Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 561, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the

motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 22; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and Republicans controlling the next 30 minutes, and the majority controlling the final 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 tomorrow to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the legacy of Dr. Robert Smith, cofounder of Alcoholics Anonymous, which is celebrating this year its 75th anniversary.

Dr. Smith, commonly referred to as Dr. Bob, was a prominent surgeon in my State in Akron, OH, when his friend, Henrietta Seiberling, an heir to the Goodyear fortune, introduced him to New Yorker Bill Wilson in 1935.

Dr. Bob and Bill Wilson's discussion that year on Mother's Day in Gate Lodge on the grounds of the Seiberling's Stan Hywet estate laid out the framework for the modern-day Alcoholics Anonymous.

Having shared the common disease of alcoholism, Dr. Bob and Bill Wilson recognized the need to offer dignified healing of sobriety for all people who struggle with the disease of alcoholism.

What started as an informal conversation in Gate Lodge on the Stan Hywet estate led to small group meetings and conversations at the home of Dr. Bob and his wife Anne on Ardmore Avenue.

Dr. Bob and Anne subsequently opened their home to those seeking sobriety, and the understanding of the 12 steps that Dr. Bob and Bill Wilson were refining.

As one of Akron's premier physicians at Summa Health's Akron City Hospital, Dr. Bob also understood that prevailing medical treatment was inadequate in treating a disease that did not discriminate among gender, age, culture, wealth, or social standing.

This was an era when alcoholism was not understood as a disease, so those seeking treatment were not admitted to hospitals.

Dr. Bob and Bill understood that the alcoholic needed the help of the ``Angel of Alcoholics Anonymous,'' Sister Mary Ignatia and St. Thomas Hospital.

Dr. Bob took to bringing alcoholics from the back entrance of the hospital up to empty rooms in Sister Ignatia's unit.

Sister Ignatia would ask Dr. Bob: Are they sick?

Dr. Bob would respond: Very sick.

Sister Ignatia replied: Then they shall come to the front door--a very different treatment of alcoholism than ever before.

Sister Ignatia and St. Thomas Hospital then filled the void of the lack of formal treatment to help those battling alcoholism. They helped fill the gap in the lack of public and medical understanding of the disease.

Therein lies the root of the modern Alcoholics Anonymous--in Akron, OH, on Olive Street--where St. Thomas Hospital remains an institution committed to offering health services to those afflicted with alcoholism.

Since those early days 75 years ago in the 1930s, Dr. Bob and Sister Ignatia helped foment the public consciousness that alcoholism is, in fact, a disease; that it is never fully cured but only managed with self-determination and with family and community support.

Dr. Bob and Sister Ignatia imbued a sense of urgency in the movement where literally the common refrain for those who live the disease is to live one day at a time.

It is that sense of urgency that often found Sister Ignatia saying, ``Time is running out and I must work while I can.''

Earlier this week, the people of Akron gathered at St. Thomas Hospital to rename Olive Street ``Dr. Bob's Way'' to recognize his contribution to our Nation's history. And earlier this month, thousands of supporters of AA--alcoholics and family members throughout the Nation--traveled to Akron for Founders Day which celebrates the legacy of Dr. Bob and Sister Ignatia.

Many visitors traveled to Stan Hywet Hall where they walked along the pristine landscape, walking past the Gate Lodge where AA meetings continue to this day.

From that single conversation at Gate Lodge to Dr. Bob and Anne's home on Ardmore Avenue to St. Thomas Hospital on Olive Avenue, AA has turned into one of the most unified and diverse organizations in the world.

Since its earliest days, AA opened its doors and services to all those who seek it, regardless of gender, age, socio-economic status, or sexual orientation.

Fully self-funded, prominent statesmen and judges have sat alongside paupers and peasants--each seeking a shared experience and the support of each other.

Today, 117,000 groups totaling more than 2 million members live in more than 150 countries and are working with them and being helped by

Mr. President, I want to talk about something else. I sat here, as did the Presiding Officer from Illinois, who was a strong supporter of passing this legislation that again failed because of the Senate's anachronistic, outmoded requirement of 60 votes, a supermajority. We could not get there because no Republicans--no Republicans--cooperated. We could not do today what we should do, and that is extend unemployment benefits to tens of thousands of Ohioans and millions of Americans. We could not extend the assistance to help them keep their insurance, which Senator Casey has worked so hard on, something called COBRA, so that people who lost their jobs would not lose their insurance. We could not help those physicians who are about to face a 21-percent cut in their payments. We could not stop the outsourcing through our tax system of too many jobs abroad. We could not do any of that today because we did not get any cooperation.

I understand partisanship. I understand ideological differences. But what I don't understand is when I hear Republican after Republican stand on this floor and talk about the budget deficit, I am just struck. I have only been in this institution for 3 years. I was in the House of Representatives for 14 years before. I am struck by the utter hypocrisy when I hear Republicans all of a sudden decide deficits matter, all of a sudden decide everything needs to be paid for.

When I was in the House of Representatives, George Bush came to Congress and asked for the authority to go to Iraq and did not even try to pay for it. I voted no, but that is beside the point. It passed. It was not paid for.

Then President Bush came to the Congress again with a Republican majority and asked for huge tax cuts that overwhelmingly went to the richest Americans. They did not pay for that

either. They charged that to our grandchildren.

Then around the same time in the name of Medicare privatization, he asked for what he called a Medicare drug benefit, what I call a bailout for the drug and insurance industry, tens of billions in subsidies to drug companies and insurance companies, and they did not pay for that either.

Throughout the first decade of this century, Congress has spent close to $1 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and did not pay for it. Nobody on that side said: Wait a second. We shouldn't do this without paying for it.

Then Congress passed hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts for the richest Americans and did not pay for that. They did not say we can't do that unless we pay for it. They did the same thing for this give-away to the drug and insurance companies.

Now when we want to extend unemployment benefits to people who have lost their jobs, when we want to extend some assistance for health insurance to people who have lost their health insurance, all of a sudden all these conservatives around here say we cannot do this unless we pay for it. Then their little cheerleaders on the Wall Street editorial board, and talk radio, and their people on Fox TV, like one bird flying off a telephone wire, they all fly off and say: We have to pay for it.

They never said we have to pay for a trillion-dollar war. They never said we should pay for the tax cuts going to the rich people. They never said we should pay for these subsidies going to the drug companies. We start a war, we attack Iraq, we go to Afghanistan, and we charge it to our grandchildren. We give a tax cut to the richest Americans, and we charge it to our grandchildren. We pass this give- away to the drug and insurance companies, and we charge it to our grandchildren.

But again, when it is time to help laid-off workers--we know what happens when a person is laid off. They almost act as if unemployment insurance is a welfare program. All I can think of when I see the behavior of refusal to extend unemployment insurance or the refusal to help people get health insurance when they have lost their jobs, all I can think of is most of my friends on the other side of the aisle, most of my colleagues must not know anybody who has lost their job, who has lost their insurance. They must not know anybody who, because they lost their job and their insurance, may next lose their home.

Try to think about this. I know people who have lost their homes. I know people who were doing pretty well and lost their homes. I have tried to understand what it is like. You come home one day and for the last 3 or 4 months you tried to make your mortgage payment. You were late the first month. Then you got the second payment in on time. The next month you were late. The following month you could not pay and you realize you are in trouble. And then the bank comes to you and tells you they will foreclose.

Think what that is like. You worked hard. Maybe your kids are still small. You have lost your job. You want to pay your mortgage, but you do not have the money to do it.

So the bank is going to foreclose on your house. Think about that. You have three kids and your spouse has lost her job or you don't have enough money to make these payments and you are going to have to tell your kids: Guys, we are going to have to leave our house.

Where are we going to live, Dad?

We will try to move in with somebody.

What are we going to do with all our stuff?

I don't know; put it in storage. If we can't afford storage, I guess we will have to give it away.

Think about what it would be like to lose your job, then your insurance, then to lose your home. That has happened to a whole lot of people who even look like me, people who dress well and have middle- class jobs. This just doesn't happen to a bunch of people who were just lazy and didn't do anything; this is happening to all kinds of people in this country.

I wonder if my Republican colleagues--if the conservatives here who always preach self-reliance and always say we have to do better in this country and that people should have to stand on their own two feet-- really know people who have lost their jobs and lost their insurance and lost their homes. I think if they did, they might be willing to extend unemployment benefits; if they did, they might be willing to extend subsidies to help those people get their health insurance.

That is what is so troubling about what has happened the last few weeks. We can't get 60 votes because we need some Republicans. We can't get 60 votes to extend unemployment to help people out a little bit. Again, unemployment insurance is not welfare. You have a job and you pay into unemployment every paycheck. You pay into this insurance fund so that if you lose your job, you get help from that fund. It is as simple as that.

So, Mr. President, I guess my patience runs short--as is the case for many of us on this side--when I hear my colleagues saying we can't do this because it would add to the budget deficit. Yet they continue to vote for war funding, and they continue giving tax cuts to the richest people in America, and they continue to subsidize the drug industry in America. It is a moral question, and the Senate failed this moral question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S.J. Res. 33, a joint resolution providing for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed Constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands to correct provisions inconsistent with the Constitution and Federal law, introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read a third time, passed; that the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; and that any statements related to the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.