Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an Ohio trailblazer who we lost last month, the first woman to serve as deputy mayor for the city of Akron, Dorothy Ola Jackson.

Former Akron mayor Tom Sayer, who nominated her to become deputy mayor, called her an ``urbanist saint.'' And she was. Born in Akron, OH, in 1933, Dorothy Ola Jackson's life of service was molded by the loss of her brother and parents before the age of 24. She became a fierce advocate for families and for her community.

For 12 years, she worked at Goodwill, starting as a secretary and rising to serve as assistant public relations director. She helped organize special projects and volunteer efforts. Knowing American Sign Language and as a person of deep faith, she would sign a Bible reading to the company's 30 deaf employees every morning.

She went on to work as a human services administrator for Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority for 16 years, where she helped transform the agency.

In 1984, Dorothy Ola Jackson became deputy mayor of intergovernmental relations, where she continued advocating for those who often had no other voice in the city. During her first year in office, she helped organize the city's first day camp for disabled children.

She said, ``People who have never had a voice in government can now get a little closer.''

Deputy Mayor Jackson has received many awards and accolades throughout her life, including the United Way Distinguished Service Award, the Bert A. Polsky Humanitarian Award, the Akron Urban League's Community Service Award, and in 1984, she was named Woman of the Year by Akron Business and Professional Women-USA.

But she often said the most meaningful honor came when the Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority named a property that houses disabled residents, the Dorothy O. Jackson Terrace Apartments in downtown Akron.

Dorothy dedicated her life to serving and helping others and to making Akron a better place for all its residents. The legacy of Deputy Mayor Jackson will live on through her far-reaching work and through the many lives she touched.

Mr. President, I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Kristina M. Johnson and celebrating her investiture as the 16th president of The Ohio State University. As an alum of the university and longtime friend of the Ohio State community, I know the investiture of a president is a significant milestone in the life of this land-grant university.

Since The Ohio State University was founded in 1870, the institution has been guided by 16 presidents, each of whom has left a lasting mark on the history of the university. Since taking office as president on August 24, 2020, Dr. Johnson has already begun to make an impact at Ohio State. She has worked to be an inclusive leader and advance the university's mission to uplift lives through academic and research excellence.

Dr. Johnson has close family ties to Ohio State and Ohio. Her grandfather graduated from Ohio State in 1896, played right guard on one of the early football teams, and was a member of the Tesla Club. Dr. Johnson brings a wealth of experience to this role, having served in numerous leadership roles at prestigious institutions for higher education, most recently as chancellor of the State University of New York. And she has been a public servant, serving as Under Secretary of Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. Dr. Johnson is married to Veronica Meinhard, and it has been a pleasure to get to know them and discuss the work we can do together to support Ohio students.

With Dr. Johnson's more than 30 years of experience and leadership, the future of Ohio State is indeed bright. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and celebrating this momentous occasion for this university, which is so important to the central Ohio community and to our State. Connie and I wish Dr. Johnson, Veronica, and the entire Buckeye Community well as they embark on this journey together.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Aarti Iyer, a legislative fellow in my office; Ben Ashman, another legislative fellow in my office; and Danny Carlson, who is joining us today on the floor from my office, all be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 429, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 430, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, October 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Williams nomination; further, that at 11 a.m., the Senate vote on the confirmation of the Williams, Olsen, and Schroeder nominations, in the order listed; that upon disposition of the Schroeder nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Dellinger nomination, postcloture; that at 2:30 p.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Dellinger and Prelogar nominations prior to votes on the motions to invoke cloture on the Robinson and Heytens nominations, all in the order listed below; further, that if cloture is invoked on the nominations during Thursday's session, all postcloture time expire immediately, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nominations at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

For the information of Senators, there will be three rollcall votes starting at 11 a.m., and four rollcall votes at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. Brown, reserving the right to object, I don't want to laugh. This is too serious. But we have the chairman of the Republican Senate campaign committee who comes down to the floor--he knows better. I mean, he just knows better. He knows this is a political stunt. It is what he does.

I don't think the chair of the Senate Republican campaign committee gets paid extra to do this kind of stuff, but it is just clearly a political stunt. He knows. He doesn't really know--I don't know what he knows, but I do know that I haven't seen his interest in housing since he has been in the Senate. I am the chair of the Housing Committee. When I was ranking member with Senator Crapo, for whom I have great respect, I didn't see any. But all of a sudden, he has this interest in low-income people's housing to make sure that they have safe, accessible, affordable places to stay.

He knows--he should know; I don't know how he would not know--that HUD is not requiring proof of vaccination for people to use their services. There is no hint of any of us--I mean, because I am lucky enough to be chair of this committee, I do more in housing than perhaps anybody in this body--at least one of the three or four who do the most--and I don't know anybody who is saying we are going to require proof of vaccine. So it is just a political stunt.

I don't know if the Senator from--I think it is Florida; I am not sure--the Senator from Florida is going to, as soon as this is over, take down these debates and show how he is standing up for people's access to housing, especially low-income, but he is proposing that the Senate take up and pass a bill to address a problem that just isn't happening.

The sad part is, we know how real housing issues are in this country. It isn't a stunt for people trying to figure out how they are going to pay the rent. We know that before the pandemic, 25 percent of renters in this country were paying more than half their income for rent. That means if the car breaks down, it means if their child gets sick, it means if they have a minor workplace injury and they miss a week of work, it means that then their lives are turned upside down because they are evicted.

I wish I saw my colleague and the other officers of the Republican Senate campaign committee out on this floor fighting for those renters, fighting for those low-income people who are paying $700 or $800 a month in rent in Hartford or in Cleveland and could pay less if they owned a home, but they don't have the downpayment. It would be great to see them come out on the floor and work with us--work with us--the Senator from Connecticut and me and others, to help low-income people come up with that downpayment. There are 27,000 Floridians who were experiencing homelessness even before the pandemic.

So I just wish I saw this concern and these concerns in other ways. Housing is a foundation for opportunity. It is the biggest cost most families face. The cost is way too high. We can't build an economy that works for everyone when housing prices eat up more of families' budgets year after year. We can work to fix that.

I encourage the Senator from Florida to join us to fix the real problems in

rural areas, in big coastal cities, in small towns on Lake Erie or the Atlantic Ocean. It is a national problem that needs a national response and a national, significant investment. Let's take housing problems seriously. Let's stop the political stunts. Let's work together for the people whom we serve.

Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I have a message for Ohio voters, my great State of 12 million people.

To Ohio voters, to parents, I say: Check your bank accounts.

On Friday, most Ohio parents--the parents of more than 2 million children, 92 percent of children in our State--most Ohio parents, once again, saw $250, or $300, or $600 in tax cuts directly deposited in their banks accounts, or maybe they got the check in their mailbox.

To parents, I say: We know how hard you work at your jobs and raising your children.

Any parent--any parent--knows how much work it is to take care of children, especially young children.

I am the lucky, proud grandparent, grandfather of eight grandchildren. I watch my children--five of our grandchildren live in Ohio; three of them live out of State not too far away. I watch them. I watch how hard they work, how difficult it is to take care of young children. And it has only gotten harder, of course, we know, over the last year and a half.

So often I say to these parents: Your hard work doesn't pay off like it should.

We have seen what happened over the past few decades: productivity goes up, stock prices have soared, executive compensation is off the charts; yet wages have barely budged.

Meanwhile, you know how expensive it is to raise children: healthcare, school lunch, diapers, clothes, school supplies, braces, sports fees. The list never seems to end. One of the biggest expenses, of course, for so many families is childcare.

Parents feel like they are stuck. The more they work, the more expensive childcare is. You feel like you can't keep up, no matter how hard you work.

It is why we passed the child tax credit--the largest tax cut for working families ever. It is about finally, finally, making your--Ohio parents--your hard work pay off so you can keep up with those extra expenses that keep coming when you are raising a family.

Stories pour into our office from parents from Sandusky to Portsmouth, from Ashtabula to Middletown and Hamilton, from Toledo to Gallipolis--stories we hear over and over about these tax cuts; stories about how expensive childcare is, how parents are using their money to afford childcare so they can go back to work or, in some cases, work overtime.

Kristen of Columbus said she is using this to pay for ``Daycare. For two kids [at] $600/wk.''

Brittany said, ``Daycare.''

Ellie said, ``Daycare.''

Alex in Cleveland: ``Every penny goes to daycare. 4 kids in daycare . . . $800/week.''

These tax cuts mean more parents are in the workplace. They can afford to go to work. It is that simple.

And let's be clear. Getting $300, getting $600 a month per child in tax cuts doesn't discourage anyone from getting a job, or doesn't cause any of them to quit.

I am going to leave my job that pays $30,000 a year because I am getting $3,000--said no one ever to us.

There is no way you could afford to raise a family on that. You still need a job. These tax cuts help parents afford that job.

It is all about dignity of work. I can't count the number of families that said: You know--I said on this floor a few minutes ago that 25 percent of renters in this country spend half their income on rent. So we know how anxious those families are on the last week of the month.

One of the things I have heard perhaps more than anything else about this child tax credit is: The last week of the month, we don't have to deny our kids dessert, or we don't have to cut something else because some of that anxiety has been lifted off our shoulders because we are getting $250 per child in the child tax credit.

It makes a huge difference in just their lives. As I said, it is about the dignity of work. All work has dignity, whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge, whether you work for tips, whether you are on salary, whether you are caring for children, whether you are taking care of a sick parent.

Raising children is work. Raising kids is a hell of a lot more work than moving money from one overseas bank account to another, or than checking your balance in your stock portfolio.

That didn't stop Mitch McConnell from rewarding the wealthiest CEOs and hedge fund managers and Swiss banks account owners. We remember what happened. We looked down the hall in Senator McConnell's office, just 100 feet or so down there, and you see--particularly 3 or 4 years ago, you

saw the lobbyists lining up there as he was dolling out to the wealthiest CEOs and the hedge fund managers and the Swiss bank accounts holders and the politicians, doing their bidding: pass that tax cut for the wealthy and for corporations and outsource jobs.

Don't think a lot of those CEOs didn't take the tax cut, outsource jobs, set up manufacturing in those countries, and sell back in the United States. And then they took part of the tax cut and did stock buybacks to make themselves richer.

Senator McConnell and the leaders in this body all knew that is what that was all about. But when it comes time for a tax break for families making $10- or $20- or $50- or $75,000 a year, they are absent.

We know that it was a partisan vote. Every Democrat voted for the biggest tax cut in American history. Every Republican voted against the biggest tax cut in American history. Fortunately, there were more of us than there are of them. It was 51 to 50.

They promised their tax cuts for the rich would trickle down. We know they never do. They keep the money for themselves. They spent that money on stock buybacks.

Now, as I said, without a single vote from Republicans--I don't like to be partisan around here. I represent a State that leans Republican. A lot of Republicans vote for me because I work with them and want them to succeed, as I want everybody to succeed. But we also know this tax cut shows whose side you are on.

It is a pretty simple contrast--are you on the side of workers, or are you on the side of these big corporations that outsource jobs? Do you want tax cuts for billionaires and decamillionaires, or do you want tax cuts for working families?

Overwhelmingly, Americans from all over the country, from all kinds of backgrounds agree with that. Everyone is lining up behind extending the child tax credit expansion: the faith community, the civil rights community, the children's advocacy community, Catholic Charities, Bread for the World, RESULTS, the Coalition on Human Needs, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Children's Defense Fund.

So many others are writing us in the last week in support of keeping these checks going, in support of extending the child tax credit 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, making it permanent, because every single month we show parents and workers we are on your side.

So count on it. Starting July 15, first check; a month later, mid- August, second check; a month later, mid-September, third check; just last week, the fourth check. Two hundred and fifty dollars if your child is between the ages of 6 and 17; $300 per child if your child is under 6. It has been like clockwork. It has made a difference.

We haven't quite reached everybody in my State--2.5 million children are eligible, 2.4 million. We have reached about 2.3 million of them. So we are still working to find those other parents who don't know about this for their children.

But think of what that has done for 92 percent of my State's children. Ninety-two percent of the kids in my State, their parents are benefiting from this.

One man said to me: You know, for the first time ever, I can buy my child--I can buy my daughter fastpitch softball equipment.

At the same meeting, a woman, a mother, told me: You know, for the first time ever, my son can go to summer camp now, first time ever.

Other parents were talking about childcare. One family said: You know, we can put aside $100 a month so my daughter can go to Sinclair State Community College, or maybe the University of Dayton, or maybe Ohio University.

Other families talk, as I said, Mr. President, about rent, the anxiety they feel at the end of every month to come up with that rent check so they don't get evicted.

Every single month, we are showing parents and we are showing workers we are on your side. We will keep doing that. I hope more Republicans join us and we can do this bipartisan, but, either way, we will not stop fighting to make sure parents' hard work pays off for years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letters into the Congressional Record.

Madam President, I come to the floor for the opposite reason. I am thrilled to rise to urge my

colleagues to support Rohit Chopra to serve as the next Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I have seen the good work they used to do. They used to have an Ohio Director. The first Director there was Richard Cordray, a friend of mine, somebody who stood up for consumers pretty much every day of his work life.

Rohit Chopra will become the CFPB Director at a time when far too many Americans feel that the system is rigged against them. You hear reports about billionaires not paying taxes. You hear these reports about record profits on Wall Street. You see the influence. Just check down the hall. Look down the hall. You can see the influence in the minority leader's office, Senator McConnell. Lobbyists are going in and out, always getting their way. When a Republican freight train goes down the railbed full of tax cuts, you know it never stops. It is always about helping those in charge get wealthier.

As the CFPB Director, Rohit Chopra will be here when people feel like no matter how hard they work, they don't get a fair shot in this country. His job will be on the side of the public. His job will be on the side of the workers.

I know the Presiding Officer sees this job as I do--as putting workers at the center of our country, at the center of our economy, at the center of our work here. The Senator from Georgia sees the country in the same way: putting workers at the center of our agenda. That has not happened until we had this new President. Now, with Rohit Chopra, we have the chance to turn this around.

The public has watched the largest corporations amass enormous power and use it to gain access and influence in this town to write the rules in their favor. Again, I won't open the door to show you again, but if you look down that hall, you will see the people going in and out of the Republican leader's office. They are always gaining access, always gaining influence, always writing the rules in their favor.

So it is not surprising that most people don't believe there is anyone on their side, fighting for them in the Federal Government, but we know that is not true. That is why I know Rohit Chopra will prove them wrong, and he will fight for all of those who feel like they have been left on their own.

Even before the pandemic, hard work wasn't paying off. We all know that productivity has gone up in this country in the last many years; we know executive compensation has skyrocketed; and we know the stock market has gone up. But do you know what we also know and what people feel every day? They feel like their wages have been stagnant. They feel like they are working harder and harder in Savannah or in Columbus, GA, or in Cincinnati or Columbus, OH. They know they are working harder and harder every day, and they are simply not getting ahead. They feel that they have been left on their own.

Productivity is up, and wages have stagnated. Meanwhile, we know the cost of housing, the cost of childcare, the cost of higher ed, the cost of prescription drugs--they all go up--and 40 percent of Americans aren't able to come up with $400 in an emergency. Before the pandemic, one-quarter of renters paid more than half their income in rent. You know what happens there. If you are paying half your income in rent and your car breaks down or your daughter gets sick or you miss a couple days of work from a workplace injury, your life changes. It goes upside down, and you can get evicted.

Then the coronavirus hit, and millions of workers who were one emergency away from draining their savings turned to a payday lender as they faced emergencies all at once. Millions of homeowners now have fallen behind in their mortgages and are at risk of foreclosure--one in six Latino homeowners, one in five African-American homeowners.

Through it all, we have seen COVID-related scams emerge--scams that use a global pandemic as a means to cheat their fellow Americans. I mean, there is always somebody out there. Most of us aren't that way. Most of us in the Senate and most of us in this country aren't that way, but there is always somebody out there who will scam their fellow Americans. As a result, half a million Americans--that is a lot of people--reached out to the CFPB last year, seeking help. That is 54 percent more than in 2019. Record numbers of consumers complained about errors in their credit reports or harassment by debt collectors. Those Americans need someone willing to stand up to the biggest banks and to stand up to the most powerful corporations and fight for them.

Rohit Chopra has the expertise and the track record to do that, and he will be America's voice and America's advocate. He has a deep understanding of financial markets, a strong record of protecting consumers and workers and small businesses, promoting competitive markets, and holding bad actors accountable.

In 2018, this body, this Senate, voted unanimously--unanimously--that is all of us--to confirm Rohit Chopra as an FTC Commissioner. They voted unanimously. In the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee--it used to be just called the Banking Committee because it was all about Wall Street; now the word ``Housing'' is in capital letters in that committee. In that committee a few weeks ago, all 12 Republicans voted against Rohit Chopra. Everybody here voted to confirm him when he was to go to the FTC. I don't know if any Republicans in this body are going to vote for him now. It is really kind of shocking as he has worked with Members of both parties on a wide array of issues that are important to American consumers.

As Commissioner, he worked with Democratic and Republican State attorneys general to protect American small businesses and consumers from foreign goods that were flooding the market with fake ``Made in the USA'' labels.

I worked on this issue a lot. My colleague Senator Portman from Ohio--he and I worked together to strengthen, in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the ``Buy American'' provisions--stronger than they have ever been--so that we won't see a project like the Bay Bridge in California, Northern California, made entirely with steel produced by Chinese companies--all part of the Chinese Communist Party. We are not going to see that again. We are going to see what ``Made in the USA'' means.

Mr. Chopra's job, in part--something that his predecessor didn't do-- will enforce ``Made in the USA.'' If a company puts ``Made in the USA'' on a label, they should hear from the government. You just can't commit that kind of fraud. In my State, Ohioans look for ``Made in the USA'' because they want their dollars to support our economy. They know it also means a quality product, and it means made by American workers.

He has led the FTC's recent crackdown on Big Tech. Americans across the political spectrum were concerned about these huge tech corporations that seemed to get bigger and bigger and to control more and more of their lives.

Mr. Chopra authorized the Agency's current lawsuit against Facebook. This is what he did in the last job he was in when he got unanimous support in this body for confirmation.

He stood up for Amazon drivers when the company stole more than $60 million. Imagine Amazon, as maybe the most successful corporation-- certainly, one of the largest corporations in the world--stole $60 million of tips of workers making $9, $10, $11, $12 an hour, and they are not getting away with it. I mean, maybe they got away with it before, but they didn't get away with it because Rohit Chopra was there.

Banks aren't going to get away with that kind of stuff. Payday lenders won't get away with that kind of stuff. All kinds of people who try to defraud American consumers--they are not going to get away with this because Rohit Chopra is going to be the cop on the beat.

During his prior time, when he worked with Richard Cordray at the CFPB, he served as the Agency's first student loan ombudsman. He looked out for students in the $1.7 trillion student loan market--$1.7 trillion. That is 1.7 thousand billion, this $1.7 trillion student loan market. He worked with State attorneys general of both parties to bring enforcement actions against scammers who preyed on students who were drowning in student loan debt.

I see the pages on both sides, sitting here on the steps. Many of them are going to school in the next couple of years or are going to college. Many of them will take student loans. Many of

them may be preyed on by some of these scammers. I am guessing every one of these pages here, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, whether sponsored by Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell or me or Rob Portman--I am guessing every one of you would vote for the confirmation if you could vote. Sorry. You are not even old enough to vote yet, but if you could, you would vote for Rohit Chopra because he is going to protect you. He is going to protect you when people try to scam you and your student loans.

His commitment to protecting servicemembers has been particularly important. He uncovered a predatory lending scheme. He was able to return more than $60 million to them and their families. Think about that. People are trying to scam our servicemembers. The wife is away, serving our country, and the husband is home and they try to scam the husband, the husband who worries about his wife every day overseas-- these predatory lenders and others. That is why you need Rohit Chopra there to protect them.

He has earned the endorsement of a bipartisan group of State attorneys general. He is supported by a broad coalition of 150 consumer groups, civil rights groups, labor groups, public interest groups, and small business organizations. They know, like I do, that, with Mr. Chopra leading the CFPB, Americans can be confident they will have someone looking out for them. Corporations, big banks, payday lenders-- they all have high-priced lobbyists. You see them going in and out of Senator McConnell's office. We know that. They have an outsized voice in this town. Most people don't have lobbyists.

I just introduced a bill to help those on SSI. They are the lowest income people, averaging $500 a month in income. They didn't have a voice. They hadn't been heard from in 20 years until Congress did it. It is the same with people that Rohit Chopra will be paid to protect: They don't have lobbyists. They don't have a PAC. They certainly don't have a super PAC. They are not able to unleash tens of millions of dollars of dark money to win elections. They don't have an expensive lawyer they can get on the phone with a bank or a credit card company if something goes wrong.

That is why we created the CFPB--to fight for them, to be a voice for ordinary people--and, soon, Americans will have Rohit Chopra on their side.

If you were scammed by a payday lender, if you were overcharged by a bank, if you took an unfair hit on your credit report, it doesn't matter whom you voted for or what State. It doesn't matter who your Senate sponsor is. If you are a page, it doesn't matter whom you voted for. It doesn't matter what State you live in. You need help. You want someone on your side, and Rohit Chopra will be on your side. He will stand up. He will be your advocate.

That is why, as chair of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I enthusiastically support Mr. Chopra's nomination to serve as the next Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I urge all of my colleagues to support him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining postcloture time be considered expired.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, it is always a thrill to come to the floor to talk about the child tax credit, especially with three colleagues who really are the authors and the most important pushers, if you will, of this bill in the Senate.

I am going to turn it to Senator Bennet--he and I worked on this for damn close to a decade now--and Senator Booker. And then we will be joined last by Senator Warnock, who has only been in the Senate for a year--not even--and has done so much already for the State of Georgia, and he is one of the best supporters of this in the U.S. Senate.

So I will reserve my comments for a little later. Senator Bennet will go first.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Booker, and I join my friend Senator Warnock here to talk about this. Thanks to Senator Bennet, Senator Booker, and Senator Warnock for their leadership on what I think is the most important thing I have done in my years in public office: the child tax credit that Senator Bennet and I began on years and years and years ago, joined by other colleagues. Senator Warnock has really taken it over in a big way this year in getting it across the finish line. Sorry for the sports metaphor, but that is how important this is.

Senator Bennet said something about--and I guess Senator Booker--that raising children is work. At least one of my colleagues--a number of my colleagues on that side of the aisle, and I believe a colleague or two on this side of the aisle, said something about a work requirement in a child tax credit. And I don't understand that because I spent a lot of time, including this weekend, with my grandchildren, and I see how hard my daughters work raising children and our son works raising children and the pressures. And this bill, cutting everything else away, relieves some of the anxiety that parents face, the anxiety of how do I get the money together to pay the rent this week, before the end of the month, so I don't get evicted or I don't get behind in my rent--just the opportunities for these parents.

So I want to talk directly--directly--to Ohio parents. We talk about parents and about the child tax credit. I want to talk to Ohio parents for a moment.

Parents, check your bank accounts. A week ago today, we once again put money directly in the pockets of the families of most Ohio parents. The families of 92 percent of Ohio children are getting these dollars either direct deposit in their accounts or in their mailboxes in checks. It started July 15, then August 15, and then September 15. It will continue. Our goal on the floor today is to make this permanent; at least to make sure this goes beyond the end of the year. We are going to succeed in doing that. It is so important that we do.

Back to talking to parents. We know how hard you work at your jobs and raising your kids. Any parent knows how much work it is to take care of children, especially young children. It has only gotten harder over the last year and a half. The pressures are greater. The anxiety placed on families is more.

We have not recognized in this country often enough that raising children is work. If you have a job outside the home, you are probably not getting paid what you are worth. We have seen what has happened over the past few decades.

Productivity has gone up. Stock prices have soared. Executive compensation is stratospheric. The wages have been flat. Wages for most Americans have barely budged; meanwhile, you all as parents know how expensive it is to raise kids--childcare, healthcare, school lunches, diapers, clothes, school supplies, braces, sports fees. The list never seems to end. That is not to mention trying to put money away--just a few dollars a month--trying to put money away for college or sending your kid to camp or maybe--maybe, as I have heard from some parents-- for the first time in 2 or 3 years, they are going to get to take a little vacation for a few days or maybe, once a month, going out to dinner at the local diner.

You feel like you can't keep up no matter how hard you work. It is why we passed the child tax credit. It is why we started, several years ago, working to get other Senators on board until we had virtually, literally, every Senator on this side of the aisle. Every single Democrat has voted for the child tax credit twice already.

Unfortunately, every single Republican voted against it. I don't even really understand why they are against it when, you know, you could look out down the aisle here, you can look down the hall, and Senator McConnell's office is down the hall, and you see the lobbyists lining up there. They always get their tax cuts.

A train carrying tax cuts leaves the station whenever Republicans are in power--a tax cut for wealthy people--but this is a tax cut for working families, and we know how important that is. It is finally-- finally--to America's parents, making your hard work pay off so you can keep up with those extra expenses that keep coming and coming and coming when you are raising a family.

Stories have poured into our office from parents across Ohio about these tax cuts. Let me just give you snippets of several of them.

Katie in Akron: It helps pay for school supplies.

Caitlin: It pays for preschool for my son.

Lindsay: It is back-to-school clothes.

Fern: It will pay for preschool for both of my children, and the rest is going into a savings account for them.

From Melissa: I used part of it to buy school uniform pieces for my 4-year-old.

Jennifer: Put it away for college tuition.

Maia: Food and school supplies.

And one of the most common stories we hear over and over is that parents are using this to afford childcare so they can go back to work or keep working or work a few more hours.

One mother from Minford in Southern Ohio near Portsmouth, wrote to me, and she said:

My husband and I are middle class, raising two children

[both] under 6. . . . We have been worried about the

financial burden of paying for 2 children in full-time child

care.

The $300, per child, will be placed directly towards child

care so . . . we [don't] have to worry about how my

participation in the workforce affects us, and allow us to

participate more in the economy.

She continued:

I believe these payments will allow more parents,

especially mothers, to participate more fully in the

workforce, [allowing] them more time to pursue training, and

help American families [get] food on the table. From the

bottom of my heart, thank you.

She really tells the story. You know in Connecticut and in Georgia that not everybody has gone back to work that could find work; in part, because employers are finally starting to pay more, but so much of the time because they can't find childcare or they can't afford childcare. We know that. That is what these tax cuts are all about.

They are about the dignity of work. All work has dignity, whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge, whether you work on a salary or work for tips, whether you are raising children, or whether you are caring for aging parents. Raising children is work. Raising children is work. It is a hell of a lot more work than moving money from one overseas bank account to another or checking the balance in your stock portfolio.

That didn't stop Senator McConnell and the Republican majority 2 or 3 years ago from rewarding the CEOs and hedge fund managers and Swiss bank account holders. We all remember what happened. Mitch McConnell-- and the lobbyists lining up down the hall--and

the politicians who always do their bidding passed their tax cut for the wealthy and corporations that outsource jobs. You know what they promised? They promised it would all trickle down and have more jobs and workers in Savannah--the hometown of the Senator from Georgia--that there will be more jobs and the workers would get more pay and the companies would invest more in the workforce.

Well, it didn't exactly happen that way. They kept their money for themselves. They spent that money on stock buybacks. Unsurprisingly, where did that money go? It goes in the pockets, mostly, of executives.

Now, this year, without a single vote from Republicans in Congress, we passed tax cuts for everyone else. It is a pretty simple contrast.

Whose side are you on? Do you want tax cuts for billionaires and corporations--that is what they did 4 years ago; that is what the President and the Congress did 4 years ago--or do you want tax cuts for working families? That is what Senator Warnock's and Senator Ossoff's and President Biden's elections meant in November and January of this year; that instead of more tax cuts for the richest people in the country--though that bill, 70 percent of the tax cuts or the benefits went to the richest 1 percent--now we are seeing our tax cut goes to 90 percent of the families in this country.

Every single month we are showing parents and workers we are on your side. We will not stop fighting to make sure parents' hard work pays off for years to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a week ago today, we celebrated Labor Day, a day to honor America's workers, a day to honor the labor movement that built this country and built our middle class. It recognizes all Americans working hard every day to support families who contribute to community and power our economy.

Over the summer, as I know that the Presiding Officer has traveled to Arizona, I have been all over my State of Ohio talking with those workers: steelworkers in Toledo, busdrivers in Canton, VA healthcare workers serving our veterans in Chillicothe, union mechanics in Columbus. They live in different communities. They come from different backgrounds. But the dignity of work unites all of us.

We take pride in hard work in this country, and we believe, as Dr. King said and Pope Leo XIII said, that all work has dignity, whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge, whether you work for tips, whether you take care of aging parents, whether you are raising children or whether you are a new grandparent--no matter who you are, where you live, or what kind of work you do.

For far too many people, hard work isn't paying off. Productivity has gone up. Stock prices have soared. Executive compensation is stratospheric. But wages have barely budged. This isn't a coincidence. It is not an accident of the market. It is not an inevitable result of our system of capitalism.

Wall Street has the power in this economy. They are obsessed with accumulating more wealth for the people who already have it. The system we have, where most of the gains in the economy seem to go to those at the top, is by Wall Street's explicit design, and it comes at the direct expense of American workers.

We don't always make the connection. People are rightfully angry, but they don't think about how decisions in corporate boardrooms and on the floors of stock exchanges thousands of miles away affect their job opportunities and their wages.

Corporations focus on their short-term performance on the stock market, not the long-term success of the company and its workers. Their main goal too often becomes increasing stock prices quarter to quarter. That is how CEO performance is evaluated. They are compensated in large part with company shares. Stocks can account for as much as half of an executive's compensation package.

Corporations, therefore, juice those stock prices by repurchasing their own stock, what we call stock buybacks. Here is how it works. There are a finite number of company shares at any given time. Purchasing shares will decrease the number of shares available to investors and therefore drive up the price and the value of the remaining shares.

Existing shareholders will see their stock value increase. Lo and behold, often those existing shareholders are the executives of the company. This is often an even more attractive option to executives than dividends because buybacks are more flexible and, under current law, they aren't taxed until the shares are sold. That is what we want to change.

The economy hasn't always worked this way. A few decades ago, most of Wall Street capital funded the real economy: wages, machinery, research, new construction, expansion of the

company. Stock buybacks used to be considered illegal market manipulation. Think about that. Stock buybacks then used to be considered illegal market manipulation.

Today, they have become routine. Now, only 15 percent of capital goes to the real economy while the amount corporations spend on buybacks has just exploded. Between 2004 and 2013, Home Depot, a great company by most measures, in that decade spent 99 percent of its net income on stock buybacks--99 percent of its net income on stock buybacks. IBM spent 92 percent.

That is right. Some companies spend close to 100 percent of their profits on their own stocks rather than workers' wages, rather than expanding the company, rather than investing in research and development.

It has only gotten worse since Washington Republicans' 2017 tax giveaway to these corporations. We all remember--and I have pointed this out before--the lobbyists down the hall in front of Senator McConnell's office, the corporate lobbyists that lined up one after another as Senator McConnell decided, on behalf of his Members and with President Trump during the Trump-McConnell Presidency--how Senator McConnell handed these companies a windfall.

Their executives turned around. I remember Senator McConnell, when he walked down the hall here after doing his conversations--I will just leave it at that--with his lobbyist friends. He would walk down the hall, and he would stand at the majority leader's--then the majority leader--and I think that tax giveaway is part of the reason he is no longer the majority leader.

But he would say that that is going to trickle down and workers are going to get raises and companies are going to expand and benefits are going to go to the whole economy. Well, that is not exactly what happened. When he handed them that windfall, you know what the executives did--the executives who were lobbying him, the executives who were contributing to the campaigns, the executives who control the Wall Street Journal editorial board? Do you know what they did? They turned around; they plowed that money right back into stock buybacks, which meant, lo and behold, right into their own pockets.

The largest U.S. companies--in 2018, right after the tax giveaway, over a trillion dollars, 70 percent, went to the richest 1 percent. Don't forget that number. In 2018, the largest U.S. companies spent more than $800 billion in stock buybacks, a 50-percent increase from the previous year, a 50-percent increase because they got that largesse from the Federal Treasury.

They spent more on stock buybacks than on debt payments, than on capital expenditures, than on research and development, than on dividends--in other words, the real economy.

Now, in 2021, as millions of families struggle to recover from this pandemic and get back on their feet, you might think things would change. We are hearing that a lot of companies--the Presiding Officer hears it in Arizona; I hear it in Ohio--a lot of companies complain about supposed labor shortages. You might think that these companies that are sitting on cash, that it might cause companies to reassess.

They need more workers. Maybe they should cut back on juicing their stock buybacks, and instead they could permanently raise pay or increase retirement contributions or offer better healthcare plans or invest in new training programs--all of those to attract new, better paid, more satisfied, happier workers. But, no, this year corporate stock buybacks are on track to approach or even surpass the 2018 record.

Proponents of stock buybacks argue that companies purchase their own shares only after considering other, value-creating investment options. In other words, companies are arguing: You know, we do stock buybacks. Yeah, you are right; it makes us a little richer individually, and we can buy that third or fourth home in Florida or on the Cape or on Lake Erie or whatever, but also, we consider everything that would be good for the company. We funded all that; so then we do stock buybacks.

That is a ridiculous argument. Talk to any family in Cleveland or Chillicothe or Mansfield or Marietta or Springfield, anywhere outside of Wall Street. Ask these families if they can think of a better investment for the trillions--trillions, thousands of billions-- trillions of dollars in wealth American workers have created.

But, of course, executives' personal interests influence their decision making. One study of 2,500 companies found that the greater the percentage stock options in executive compensation packages, the more likely a company was to make stock buybacks. That is fairly logical. The greater percentage of stock options in an executive compensation package, the more likely a company was to make stock buybacks.

So how do we stop this never-ending cycle of corporate greed and make sure that workers are sharing in the profits they create? We start with the new bill that Senator Wyden, the chair of the Finance Committee, and I are introducing: the Stock Buyback Accountability Act.

The Tax Code is one of the best tools we have to influence businesses. The idea is simple. If you want to buy back your own stock, you have to pay just a little bit--a 2-percent tax--on the money you make off of it. Two percent is pretty small. It is a hell of a lot less than the tax rate that workers at First Solar, which I am going to visit this week in Perrysburg, are paying or workers at Whirlpool or workers at the local corner store, at the local Dave's supermarket in Garfield Heights, are paying.

But that little tax will make companies think a little harder about whether stock buybacks are really the best use of their trillions in profits. I hope it will make it a little more likely that they will invest the money in something useful, something like a new factory or researching new products or training and apprenticeship programs or pay raises for the workers who are making these profits possible.

It has to be the goal of any stock buyback plan. It is not about punishing executives. I am indifferent. I have always believed it is whom you fight for and what you fight against. I will always fight for workers in this job. I don't have any interest in punishing executives. I just don't want to unduly reward them at the expense of workers.

It is about executives paying their fair share just like their workers do. It is about changing the incentives in our economy so that more of our country's wealth gets invested back to the people who created it.

We have known for years that stock buybacks are a problem. They distort the market. They lead to less long-term economic growth. They divert investment from workers. That is why it is on worker pay, not stock buybacks.

We have a real chance to actually do something about it. After years of politicians talking about reining in Wall Street, now is our opportunity to do it, to show people we are listening and to take action.

Worker pay, not stock buybacks. Create a fairer tax system. Creating a fairer tax system is one of the simplest ways to change the Wall Street and corporations' first system that Americans are so tired of.

We make this simple fix to finally, finally crack down on stock buybacks. We get rid of the tax breaks for corporations that ship American jobs overseas. We make multinational corporations pay their fair share instead of always, always, always forcing working families to foot the bill. We crack down on wealthy tax cheats that game the system. We give working families the largest tax cut ever.

We did that in the bill we passed in March. We are going to do that in the bills we pass this fall.

It comes back to the dignity of work. Wall Street simply doesn't recognize that all work has dignity. They consider shareholders' equity in a company to be all that matters. But workers have equity in a company too. It is called sweat equity. It is time they were rewarded for it.

Worker pay, not stock buybacks.

I yield the floor.