to our country. After telling their clients to buy these risky products, big banks turned around and bet against their own clients to cushion their profits. With one hand, they sold a client a risky financial product--a subprime mortgage or a large debt obligation. With the other hand they placed bets on those products underperforming. That is how proprietary trading works. That is what they want to continue. It is like me selling you a house and then taking out a fire insurance policy on it and starting the fire. Whether it was greed or arrogance run amok, these megabanks blew our economy apart--we know what happened--leaving taxpayers to piece it back together. Proprietary trading is not just a gamble. It is a drag on sectors of our economy that traditionally have been supported by the banks. Propriety trading displaces lending to businesses small and large. It increases Wall Street's bottom line while leaving the rest of the economy behind. Over the past dozen years, proprietary trading--as this reckless gambling is called--has become an increasingly larger portion of the business conducted by our largest financial institutions. At the end of 2009, the large banks reported to the FDIC that their trading revenues, as opposed to revenues from lending and other traditional banking activities, accounted for 77 percent of their net operating revenues. At the same time over the last year, FDIC-insured banks' securities holdings have increased by 23 percent. Instead of lending to businesses, they lend to themselves. It is no coincidence that manufacturing faltered, that millions of jobs were lost, and our Nation's unemployment rate hovers at 9.9 percent and higher in a dozen States such as Ohio. There is no room in the financial sector to absorb good-paying jobs in other sectors; and when banks stop lending, other sectors dry up. That is not sustainable. We know in this country that 30 years ago one-third of our GDP was in manufacturing. Financial services accounted for only 10 or 11 percent of our gross domestic product. That really tells the story. As manufacturing declined as a percentage of GDP and financial services went up so much, that is clearly why we are where we are today. Financial services has accounted for 44 percent of corporate profits in recent years, again, instead of manufacturing, instead of contributing wealth to our country. The support of the Merkley-Levin amendment makes sense. It is not a time to play games with the financial well-being of hard-working, middle-class Americans. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I appreciate the leadership of my colleague from Delaware who understands this Wall Street reform perhaps better than anybody in the Senate, and has particularly led the charge on working on too big to fail meaning too big. That the size of banks in this country--when the six largest banks' assets 15 years ago were only 17 percent of GDP, and today the assets of the six largest banks total 63 percent of gross domestic product, we know that too big to fail really is too big. I appreciate the work Senator Kaufman has done on that. We know what a financial meltdown looks like. It means pensions shattered, it means homes lost, it means college plans delayed or even abandoned, it means good-paying jobs lost, it means middle-class security undermined. Two years after the financial collapse in March 2010, there were 655,000 unemployed Ohioans. Ohio's unemployment rate today is 11 percent. Three of the largest banks slashed their SBA lending by 86 percent from 2008 to 2009. In Ohio, small business SBA- backed loans went from 4,200 of them in 2007 to 2,100 of them in 2009. Wall Street's casino gambling with the housing markets has caused nearly 90,000 foreclosures in Ohio just in the year 2009. The average median sales price of existing single-family homes across eight of Ohio's metropolitan markets plunged by an average of 16 percent from 2007 to 2009. So why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to maintain the regulatory environment that allowed Wall Street to squander middle-class wealth and security? It makes me incredulous to think there are people in this institution, and a number of them, who want to continue the way it is always done, who think Wall Street does not need further regulation. They were the same people who in the Bush years pushed for deregulation, and then President Bush assisted his Republican friends by putting more pro-bank, pro-Wall Street bank regulators in place to regulate after already weakening the regulations. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be starting this debate, should be starting the legislative process, by thinking, well, what is best for Wall Street, and then by working backward to see which consumer protections Wall Street can live with. That is not how you start this debate. You do not say: Well, we have got to decide, can Wall Street live with these protections? Are these protections okay? Does Wall Street approve of these protections before we do them? That is not the way we should be legislating. We should be starting with what will protect middle-class families from another devastating economic blow, and we should then move forward to put those protections in place. It should be as simple as that. My Democratic colleagues and I are fighting for the strongest possible measures to hold Wall Street accountable. I hope my Republican colleagues resist the temptation, a temptation they usually succumb to, to water down reform and carve out loopholes for the special interests. That has been the problem all along, the power of the bank lobby here, the power of Wall Street in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the bias so many have that, well, Wall Street did not really do that badly, we should water down this reform, we should carve out loopholes so Wall Street can continue doing business the way they did. It is time, instead, to act on behalf of the people we serve, not Wall Street firms. Too many of my colleagues across the aisle, simply put, are putting Wall Street before Main Street. The first step toward the financial recovery is protecting American families who rely on credit cards to meet their financial obligations or mortgages, to finance their dream of home ownership. Let's not forget that the kindling for this fire that became the global financial crisis was a pile of exploding mortgages. If we allow lenders of all types to continue preying upon hard-working Americans, then we are setting ourselves up for another disaster. This time it was securitized mortgages. Next time it can be student loans or it could be credit card debt, or it could be commercial real estate or it could be the junk bond market. Who can say for sure? That is why the independent consumer protection bureau in this legislation is essential. It will create, for the first time, an entity dedicated to protecting the interests of middle-class Americans against the greed and the recklessness of Wall Street. We need a watchdog to make sure Wall Street gamblers and their lobbyists do not trample the American dream as a means of feeding their own greed. Beyond establishing this agency, an agency tasked with protecting the interests of middle-class families, we have an opportunity to do much more to protect American families. We should adopt an amendment offered by Senator Whitehouse, cosponsored by my colleague sitting nearby on the floor, Senator Casey, and a number of us, a bipartisan amendment, that would empower States to protect their citizens from unfair credit card interest rates. Thirty-two years ago the Supreme Court decision, the Marquette decision, perhaps the most important Supreme Court decision Americans do not know about, overruled the consumer protections, so-called usury rates, interest rates, among the 50 States. In other words, if the legislatures of the State of Pennsylvania, the State of North Carolina, the Presiding Officer's State, or my State of Ohio, enacted an 18-percent usury rate or a 16-percent usury rate, that is the top rate at which lenders can charge customers. Those rates were overturned by the Supreme Court decision because the Supreme Court decided it does not matter where the customer is, whether the customer is in Charlotte or Harrisburg or Cleveland or Columbus, it mattered where the bank was. Basically what that meant was, bank after bank after bank located their operations in a State with very high usury rates or no usury rates at all. Therefore, a customer in Akron or a customer in Toledo or Mansfield or Springfield or Xenia, having a credit card with a bank in South Dakota paid much higher interest rates, even though Ohio set its interest rates much lower. Usury rates--I quoted today in a presentation earlier--were established by the Bible. In Exodus 12, I believe, the Bible says clearly that usury rates--the usurious interest rates aimed at the poor, and aimed really at everybody, simply should not stand. Yet, by this Supreme Court decision in 1978, the Court ruled we would basically outsource our interest rate, our consumer protections, to the lowest common denominator State. So if South Dakota has no usury rates or no limit or a very high limit on their interest rates, it means a credit card holder in Lima, OH or Troy, OH or Springboro, OH is paying those high interest rates, even though the Ohio legislature has acted against their doing that. So the Whitehouse-Casey-Sanders-Brown amendment, a bipartisan amendment, is particularly important simply to give the power back to the States to make a determination of interest rates. For too long, as this Supreme Court decision indicates, and the lack of response from Congress indicates, Washington has been looking out for the megabanks. Some of my colleagues are still saying these banks' interests are more important than protecting the American public. This bill would not even allow the consumer protection bureau to set rules regarding credit card interest rates. Meanwhile these rates are inexplicably going through the roof, at the same time the banks are again enjoying record low borrowing costs. It makes no sense. We report to the American public, not to high-risk business models. The next element of financial collapse came when Wall Street bundled toxic mortgages into untested products such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, and synthetic CDOs and credit default swaps. Many of these new products, products that almost nobody understands, were unregulated derivatives sold in over-the- counter markets with no oversight or transparency. As a member of both the Banking and the Agriculture Committees, I want to commend the Chairs of each of those committees for the work in creating a derivatives title, a regulation of derivatives, that will provide much needed oversight to the $210 trillion--$210 trillion--that is the 210 thousand billion dollar U.S. derivatives market. At the same time we balance the need in regulation of derivatives, we balance the needs of manufacturers in Dayton, Youngstown, and Toledo, who used these products appropriately, and that was not where the problem was, to limit their business risk. This bill provides for financial stability by requiring banks to put capital behind their trades. It uses transparency and accountability to prevent Wall Street banks from taking advantage of their business customers. It reduces speculation that fuels bubbles in markets such as natural gas and mortgages. I want to single out Chairman Lincoln's proposal to separate derivatives operations from commercial banks. It is the right thing to do, because the megabanks' speculation is detracting from their primary job, lending. Over the last six quarters, megabanks have decreased their consumer and small business lending. At the three biggest banks, lending under the SBA's 7(a) program, the primary SBA program to help startup and existing small businesses, lending under that program declined 86 percent from 2 years ago to last year, and it does not appear to be getting a lot better this year. Over the same period, banks' securities holdings increased by 23 percent. What does that mean? That means rather than investing in a local manufacturing company, Elyria Foundry, or Alcoa in Cleveland, or smaller companies, a fastener company in Bedford, or companies, manufacturing companies, instead of investing in those, their security holdings increased. That is where their capital went. That was not productive for our country. It may have been profitable for the banks, but it does not work to get our economy back in gear. Taxpayer-funded assistance from the FDIC and the Fed should not be going to support a bank's gambling, it should be supporting sound economic growth. In an ideal world, we would treat derivative products like all other investment products and trade them on exchanges. This is a strong bill, particularly now that we have adopted Senator Cantwell's antimanipulation amendment. We are finally going to impose some order and allow sunlight into what has been and is currently a completely dark and opaque market. The final ingredient to the financial crisis came when massive, interconnected Wall Street banks and investment houses--such as AIG and Citigroup and others--gorged themselves on risky derivatives backed by predatory mortgages. When these bets went bad, the U.S. Government decided these banks were too big to fail, and the U.S. taxpayer was forced to settle their hundreds of billions of dollars in obligations. These too big to fail banks are getting even bigger. Right now the five biggest banks control 97 percent of all U.S. derivatives. For the first time, we are going to have a process to liquidate these large financial institutions if they fail. Such a system was lacking at the time the giant investment banks, such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, and Merrill Lynch, were in financial peril, due to overleveraging and investment in toxic investments. I believe the bill should be strengthened to make absolutely certain there are no more meltdowns and no more bailouts. I would like to add stronger safeguards against behemoth banks that control so much of the Nations's wealth they could singlehandedly send our economy spiraling downward. Too big to fail means too big. While this is mostly about the risk these banks took and might take in the future, it is also about size. When 15 years ago the assets of the six largest banks combined were 17 percent of the GDP and today the six banks' total assets make up 63 percent of GDP, too big to fail is also simply too big. It is crucial we adopt an amendment offered by Senators Merkley and Levin to ban proprietary trading. Too many Wall Street banks got rich at the expense of clients they were supposed to be serving and American families whose homes have been taken from them. It is equally important that we consider and adopt the amendment offered by Senators Cantwell and McCain to reimpose the Glass-Steagall wall between commercial and investment banking. We should pass the Dorgan amendment, giving the systemic risk council the authority to spin off parts of large, cross-border financial institutions. After 2 years, after millions of jobs lost, after millions of homes foreclosed upon, we are attempting to put in place rules that might prevent the next crisis. We should not dilute this critical piece of legislation with amendments that coddle Wall Street. Too many of my Republican colleagues are still trying to do that, introducing amendments that choose Wall Street over Main Street. It is important this legislation move forward. It is important that all of us fight to choose Main Street over Wall Street so this works for Findlay, Warren, Bolero, and Tipp City, OH, communities that have been hit hard by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street banks. That is clear. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as yea on vote No. 143. Doing so will not affect the outcome of the amendment.