Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Boxer amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; a title amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 213, S. Res. 345.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4532, received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, in the years leading up to the financial crisis, risky and reckless bonus-laden pay packages ruled at Wall Street banks. After crashing our economy, these too-big-to-fail banks needed the Bush administration and the American taxpayer to bail them out. The Temporary Asset Relief Program, TARP, pumped billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into the financial system to stabilize our economy and prevent another Great Depression. The Obama administration continued the TARP program while also taking necessary and swift action passing the Recovery Act. But unemployment remains high even as our economy begins to recover, and Wall Street is back to its old ways. Insurance giant AIG got $182.3 billion in bailout money. Last Wednesday, AIG paid $100 million more in bonuses to its employees. Goldman Sachs got $10 billion directly from TARP and another $12.9 billion in taxpayer aid through the AIG bailout. Goldman will pay its employees bonuses worth $16 billion. The average banker at Bank of America got a $400,000 bonus one year after the bank took $45 billion from TARP. The average worker in Ohio makes just over $41,000 a year. The Federal Reserve has taken extraordinary steps and made trillions of dollars available in low-interest loans to American banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just about the only buyers today for mortgages in the secondary market. Big banks received hundreds of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers in half a dozen ways to stabilize their finances and increase financing to businesses and consumers. Our economy is reliant on small businesses, which account for more than 65 percent of jobs created in our Nation. But despite the banks' rapid recovery, their small business lending continues to decrease, month after month. In November 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the 22 largest financial institutions receiving taxpayer assistance reduced lending by $10.5 billion over the previous six months. These same banks reduced small business loans by another $1 billion according to a report released in December 2009. I have heard from too many small business owners--from Youngstown to Mansfield, from Athens to Elyria--that they simply can't access the credit they need to hire workers or expand business. For 10 years wealthy bankers were partying like it was 1999. When the economy came crashing down the middle class was forced to sacrifice their money and their children's money to save the banks and unfreeze credit. They are still waiting for Wall Street to live up to their end of the bargain. That is why today I introduced The Wall Street Bonus Tax Act, which would use Wall Street's excess to fund small businesses. The Wall Street Bonus Tax Act imposes a 50 percent excise tax for 2010 on bonuses awarded at financial institutions that received TARP assistance. The revenue generated by the tax would go to the Small Business Administration to implement a direct small business lending program to help small businesses in towns like Bucyrus and Dublin. Wall Street's lavish bonuses were made possible by the taxpayers' money--money that was supposed to be lent to businesses. Instead of patting themselves on the back, the banks should be making loans that help the middle class recover. This bill is a critical step in that direction.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, in the years leading up to the financial crisis, risky and reckless bonus-laden pay packages ruled at Wall Street banks. After crashing our economy, these too-big-to-fail banks needed the Bush administration and the American taxpayer to bail them out. The Temporary Asset Relief Program, TARP, pumped billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into the financial system to stabilize our economy and prevent another Great Depression. The Obama administration continued the TARP program while also taking necessary and swift action passing the Recovery Act. But unemployment remains high even as our economy begins to recover, and Wall Street is back to its old ways. Insurance giant AIG got $182.3 billion in bailout money. Last Wednesday, AIG paid $100 million more in bonuses to its employees. Goldman Sachs got $10 billion directly from TARP and another $12.9 billion in taxpayer aid through the AIG bailout. Goldman will pay its employees bonuses worth $16 billion. The average banker at Bank of America got a $400,000 bonus one year after the bank took $45 billion from TARP. The average worker in Ohio makes just over $41,000 a year. The Federal Reserve has taken extraordinary steps and made trillions of dollars available in low-interest loans to American banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just about the only buyers today for mortgages in the secondary market. Big banks received hundreds of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers in half a dozen ways to stabilize their finances and increase financing to businesses and consumers. Our economy is reliant on small businesses, which account for more than 65 percent of jobs created in our Nation. But despite the banks' rapid recovery, their small business lending continues to decrease, month after month. In November 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the 22 largest financial institutions receiving taxpayer assistance reduced lending by $10.5 billion over the previous six months. These same banks reduced small business loans by another $1 billion according to a report released in December 2009. I have heard from too many small business owners--from Youngstown to Mansfield, from Athens to Elyria--that they simply can't access the credit they need to hire workers or expand business. For 10 years wealthy bankers were partying like it was 1999. When the economy came crashing down the middle class was forced to sacrifice their money and their children's money to save the banks and unfreeze credit. They are still waiting for Wall Street to live up to their end of the bargain. That is why today I introduced The Wall Street Bonus Tax Act, which would use Wall Street's excess to fund small businesses. The Wall Street Bonus Tax Act imposes a 50 percent excise tax for 2010 on bonuses awarded at financial institutions that received TARP assistance. The revenue generated by the tax would go to the Small Business Administration to implement a direct small business lending program to help small businesses in towns like Bucyrus and Dublin. Wall Street's lavish bonuses were made possible by the taxpayers' money--money that was supposed to be lent to businesses. Instead of patting themselves on the back, the banks should be making loans that help the middle class recover. This bill is a critical step in that direction.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. It is policymakers--not outside organizations, it is not political strategists, it is not anti-union activists, and it is not pro-union advocates--who are making this decision. It is policymakers--100 Members of the Senate who are asked to confirm the nomination of Craig Becker to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB. It is something we have done in this country since Franklin Roosevelt, in the 1930s, when the National Labor Relations Board was formed. Decade after decade, this body has voted for National Labor Relations Board nominees who are philosophically pro-union, philosophically anti-union or promanagement and not so promanagement. Yet, with Craig Becker, the Republicans have drawn a line in the sand-- something that simply didn't used to happen around here. When I hear my colleagues say we can't rush this through, only in the Senate, when somebody is nominated by the President in April--how many months ago is that--8 or 9 months ago--would anybody say we are rushing it through by doing it in February. I guess it is 10 months ago. It doesn't make sense to me. Since its creation 75 years ago, the NLRB has served a critical and independent function: Protecting workers against unfair labor practices and protecting businesses against unfair allegations. They struck a balance because both sides have been represented. Those with a strong management philosophy and those with a strong union philosophy have worked together on the NLRB. I have listened to Craig Becker in front of our Committee that Chairman Harkin chairs and of which Senator Enzi is the ranking member. I have listened to Mr. Becker sit there and tell us when he is in negotiations with management--yes, he did represent labor unions. But we are not allowed to have them on the NLRB? Is that the new idea--that Republicans don't want anybody with that philosophy, anybody who might have worked for a labor union? Do we not want them on the Board because they actually believe workers should have more rights rather than less rights--the way it was during the Bush administration, when the Department of Labor did everything they could to weaken labor rights, when we saw the middle class in these last 10 years shrink because workers were denied the rights to fight back when they wanted to join a union or when workers simply wanted to get backpay or when workers were mistreated and earned their pay but weren't getting it. We needed somebody in that administration to fight for them, but they didn't have that at the Department of Labor. I guess those are the good old days we should return to. Even though we have done it this way for decades, people with promanagement philosophies and pro-union philosophies getting on this Board--and as Mr. Becker said in his testimony, when he is part of a union-management negotiation, when he is representing a union, he understands what both sides need to understand. He tries to put himself in the shoes of the other side. If you are a union representative, you know management has interests that are legitimate and they have goals they want; and you know management, generally, is going to play straight. If you are on the management side, you look at the union the same way. That is how Mr. Becker has been trained and how he thinks. That is why I know, even though he has a pro-union philosophy, he will be fair- minded. I know he will serve in the tradition of NLRB appointees from both parties for decades. He will serve in the tradition of other NLRB appointees--some pro-union and some promanagement. Yet Republicans, since April--Mr. Becker was nominated in April--have tried every trick in the book to keep him off the NLRB. So that is April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January, and now it is mid-February. The Republicans are saying: Why are we rushing this through? Are they so confident they are going to defeat President Barack Obama in the next election that they don't want to put anybody with his philosophy on the NLRB, and do they think they can stall until January 2013? Is that the way they want to run the government? Unfortunately, when nominee after nominee--we saw it last week with Patricia Smith. If they have anything to do with siding with workers and with being proworker or promiddle class, then we cannot rush. We have to keep asking questions. The fact is, you know, Madam President, representing the State of New York, what this has meant. What we are seeing is, they asked dozens of questions. In fact, there have been more questions asked of Craig Becker for the NLRB than of Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. Craig Becker's isn't a lifetime appointment. It is an important job, but it is not as important as the Supreme Court, which is a lifetime appointment. Yet they have gone after him with more viciousness, questions, and suspicions--and I might add more cynicism-- than perhaps any nominee since I have been in the Senate. The NLRB matters to workers and to businesses. They simply cannot do their jobs unless we fill these appointments. That is what the Republicans are blocking. I would say it isn't good for business to keep these jobs open. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle, on the health care bill, protected the insurance companies and the drug companies, and on the trade bills, they protect the companies that outsource jobs overseas. I know they like to do that. They are not protecting business when they keep Craig Becker off the NLRB. What they are doing is continuing the dysfunction of the NLRB because too many of those jobs are vacant. That is why it is important the NLRB protects the rights of workers to organize into unions and, equally important, it protects the rights of businesses to air their grievances. I simply don't understand why most of my colleagues on the other side are opposed to giving working Americans fair treatment. Unions exist in this country and businesses exist. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather only one of those groups existed, but our economy works best when they work together and get along. If they want to take these labor-management fights, as they have, to the floor of the Senate, what does that mean for our future and for the middle class? The Chair knows, whether it is in Albany or Buffalo or Schenectady, NY, or whether it is Toledo or Youngstown or Mansfield, OH, a union working well with businesses--when labor and management work together-- strengthens the middle class. When we have this kind of class warfare on the floor of the Senate, when my friends on the other side of the aisle will do anything to keep someone who has a pro-union philosophy out of an appointed position--again, in April the President nominated Mr. Becker, so that is May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January and now it is February and they say we are rushing it. I don't think anybody in America--even the most lethargic, slow-moving, half-dead operation in the country--thinks it is rushing it when it takes us 10 months to get somebody through. We know what they did on the health care bill--delay, delay, delay, delay. That is arguable and that is a difficult and complex issue. But on this? Just to be clear, there is no doubt about the qualifications of Craig Becker. He earned his bachelor and law degrees from Yale University. He served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for 30 years. This is not some ``newbie'' labor pawn nobody knows anything about who does not have experience. For almost 30 years he has practiced labor and employment law with the highest skill and fairness in front of nearly every U.S. Court of Appeals and in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been professor at some of the Nation's premier law schools. He has earned the trust and admiration of students, faculty, and opponents of labor-management kinds of discussions. His scholarly works have been published in the Nation's leading law journals and periodicals. His scholarly works are also mandatory reading for law students taking labor and employment courses, whether they are prolabor or promanagement. He is often cited by fellow lawyers and scholars. In fact, 66 professors of labor and employment law from our Nation's premier law schools have described Becker as a nominee with ``unparalleled qualifications . . . whose scholarship reflects great respect for and deep knowledge of the law. He weighs and considers all arguments in a fair and honest manner.'' That sounds like the kind of nominee we want on the National Labor Relations Board. I would add, most importantly, I said a moment ago to serve the interests of the middle class, to serve the interests of this country, we need to fill these jobs with qualified people. It is bad for labor not to have Craig Becker on that Board. It is bad for management not to have Craig Becker on that Board. That is clear by what respected management lawyers have said. They have urged the Senate to quickly confirm Mr. Becker--these are management lawyers--because of his fairness and his sound judgment. He has answered, as I said, in writing, more than 300 questions from the Republicans on the Senate HELP Committee. This is not very entertaining. I was almost entertained when my friends--and I have heard at least three Senators on the other side of the aisle do this with Craig Becker's appointment. They brought up ACORN. When Republicans cannot think of anything else to say, when they cannot think of any arguments that work, they throw in ACORN: He knew somebody at ACORN; he must have had something to do with ACORN. If no arguments work, it is time to try ACORN out and tie Craig Becker right to ACORN, whatever ACORN is. It would be amusing if they did not use it time after time. He must be a bad nominee because he worked with somebody from ACORN or he worked with somebody from the Service Employees International Union or he worked with Governor Blagojevich in Illinois. That is the kind of guilt by association that I thought this institution stopped doing 55 years ago when Joe McCarthy was censured, that we were not going to continue to use guilt by association. It might be ACORN, the SEIU--and I apologize; I need to say this, Madam President. My daughter works for the SEIU. So before somebody points out his daughter works for SEIU, that is why he is doing it--the fact is, Craig Becker served honorably, he served very appropriately, and he is very qualified. It is about time we do this. It has been 10 months. We have waited too long. I ask my colleagues to put aside some of their biases. He has answered 300 questions. Vote to confirm Craig Becker. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, last month, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, U.S. or multinational, are equivalent to people and should be able to spend an unlimited amount of company money on political campaigns. I bet the framers of our constitution could not only tell the difference between businesses and people, but could predict the result if businesses are permitted to spend without limit to elect their favorite politicians. The top three Fortune 500 companies brought in an average profit of more than $27 billion last year. The average Ohio household brought home an income of about $48,000. If you believe our government should be by the people and for the people--flesh and blood people--then corporations already have far more influence on our political process than they should. In 2009, corporations spent $3.3 billion lobbying Congress to influence insurance legislation and prescription drug legislation and financial reform legislation and the list goes on. Now they will be able to spend unlimited funds to elect their favorite candidates to Congress, getting in on the ground floor in the hopes that legislation they don't like will never see the light of day. Grassroots organizations like, conservative organization and Families USA, whose members are real people with real concerns, will be left in the dust by the drug industry and other deep pocketed special interests. The bottom-line is that our democratic form of government will sit on a cushion of corporate cash. If Corporate America wants to decide who runs our country, they will have a billion ways to do it. Congress has--and must exercise--its constitutionally granted authority to minimize the negative impact of this decision. Today, I introduced The Citizens Right to Know Act, legislation that is intended to reduce the incentive for corporations to buy out the political process. It would also put a stop to foreign influence on U.S. elections. To protect shareholder investments, this legislation would require all the shareholders of a corporation to vote for election spending before it happens, with approval by a majority of shareholders. Each shareholder would get one vote per share of common stock held. If shareholders know that millions or billions in potential dividends are about to be spent on campaign ads, they may help instill some reason into the, elected, leadership of the corporations they own. It would also require corporate CEOs to do what political candidates do when they pay for political advertising: political candidates face the camera and tell the public that they sponsored the commercial. Corporate CEOs would have to do the same for their political advertisements. Issue organizations or trade groups would have to disclose their three top corporate contributors, and to disclose funding information for certain radio and print ads on their website. Shedding sunlight on the political shenanigans of billion dollar corporations may do a world of good in dampening the effects of their spending. Finally, the bill would close a loophole that permits foreign investors, including foreign governments, to influence U.S. elections by channeling money through a U.S. affiliate. Any company that has a 51 percent or greater ownership stake from a foreign entity, be it a foreign individual, business association, or government, would be prohibited from spending money to influence. I think we can all agree that foreign governments should not have the same right to contribute to campaigns as the American people, and it would be outrageous if they could spend money to influence the outcome of the Presidential or any other race. Americans--true, red blooded Americans--should decide who represents them in our democratic system. Billion dollar corporations make important contributions to our nation, but tilting our democratic system their way is not one of them.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, last month, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, U.S. or multinational, are equivalent to people and should be able to spend an unlimited amount of company money on political campaigns. I bet the framers of our constitution could not only tell the difference between businesses and people, but could predict the result if businesses are permitted to spend without limit to elect their favorite politicians. The top three Fortune 500 companies brought in an average profit of more than $27 billion last year. The average Ohio household brought home an income of about $48,000. If you believe our government should be by the people and for the people--flesh and blood people--then corporations already have far more influence on our political process than they should. In 2009, corporations spent $3.3 billion lobbying Congress to influence insurance legislation and prescription drug legislation and financial reform legislation and the list goes on. Now they will be able to spend unlimited funds to elect their favorite candidates to Congress, getting in on the ground floor in the hopes that legislation they don't like will never see the light of day. Grassroots organizations like, conservative organization and Families USA, whose members are real people with real concerns, will be left in the dust by the drug industry and other deep pocketed special interests. The bottom-line is that our democratic form of government will sit on a cushion of corporate cash. If Corporate America wants to decide who runs our country, they will have a billion ways to do it. Congress has--and must exercise--its constitutionally granted authority to minimize the negative impact of this decision. Today, I introduced The Citizens Right to Know Act, legislation that is intended to reduce the incentive for corporations to buy out the political process. It would also put a stop to foreign influence on U.S. elections. To protect shareholder investments, this legislation would require all the shareholders of a corporation to vote for election spending before it happens, with approval by a majority of shareholders. Each shareholder would get one vote per share of common stock held. If shareholders know that millions or billions in potential dividends are about to be spent on campaign ads, they may help instill some reason into the, elected, leadership of the corporations they own. It would also require corporate CEOs to do what political candidates do when they pay for political advertising: political candidates face the camera and tell the public that they sponsored the commercial. Corporate CEOs would have to do the same for their political advertisements. Issue organizations or trade groups would have to disclose their three top corporate contributors, and to disclose funding information for certain radio and print ads on their website. Shedding sunlight on the political shenanigans of billion dollar corporations may do a world of good in dampening the effects of their spending. Finally, the bill would close a loophole that permits foreign investors, including foreign governments, to influence U.S. elections by channeling money through a U.S. affiliate. Any company that has a 51 percent or greater ownership stake from a foreign entity, be it a foreign individual, business association, or government, would be prohibited from spending money to influence. I think we can all agree that foreign governments should not have the same right to contribute to campaigns as the American people, and it would be outrageous if they could spend money to influence the outcome of the Presidential or any other race. Americans--true, red blooded Americans--should decide who represents them in our democratic system. Billion dollar corporations make important contributions to our nation, but tilting our democratic system their way is not one of them.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, a week or so ago we marked Earned- Income Tax Credit Awareness Day, a day to highlight a vital tool for Americans working their way out of poverty. These are challenging economic times. The costs of food, housing, transportation and, basic necessities increase while wages stagnate. We know for the last 10 years, even before this recession, even in times of relative prosperity where profits were up and there was growth in the economy, most people's wages were flat even though costs went up. Tuition especially, energy costs, health care costs have meant difficult times for a decade; obviously more acutely difficult now. That is one of the reasons the earned-income tax credit, one of the most important tax cuts for our Nation, is so important. The EITC is designed to fill that gap that so many working families suffer from. It provides millions of Americans, including hundreds of thousands of Ohioans, from Bellaire to Van Wert, from Ashtabula to Middletown--provides hundreds of thousands of Ohioans earning low to moderate wages, a potentially lifesaving tax credit. If you work and you play by the rules but you earn low wages, the earned-income tax credit can provide for your children, help you build economic security, help you extend your reach for the American dream. According to a recent study, the earned-income tax credit has lifted more children above the poverty line than any government program. The earned-income tax credit, again, is available for people who have jobs and get a tax credit as a result of that job. In 2005, more than 22 million U.S. households applied for the earned-income tax credit. They received on average $1,800 a household. An estimated 2.6 million children were lifted above the poverty line because of the earned- income tax credit. This is no handout. This is earned. It is the earned-income tax credit because people in lower wage jobs are working hard and playing by the rules and doing the right thing. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has increased the earned-income tax credit refund, expanding it to help thousands more Ohioans. Approximately 875,000 Ohio families qualify for the earned-income tax credit, but as much as 20 percent do not take advantage of it. They do not know about it or they do not know how to apply for it. That is 175,000 working families from Chillicothe to Dayton, from Maumee to Bryan; 175,000 working families in my State have earned the earned-income tax credit but they are not receiving it. There are millions of dollars on the table, if you will, millions of dollars in tax credits for Ohio's working families. These are the criteria: If you earned less than $48,000 last year, depending on the size of your family, you could be eligible to receive an earned-income tax credit of up to about $5,000. Even if your income is lower than the threshold for filing taxes, file them anyway to obtain the earned- income tax credit. That is all you have to do. You earned it, you absolutely earned it, just ask for it. I encourage people who are not sure to call my office or call the offices of your Senators or your Congress men and women around the country. The Presiding Officer from Illinois has been very active in this, and his office is available also to make sure in his State that these families who work hard, play by the rules--maybe they are making $20,000 $30,000, $40,000 a year; they are struggling--can get several thousand dollars tax credit, money in their pocket as they work to pursue the American dream. We have seen what the earned-income tax credit can do for working families. In Hamilton County, southwest Ohio, the Cincinnati area, a woman and her three children became homeless after she lost her job. But because of her work, the wages she earned, she qualified for the earned-income tax credit. Every dime of her $2,000 earned-income tax credit went back into her pocket to help her overcome the daunting economic challenges she faced--$2,000 which went, for somebody at that income level, so very far. An elderly couple was grateful they qualified for the earned-income tax credit. They used the $3,700 to cover a tragic occurrence, a grandchild's funeral expenses, expenses otherwise beyond their reach. There are hundreds of thousands of stories like this across Ohio and across our Nation. I encourage Ohioans in Ashtabula and Bellaire and Zainsville and Springfield and Xenia who may by eligible for the earned-income tax credit to visit the IRS tax site at www.irs.gov or call 1-800-906-9887 and find a local Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Center. Remember, if you think you might be eligible for the earned- income tax credit, it is a tax credit that, if you are working and you are working hard and playing by the rules and you are not making a lot of money--not just minimum wage, but if you are not making more than $30,000 or $40,000 a year, even up to $48,000 year--you should call that number or visit the Web site, irs.gov. The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Center, or VITA, is a vital and free resource for working families where accountants and tax experts volunteer their time to help you file your taxes so you can receive the EITC. In Lorain, OH, in my home county, where President Obama visited just 10 days ago, in a program which we began when I was a Member of Congress, a couple visited a free tax preparation center after trying to do their taxes on their own. They found help; they qualified for the EITC. They received a refund of $5,000, which helped replace the roof of their house which required replacement. To receive EITC, all you have to do is file your taxes. That is it. You earned it, just ask for it. Spread the word, Mr. President, and all of my colleagues and anyone listening--spread the word about the earned-income tax credit. It is a bridge out of poverty that serves millions of families across Ohio and across the Nation. Remember, you earned it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 3:30.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, almost a quarter million Ohioans are employed, directly or indirectly, by the automobile industry. The compromise bill we have negotiated--which I hope will pass tonight-- means much more than just bridge loans for auto companies. This legislation means hundreds of thousands of middle-class workers in Ohio, in Missouri, in Indiana, in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, and all over this country; hundreds of thousands of middle-class workers in my State will be able to keep their jobs--jobs for car dealerships in all 50 States, jobs for suppliers in all 50 States. It means jobs at auto assembly plants and it means jobs at auto-stamping plants and engine plants in all those States I mentioned. It means communities would not suffer yet another blow from massive job loss. It means Ohio's economy and our Nation's economy will have a fighting chance to get back on track. Inaction means a present of pink slips for millions of American workers this Christmas. Bah humbug. There are some in this Chamber who would rather see our largest manufacturing industry go bankrupt rather than provide a bridge loan to success. Let's be clear about what this legislation will do. The legislation provides a bridge loan to auto companies, a loan that comes with strict oversight and with strict conditions--something, frankly, the Treasury Department did not do with the financial services industry. If the auto companies don't negotiate a real plan for restructuring their businesses, all the interested parties--that means the auto dealers, the suppliers, the bondholders, the workers, management--if they don't negotiate a real plan for restructuring their businesses with all the interested parties, then the loan gets called in March or in April. This is not handing a checkbook over to the industry to make out whatever they think is fair. This legislation means accountability. It means transparency. It means no more corporate jets. It means no more golden parachutes when they hit turbulence. More importantly, passing this legislation means saving millions of jobs nationally, hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ohio and Michigan, and tens of thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania--as I said, millions of jobs all over this country. This legislation means the potential, as the industry gets better and better--and it has shown improvement in the last couple years--it means the potential for new job creation. This bipartisan compromise legislation will help ensure the long-term viability of the most important component in U.S. manufacturing--the auto industry. It will help ensure global competitiveness. It will help ensure and promote energy efficiency by developing advanced technology vehicles. Let me say it again. This legislation will save jobs. This bill is about jobs. It is about creating a middle class and strengthening the middle class. It is about jobs. Back in November, the auto companies were given the task of developing detailed plans of how they would use taxpayer support and whether we, as Members of Congress and as the public, could have some assurance they would be able to survive and ultimately thrive. They submitted their plans on December 2, and they gave detailed proposals of how they will return to profitability. There are no absolute guarantees their plans will succeed, nor can there be guarantees. But based on reasonable assumptions--again, a much higher standard than the financial institutions to which the Treasury Department has handed hundreds of billions of dollars--based on reasonable assumptions, these auto companies will return to financial health, and they will repay the Federal loans they are seeking within a few years' time. Thirty years ago, Chrysler borrowed more than $1 billion. They paid it back. The Government made money. They paid it back, in fact, more quickly than the Government asked them to initially. In the last month, the auto companies, dealing with us in this Congress, have done their part, and now it is our turn. We have two choices. We can either provide bridge loans to the auto industry or we can drive the economy off a bridge. Seldom are the consequences of inaction so clear. If we do nothing, there will be a cascade of bankruptcies, not just in Detroit but across the country, including in the Presiding Officer's State of Missouri, in my State of Ohio, and across the country. Last week a steelmaker in Cleveland announced that 450 men and women need not come to work on Monday. Another week before that, in Lordstown, OH, GM announced a layoff of some number of autoworkers at the Lordstown GM assembly plant and, within days, major suppliers also announced layoffs. Some 40 percent of production goes to the auto industry from the steel plant I was talking about. It is already competing in an industry where foreign governments subsidize hand over foot. What happens to that steel mill if one or all of the big three go bankrupt? These layoffs are not just numbers. A young woman from Youngstown, near Lordstown, wrote me about how her family moved off welfare when her father found a job when GM was hiring. She said the interview and testing process was extensive and the stakes for her family immense. When her father got the job, he was so happy he cried tears of joy. As somebody recently hired, she fears for her father and her family. The tears may soon be those of sorrow. Next week, Lordstown workers will conduct their annual food drive, feeding hundreds of families through the holidays. They contribute a third of the United Way budget. This plant contributes a third--these workers--to the United Way budget. They keep the hardware stores open. They keep the restaurants open. They fund the public schools with tax dollars. They keep firefighters on the street, police officers on the street. My colleagues may not appreciate the dramatic changes that have taken place in this industry. Employment, as a whole, has been cut in half. Productivity has started to match or exceed the foreign transplant factories. The UAW has agreed to extraordinary reductions in the pay and benefits of autoworkers in 2005, again last year, in 2007, and again now. The UAW has been a partner in these negotiations, as outlined by UAW President Gettelfinger to the Banking Committee only last week, and in putting the industry on the path to match the costs of the competition. If we fail to act, the consequences will be felt throughout the economy--in the credit markets, the supplier industries, even the local newspaper. A little over 2 months ago it was the banking industry that faced a crisis with an urgent need for Federal help. As I said earlier, the differences in how we responded to the two crises are striking. The banking industry, initially, through the Secretary of the Treasury, gave us a three-page plan, a three-page bill for spending $700 billion. We obviously threw the three pages out because we wanted much more than that, but the revisions that came a week and a half later passed this Senate by a vote of 74 to 25. The financial companies themselves, five of which have received more than $25 billion each, not only did not appear before Congress, they never produced a plan on how they would spend the money, nor had they been asked for one by Congress or the Bush administration. Contrast that with what we have talked about for the auto industry. They didn't have to testify about why they built or marketed structured investment vehicles, but we have heard plenty of debate about the building and marketing of sport utility vehicles. The idea Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke made before the Senate Banking Committee on behalf of the banking industry is it needed what it called patient capital that only the Federal Government could provide. The banking industry--Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke told us--was in peril, but given Federal support, in a few years' time, it would be back on its feet. I don't quarrel with the need to help the banking industry, though I have plenty of concerns for the way we are proceeding. The need here is exactly the same in the auto industry, even though the standards for transparency we are setting are almost literally contrasted like night and day. The auto industry has been hit by the same collapse in the credit market that brought Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke to Capitol Hill on behalf of bankers. It has the same need for patient capital, a bridge loan to take it to the other side of the recession. We know this can work; we have seen it work in the past, but we have no basis to believe people will buy cars from a company in bankruptcy. That is why we can't let it go to chapter 11 bankruptcy. A structured, prepackaged bankruptcy--whatever term the lawyers in this body wish to use--if it goes into bankruptcy, people would not buy cars in sufficient numbers to get this industry back on its feet. As we saw with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, standing by while a company goes bankrupt would send shock waves to unexpected places throughout the economy. It was a terrible mistake that Secretary Paulson let Lehman Brothers collapse. It would be a terrible mistake if the Treasury Department doesn't step up--which apparently they will not--but it would be a terrible mistake if now the House and Senate do not step up. If we fail to act, years from now some future Professor Bernanke, now Chairman of the Fed, will study our actions and will absolutely marvel at the missed opportunity--trillions of dollars committed to the financial sector, tens of billions denied the manufacturing sector, with millions of people losing their jobs on top of the more than 1 million who have already been laid off this year. If we fail to act, we will commit one of the biggest economic sins of omission in our history. Majority Leader Reid is absolutely right to insist that we stay here as long as we need to get this job done. Let's make it a truly merry Christmas in millions of living rooms in Lordstown, in Walton Hills, in Toledo, in Dayton, in Sharonville, in Mansfield, in towns all across the State. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business until 4 p.m.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, when I think about the debate over extending unemployment insurance, some questions come to mind. Does anyone in Congress want more American families to lose their homes? Does anyone in Congress want more American children to go to bed hungry? Does anyone in the House or Senate want more American families to stop paying their heating bills, to delay their credit card payments, to skip out on their health care bills? Does anybody in the House or Senate want consumer spending to slow even further, dragging our economy from recession to something even worse? Assuming the answer to any of these questions is no, then voting to extend unemployment insurance for current job seekers should not be a fight, it should be a formality. This Chamber approved a massive bailout of the financial industry, not because investment bankers might have to forsake that second or third Mercedes, not because Wall Street bonuses might drop from eight figures to seven figures. We approved that bailout because when credit markets freeze, businesses cannot get working capital, and when businesses cannot get working capital, Americans lose jobs, and when Americans lose jobs, their families suffer, their communities suffer, and our Nation suffers. It all comes down to Main Street Americans who want to work, who want to pay their bills, who want to take care of their families; their well-being is tied to the well-being of our economy and our Nation. Unemployment insurance is the mechanism by which Americans looking for jobs but who have lost their jobs can sustain their families, can keep their financial commitments, can afford the tools needed to find a new job. I have heard too many cases where people could not even fill their gas tanks to go out searching for jobs, particularly in rural northwest and rural southeast Ohio. Extending unemployment insurance is key to getting the economy going. It injects dollars into the economy and helps people meet their obligations, raise their kids, and do what they need to do in the community. It is one of the most important and immediate ways to stimulate the economy. Relief for financial institutions was intended to prevent massive job loss, to stabilize the economy, to stem foreclosures. Extending unemployment insurance is intended to promote job growth, to stabilize the economy, and to stem foreclosures. It is the smart thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It holds one important advantage over the financial bailout. The people who benefit directly from an extension of unemployment compensation, from an extension of unemployment insurance, live on Main Street, with not a single Wall Street CEO in sight. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Ohio is home to more than 1 million veterans, dedicated men and women who have served in every branch of our Nation's Armed Forces and every major conflict in the modern era. They have served to keep our freedoms, so our Nation could remain secure. Ohioans have a longstanding tradition of service to our country. Ohio's veterans include Presidents and generals, from Grant to Sherman, and pioneers of American advancement, such as Neil Armstrong, John Glenn, and James Lovell. But for every well-known American veteran, there are, of course, many more heroes who have quietly served this Nation and my State of Ohio with honor and distinction. As our Nation looks forward to the return of our loved ones from the battlefield, all of us remember the tremendous contributions our veterans have made to Ohio and to our country. We are humbled by their patriotism and their bravery. On Veterans Day and every day, it is my honor to thank Ohio veterans and their families for their service to our great State and our great Nation. The Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame was created in 1992 to recognize the lifetime contributions of veterans, not just those who serve their country in the Armed Forces but also those who continue to give back since they left the service. I honor, congratulate, and salute all of them. The Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame Class of 2008 is made up of several men and women whose stories I would like to briefly tell. Samuel Arnold, from Butler County, is a U.S. Army veteran, Vietnam war. Arnold is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4369 board of trustees and provides dentistry to veterans who reside at Joseph House at little or no cost. Paul Baldridge, Jr., from Franklin County, is a U.S. Navy veteran. Baldridge has served in a number of veterans organizations, including the Navy League of the United States, where he has held positions as State president, national director, and vice president. Oscar Decker, Jr., from Union County, is a U.S. Army veteran, Army National Guard and Army Reserve in World War II and Vietnam. Decker organized the Union County Military Family Support Group in 2003 and was awarded the Legion of Honor Award from the Chapel of the Four Chaplains and the American Legion of Merit. Rebecca Eden, a registered nurse from Cuyahoga County, is a U.S. Army Nurse Corps veteran, World War II. Eden is a lifetime member of Gold Star Wives and AMVETS. She was presented with the Veterans Affairs Commendation given by the Ohio Veterans Commission for helping veterans pursue educational goals in 1982. Eugene Fitzthum, from Erie County, is a U.S. Army veteran, World War II. Fitzthum was presented the John L. Smith AMVET of the Year Award for all his volunteer work for AMVETS Post 17 in 2008 and Volunteer of the Year from the Ohio Veterans Home in 2006. Nada Fleming, a registered nurse from Cuyahoga County, is a U.S. Navy veteran, Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Fleming is a past commander of Seven Hills VFW Post 7609 and was appointed as National VFW Nurse of the Year for 2006-2007. Robert Haas, from Stark County, is a U.S. Army veteran, Korean war. Haas served as the volunteer liaison officer for the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, for the past 29 years. He is a founding member and past president of the Greater Cleveland Chapter of the Korean War Veterans Association No. 69. Dale Huffman, from Montgomery County, is a U.S. Army veteran. His public broadcasting skills have helped to energize veteran advocacy, and he was inducted into Dayton's Walk of Fame on September 25, 2008. Charles Ianni, deceased, was from Cuyahoga County, U.S. Army veteran, World War II. Ianni was named Veteran of the Year by Cuyahoga County and was a charter member of the John Towle Chapter of the 82nd Airborne Division Association, Special Forces Chapter. James Johnson, from Franklin County, is a U.S. Air Force veteran. Johnson was awarded the AFCRC Certificate of Recognition for his contribution, support, and distinguished service to his community, especially in the area of veterans affairs in 2007. Jack M. Kennedy, from Franklin County, is a U.S. Navy veteran, Vietnam war. Kennedy has served in the Navy League of the United States, where he has held various positions, including Navy League council president. He is a lifetime member of the Military Officers Association of America. Margaret Kruckemeyer, a nurse, from Green County, is a U.S. Army veteran. Kruckemeyer is the president of the American Veterans Heritage Commission and is past national board member on the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs Foundation. Samuel Lanza, from Trumbull County, is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, World War II. Lanza was appointed to the Trumbull County Veterans Service Commission in 1997. He is a past State commander for the Disabled American Veterans. Gregory Lashutka, from Franklin County, is a U.S. Navy veteran. Lashutka is the former mayor of the city of Columbus and was selected as Municipal Leader of the Year in 1993. He has maintained continuous membership in the Columbus Chapter of the Navy League and has provided support, counsel, and advice to individual veterans and veterans groups. Erwin Morse, from Clark County, is a U.S. Air Force veteran. Morse retired from the U.S. Air Force and went to work at the Dayton Veterans Administration Medical Center. He is the founder of the Honor Flight Network which raises funds and collaborates with a number of organizations to provide an opportunity for our Nation's World War II and terminally ill veterans from around the country to experience the National World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. Stanley Pace, from Cuyahoga County, is a U.S. Air Force veteran, World War II. Pace has been active in the Boy Scouts of America since 1958 and was awarded the Silver Beaver and the Silver Antelope for his service. He is also active in the United Way of Cleveland and served as chairman of the annual United Way fund drive. Elva Pounders, from Summit County, is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Vietnam war. Pounder is vice chairman for the Governor's Advisory Committee on Women Veterans and was awarded the 500 Hour Award for her extraordinary volunteer efforts at Brecksville VA Medical Center in 2006. Tony Sustarsic, Cuyahoga County, is a U.S. Army veteran, World War II. Sustarsic is the founder, past president, and lifetime member of Euclid Veterans Club. He is also a fundraiser for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1056 and American Legion Post 343. William Willoughby, Jr., from Lake County, is a U.S. Army veteran, Vietnam war. Willoughby is a U.S. Military Academy admissions coordinator and serves on the Veterans Issues Committee. He was very helpful to me in selecting young men and women for West Point, for the U.S. Military Academy, when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. Herman Zerger, a long-time friend of mine, is from Monroe County, U.S. Army veteran, with service in World War II and a prisoner of war. Zerger was one of the founding charter members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 5303. He is an active participant in Ohio No. 1, American Ex-Prisoner of War. As a Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, on which I serve with the Presiding Officer from Montana, my colleague, Senator Tester, it has been my privilege to hear from Ohio veterans across the State about what matters most to them. Those discussions with veterans at roundtables and hearings in Ohio reinforce my profound respect for our veterans. It is our duty as Members of Congress to do all we can to provide the services they have earned and deserved. I look forward to working with veterans and their families in the coming years to ensure that Ohio veterans' voices are heard in Washington. We made major progress last year. Senator Tester, Senator Webb, Senator Sanders--many of us on the Veterans Affairs Committee--Senator Murray and others, and, of course, Chairman Akaka, made major gains in health and education benefits for veterans with the new GI bill--the most important benefits granted, the largest amount of benefits granted since the original GI bill several decades ago. I am appreciative of the work of my colleagues on that issue.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last night we passed an economic stabilization plan that is intended to protect business, pensions, and jobs. I know from my State of Ohio, all too often I get plant shutdown notifications and applications for shutdown assistance, for worker retraining, for all kinds of responses to economic problems. What we did last night was particularly important because of potential lost jobs. With that bill we are trying to prevent an economic crisis. Last week, Republican Members of this body, unfortunately, set the stage for another economic crisis. They set the stage for a crisis when they blocked a bill to extend unemployment insurance for millions of Americans and their families. Congress must extend this insurance for Americans. We have a bill to do that. I urge my colleagues to support S. 3507. My friend from Rhode Island, Senator Jack Reed, has introduced this bill that will provide an extension of insurance for all States for 7 weeks, an additional 13 weeks for high unemployment States, which means those States that have an unemployment rate of at least 6 percent. Think about the conditions, everywhere from Lima to Zanesville, Ashtabula to Middletown in my State, and States across the country-- food prices exploding, energy prices exploding, unemployment benefits running out. If that is not an economic crisis, an American crisis--not just in Chillicothe and Ravenna, it is a crisis all over this State-- then I guess I don't know what the word ``crisis'' means. Last month's jobs report from the Labor Department showed that for the eighth straight month the country has lost jobs. Eight months in a row we have lost jobs in this country. Tomorrow we will get the latest report. I am not looking forward to it. Just last week there were 493,000--almost a half million--new unemployment claims filed, the largest number since September 2001. We know what happened that month. Before that, you have to go back to July 1992 when the Nation's unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. The unemployment statistics, as we know, only count individuals actively looking for work. It may be convenient to characterize the unemployed as lazy, then you don't have to help them. Apparently, that is what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing who blocked this extension of unemployment benefits. These are working people who cannot find work. These are plant shutdowns in Dayton. These are major layoffs in Mansfield. These are people who simply cannot find jobs in Columbus and Akron and Youngstown and Toledo and Bowling Green and Findlay. These are people all over my State. These are men and women who want to support their families and save for the future. These are people who want to work; they simply can't find jobs in this economy. These are people such as Terry, in Holmes County, OH, one of the least populous counties. A veteran, after 20 years of service he wanted to return to Ohio, which he did, and get his life and family settled. His company laid off workers this past summer. He has been looking for a job, but employers are simply not hiring. His unemployment insurance ended in February. These are people such as Patricia from Troy, OH, a small community just north of Dayton in Miami County. In Troy, that part of Ohio-- Clinton County, Clark County, Montgomery County, Miami County--that part of Ohio is one of the hardest hit parts of the State and of the Nation. Patricia from Troy put it better than I could. She said: My husband is just another one of the 334,000 unemployed Ohioans. . . . I would like to know what we are supposed to do without. Are we supposed to go without a roof over our head? Are we supposed to go without food? Am I supposed to go without medication or the medical care I need to survive? Unemployment compensation is an insurance program, it is not a welfare program. These are people, they and their employers, who paid into this unemployment insurance fund. That is why it is called unemployment insurance. It has been with us for 75 years, since around the time of the beginning of the Great Depression. It matters for people. It helps not just those individuals, it helps to bring money into our community, money that will be spent on the necessities of life, will create economic activity, and will help us in our economic recovery. People all over my State have asked me the kinds of questions that Patricia asked. What am I supposed to do about medical care? How am I supposed to go without food? These people, Patricia and Terry, are not paid spokespeople. They are not lobbyists. They are watching the news. They are seeing how Wall Street's greed and mistakes have us in this crisis today. They understand intuitively that people on Wall Street betrayed them. They understand intuitively that people such as one of John McCain's chief economic advisers, Carly Fiorina, was let go as CEO of a major company and was paid tens of millions of dollars as a bonus, as a golden parachute, even though she was fired from this company. They understand that they have worked hard and played by the rules. What is really amazing about this economic crisis is that the elite in this country tell us over and over: If you work hard, if you play by the rules, then you are going to do all right. You are going to be rewarded. People in the middle class in this country have worked hard. They have played by the rules. But when they look to Wall Street and the Bush regulators, the Treasury Department, the SEC, the people who were in charge, they have gotten rid of the rules for Wall Street so the cowboy capitalists on Wall Street who don't play by the rules get rewarded handsomely while the middle class in Tiffin, in Cambridge, in St. Clairsville, the middle class in Circleville and Portsmouth, they play by the rules. They don't get rewarded even though that was the promise made by so many people in this country. These are people with real concerns and real families, from Gallipolis to Toledo, Cleveland to Akron, Mansfield to Xenia. They are people who are at the end of the line, and they are not alone. Across the country, 9.4 million workers are unemployed and looking for work, 2.2 million more than a year ago, the highest figure recorded, as I said, since December 1992, more than 15 years ago. Even September 11 didn't cause this kind of unemployment; 9.4 million unemployed compared to 6 million unemployed in January 2001. If Congress doesn't act this week, more than 800,000 unemployed people will stop getting their much need checks, including 22,000 people in Ohio. Last night, this Senate, by a vote of 74 to 25, more than half the members of each party, voted because we had to. We voted. If we did not do this financial stabilization package, we knew that pensions would be threatened, we knew that student loans would disappear or interest rates would go so high they might as well disappear, and middle-class college students would lose the opportunity to go to school. We knew that some small businesses would close and others would have to lay off, costing States such as mine, which are so hard hit already, more lost jobs. We knew that was what was happening last night. That is why we passed that legislation. The same people in the Treasury Department and the Bush administration who relaxed the rules and betrayed our country, betrayed the middle class, hurt families all over my State--those same people have blocked the extension of unemployment benefits. That is why we are not voting on it today because every time we try, Republican leaders say we can't do unemployment. I don't know if they think unemployed people are lazy. I don't know if they think because we provide them a few dollars to get by until they can find a job and keep their families going, keep their kids in school, keep food on their tables, keep a roof over their heads--I don't know what they think. They are not going to try to get a job if they get a few dollars unemployment? It is not like unemployment is like a congressional pension. It is not like unemployment compensation is like a Carly Fiorina bailout or Carly Fiorina's bonus for failing at her company. It is not like this is a lot of money that is going to keep people so fat and happy that they do not need to work. I do not get why they would do that. Congress needs to extend unemployment benefits for unemployed workers. We need to do it for those workers, for those workers' families, for those communities in which they live. It is in no one's best interests for Congress to twiddle its thumbs while more American families sink into poverty. An extension of unemployment insurance--not welfare, insurance--was in the economic stimulus package last week. The House may very well take up unemployment insurance extension before we adjourn. Here is why. If we are going to talk about stimulating the economy, there is no better way to do it. Every dollar invested in unemployment benefits leads to $1.64 in growth. This is not money that people use to go out and buy a flat-screen TV made in China. This money, unemployment extension, is used for food; it is used for books for their children and clothes for their children. It is used to pay the rent. It is used to pay utility bills. These are dollars that stay in the community, dollars which help the local hardware store, help the local grocery store, dollars which provide other jobs in the community. There is no better stimulus than that. The Congressional Budget Office says extending unemployment benefits is cost effective and fast acting. We already have the mechanism. We put money in the pipeline. The money gets into the community. It doesn't take 3 months to send out a check. It is money that can be put into the pipeline right away. Unemployment benefits are spent to sustain families so they do not need other forms of public assistance. It gives workers the resources they need to put gas in their cars to go out and look for work. I get letters all the time from people who literally cannot afford to buy gas so they can go out and look for a job, particularly in rural Ohio, particularly in places such as Waverly and places such as Jackson and places such as Ottawa and places such as Tiffin. It is just too expensive to have to go looking for jobs in rural Ohio too often. There is another reason to extend unemployment benefits: patriotism demands it. Our Nation is not defined by its borders, it is defined by its people. Millions of people are running out of unemployment benefits. They need our help, and they need it now. We cannot claim to be American patriots and ignore the American people. It is not just a strong military. It is not just pride of country or wearing an American flag pin. It is that, too, for sure. But patriotism is helping our people. Patriotism is a covenant we have between our Government and our people. That means if you work hard and play by the rules--if you work hard and you play by the rules--you are able to get ahead. That means if your company closed, if your company laid off workers and you happened to be one of the unlucky souls who got laid off, it may be that the Government, your neighborhood, your country, your community, can help you until you can find your new job. Workers, their families, their communities--we cannot continue to ignore them. When my Republican friends talk about patriotism, they talk about whatever it is we need to do--tax cuts for corporations, to provide jobs, all that. They ought to start talking about workers because we know the wealth in this country is created by productive workers. Workers in this country are more productive than they have ever been. They produce more wealth for their employers. It is time that they shared--that employers, as their profits go up, even in not-as-good economic times, as their profits go up, it is time more of that wealth was shared with workers. It is time those workers who are working their hearts out get a little reward, playing by the rules, get some advantage, get some opportunity, have the opportunity to get ahead. We have a responsibility to listen to Americans who are not employed and probably believe they have nowhere to turn. They can turn to us. They should turn to us. We should not turn our backs on them. That is what too many people in this institution, too many people at the White House, too many people in this whole Bush-Cheney-McCain idea of how to run an economy--clearly, they have not done that good a job on Wall Street or on Main Street. It is the way they may look at things. I got elected to the Senate in 2006 because people thought their country betrayed them. They saw the drug companies writing the Medicare laws; they saw the insurance industry writing health care legislation; they saw the oil industry dictate energy policies; they saw Wall Street jam down the American peoples' throats these job-killing trade agreements. This Government, this administration, has betrayed the middle class. We want a government where the public can turn to us, they should turn to us, and we will not turn our backs. No, we will actually embrace them and work with them. We can start by extending unemployment insurance. Senator Reed has a bill to do that. We should pass it. We should move on and begin to change this country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator for highlighting local workforce boards as a key stakeholder in sector partnerships. It has been brought to my attention that we can further clarify that the SECTORS Act specifies the connection to local workforce boards. It is the intent for this legislation to acknowledge our local Ohio workforce boards and other regional and local workforce boards as key stakeholders in any industry sector strategy, something that is important to champions of good workforce policy.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Murray. As chairman of the HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, she works hard and effectively to protect workers and to champion skills development and employment services to help adults and dislocated workers and at-risk youth succeed in this highly competitive economy. I am proud to serve on this subcommittee. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership in introducting the Promoting Innovations to 21st Century Careers Act that will help young adults transition from high school to postsecondary education, including registered apprenticeship, and to the high skill jobs of the future. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in the past year, 149 Americans died after taking tainted Heparin, a widely used blood thinner. It was later learned--as reported in the New York Times--that the contaminant derived from pig intestines was produced in ``largely unregulated'' Chinese workshops. Unfortunately, Heparin is not the only drug that relies on this dangerous brand of outsourcing. More and more, drug companies are taking advantage of cheap labor and weak safety standards found outside of the U.S. to manufacture the pharmaceuticals later used in American hospitals and households. According to a Pfizer representative who testified before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in April, Pfizer outsources the manufacture of 17 percent of its drug products. Consumers have a right to know where their drugs are produced. That is why I am today introducing the Transparency in Drug Labeling Act. This bill would require country-of-origin labeling for both active and inactive ingredients on all pharmaceuticals, both prescription and over-the-counter. These new drug labels would list all the countries that played a role in the manufacturing of ingredients for the drug. The order of the list would be determined by the percentage of the drug produced in each country, with the largest contributors appearing at the top. This bill would raise consumers' awareness of where their drugs are being produced. It would also allow companies who produce their drugs in the U.S. to advertise that fact. Drug companies that produce their drugs in the U.S. and follow the corresponding safety and regulatory standards should be rewarded with increased consumer confidence in their products. This bill takes a proactive approach to keeping Americans safe in our global, interdependent economy. When we import from overseas, we are importing the health, labor and environmental standards of those countries as well. Consumers have a right to know where their medications originate. This bill would satisfy that reasonable demand.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Battelle, one of Ohio's oldest and most respected organizations. On October 22, 1938, 70 years ago next month, a sea change in printing occurred, though no one but the inventor, Chester Carlson, and Battelle had the foresight to recognize it. The invention of dry printing, forever memorialized by the etched words ``10-22-38 Astoria,'' was the genesis of an American product so successful its name became eponymous: Xerox. Battelle, the world's largest nonprofit independent research and development organization, began its operations in 1929 at the behest and funding of founder Gordon Battelle's will. Within a few years, it would make history with the same vision, risk taking, and wisdom its employees display to this very day. Even in today's increasingly paperless era, it is easy to see that a simple, rapid, and inexpensive copying process was one of the 20th century's most important innovations. With the advent of the Xerox machine, the world could make copies at the push of a button. Battelle lies at the crossroads of necessity and creativity, an intersection we know as innovation. Taking on daunting, real-world challenges with technical prowess and ingenuity is Battelle's hallmark. In 1935, New York patent attorney and amateur physicist Chester Carlson began thinking of easier ways to duplicate material. Extra copies of patent specifications and drawings, sometimes dozens or more, were necessary with each new job. The man-hours needed for each project were staggering. So Carlson came up with the unconventional idea of copying by creating a visible image on paper using an electrostatic charge. He filed for a patent in 1937, calling the process electrophotography. He made it work in a real world situation the next year. Though he shopped for financial backing at more than 20 of America's largest corporations, no one saw the value in Carlson's invention. Then, in 1944, he found Battelle. Even though America was in the midst of World War II, Carlson and Battelle signed a contract to further develop the electrophotography process. Four years later on September 28, 1948 the first public demonstration of the new technology--then named xerography, Greek for dry writing--was performed in Detroit. Partnering in 1959 with a company called Haloid Xerox, Battelle and Carlson forged ahead to produce the first fast, low-cost, and convenient office copier--the 914 model. Xerox would go on to become one of the world's largest corporations. Battelle grew and diversified with earnings from xerography's success. As a result, Battelle is currently the world's largest independent R&D organization. It proves that success comes to those who are willing to take risks, develop needed technology, and nurture the final product with long-term commitment. So today, 60 years after the production of the first photocopy, I would like to commend Battelle for its role in the development of the Xerox copy machine and its continued commitment to technological advancement and investment in our Nation's future.