Floor Statements

Mr. President, products that are labeled ``Made in China'' can be found in our cars, in our closets, and in our cupboards. So too are the ingredients in the foods we eat often, the medicine we take, the candy our children enjoy, and the toys they play with. But how many times have we heard in the last few years of illness and death from contaminated foods or drugs or toys that were made in China? In Toledo, OH, patients died after taking contaminated Heparin to treat their heart conditions.

Drug manufacturers have acknowledged that they turn to countries such as China to buy ingredients to put into pharmaceuticals. U.S. companies often move production to China, buy ingredients there, put these drugs together, and sell them back into the United States with ingredients that may not pass some of the safety inspections they should. One company acknowledged that 17 percent of its active ingredients in manufacturing are outsourced, often to countries with weaker drug safety standards.

When high lead levels were discovered in toys several years ago, I urged stronger oversight to help keep our children safe. Four years ago, I asked Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer of Ashland University in north central Ohio to test lead levels. He had already begun testing with the students, and we asked him to do it again, to test the lead level in Halloween toys, including the

cups and the buckets that Ohio children would be eating out of and decorations families would be using that children often put into their mouths during the holidays. He tested products in the fall of 2007 for Halloween and the spring of 2008 for Easter toys. He identified 12 of 97 products contaminated with high quantities--much higher than what is considered safe by our government--high lead contents in this lead- based paint on our toys; among them, candy buckets, drinking cups, fake teeth, and other Halloween props. At Easter, it was eggs and baskets and other things. It included products bought at leading national retailers.

At the same time, it was clear that our trading system, patterned in many ways and with businesses following this business plan of shutting down production in places such as Rhode Island, which the Presiding Officer represents, and Ohio, shutting down production in our country and moving it to China, manufacturing products there, and selling products back here, that trade system has failed basic consumer and public safety standards.

There is nothing free about trade that puts children in the hospital for playing with a toy or eating candy or brushing their teeth. That is why Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The act sent a simple message to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is charged with protecting consumers: Protect American children, protect families, protect companies from unsafe and possibly fatal products.

That job has gotten a lot harder to protect the American public on food products, on toys, on pharmaceuticals, and on pet food, which I will discuss, because the business plan for so many companies has been to shut down production in Canton, OH, and move it to Guangzhou, China, shut down production in Toledo or Dayton, OH, and move it to Wuhan or Shiyan, China, in order to save money, in order to cut worker safety costs, in order to evade environmental and consumer regulations sometimes.

The new law that we passed meant that hundreds of thousands of toys and food and other imports from China and elsewhere can be recalled when they are unsafe. The key is inspection of these products, and the key is making the companies liable that outsource the jobs to China in order to save money. We don't want more court cases and more litigation, but if these companies are going to move production to China, they need to take responsibility for the toys if the toys have been painted with lead-based paint. They need to take responsibility for the pharmaceutical ingredients--sometimes dangerous ingredients that somebody has somehow put in these pharmaceuticals when production comes from China. They need to be careful about food safety. They need to be careful about treats for pets that have been contaminated.

That act has been a success. Last year, Dr. Weidenhamer conducted another test and found no lead-based paint contamination in Halloween items.

But there is a gap in our trade system that threatens public health and public safety. We passed a law to close that gap. Public safety has benefited, and companies are still able to make and sell their products in this free market.

One year ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the bipartisan Food Safety Modernization Act. The law provides the FDA with the tools needed to better protect our food supply, to recall tainted or adulterated food, and to respond more effectively to foodborne illness outbreaks. It empowered the FDA with new authority to establish a traceability system; that is, when a product comes to your table, whether it is food in this case, a pharmaceutical, or whether it is a toy, the company that sells that product needs to be able to trace back all the ingredients, all the components, where they came from, how they were produced, and under what conditions they were produced. It is that type of public safety infrastructure that is so important.

Yet, as we have seen with food and toys and drugs imported from China, now we are seeing it with pet food. Yesterday I met with Kevin Thaxton of Cuyahoga County--the Cleveland area--whose wife Candance wrote to me after one of their dogs, a 9-year-old pug, died from kidney failure. They thought it was the pug simply getting older. I had a pug once, and they don't usually live much beyond 10 years. Then, as they got another dog that got sick immediately, they figured out it was likely from eating Chinese-made chicken jerky treats. Until the second dog, they didn't make the connection between the pet food and the pet illness, when the second dog, the puppy, had a life-threatening illness.

Another Ohioan, Terry Safranek, joined us at our meeting 2 days ago. Terry lost her 9-year-old fox terrier earlier this year. She did not realize that tainted chicken jerky treats could be responsible for her dog's death until she saw the Thaxton's story on the evening news.

These two families, the Thaxtons and the Safraneks, and the 62 percent of U.S. households who own a pet shouldn't have to worry about the safety of the food they give their pets. It is an example again of a trade issue transforming into a safety issue.

To explain this, so many companies in the United States as part of their business plan decide--in order to save money, in order to evade consumer protection laws, food safety laws, worker safety laws, and environmental laws, or for whatever reason--to move their production to China, with significantly cheaper labor. They shut down in Columbus or Cincinnati, OH, and they move to China to manufacture these products they sell back into the United States.

Probably unprecedented in economic or world history is where companies shut down one place, move overseas, produce the same item, and then sell them back into the home market. We know that with that whole trade regimen, that whole construct of that business plan of shutting down production and moving overseas and selling back in, there are significant health and safety problems. Again, there are problems with lead-based paint and there are problems with the safety of other consumer items. There are problems with food safety, there are problems with pharmaceutical ingredients contamination, and now there are problems with pet foods.

The Food and Drug Administration has logged more than 350 reports of pet illnesses thought to be connected to chicken jerky treats made in China. Although the FDA has already issued a warning about illness, they have not yet for sure identified a contaminant. The treats remain on market shelves in stores across the country.

I would never on this Senate floor suggest people buy something or boycott something else. I would suggest, though, that people look at the product when they buy something for their pet and that they look at where it is made and make the judgment based on that.

I am calling on the FDA to accelerate its investigation of imported pet food, especially food imported from China, where the possibility of food contamination is higher. That is the FDA's job.

Earlier this week, I sent a letter to Dr. Hamburg, the FDA Commissioner, urging her agency to act swiftly to make sure that products found to be harmful are pulled from retail outlets. I have asked the FDA to improve its notification system so pet owners know about items under investigation for pet food safety breaches. The FDA should promptly pursue efforts to find the contaminant in these pet treats and ensure they are pulled from store shelves to prevent any unnecessary pet deaths.

Contaminated toys, hard-to-trace medical ingredients, and now pet food have all forced Americans to turn to the government to ensure the safety of the products we import. It is a problem with trade law that we have set this up to happen far too often.

It is an example of when government works when we stepped in on lead- based paint, kept those products off the market, and made sure that products coming in now are safer because we passed the consumer protection revision. It shows that government stepping in, in the right way, can make a difference in saving the lives of children, protecting people's pets, protecting pharmaceuticals--making sure that pharmaceutical safety is guaranteed as much as possible.

We have been down this road before. There is nothing free about trade that

undermines basic health rules. There is nothing free about trade that weakens safety rules, the very rules that help keep food safe to eat and water and air safe to drink and to breathe. The FDA should take action now to protect American pet owners from tainted products that can harm the health of their pets.

It has been a longtime victory for the American people that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we take, the toys we buy for our children, the treats we buy for our pets--we have done a good job in this country in the last several decades of the government partnering with businesses to make sure these products are generally safe for our families--for ourselves, for our children, and for our pets. Now, these holes in our trade laws--these trade laws that encourage companies to go overseas and produce products and sell them back here--clearly have undermined so much of what we have accomplished bipartisanly for so many years for the health and safety of the American public.

Thus the role of government can be important to show that we do know how to do this to protect our families. I urge the FDA to step in here on this issue and help American families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, be recognized.

I thank Senator Inhofe for the sensible nature of his words in terms of the difference between a Presidential and a congressional earmark. I think the Senator brought good sense to this, and I appreciate his words.

Amendment No. 1481

Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1481, cosponsored by Senator Merkley, our amendment to the STOCK Act. I thank Senator Gillibrand for her good work on managing this legislation.

USA Today had an editorial from Tuesday that said:

If lawmakers were really concerned with ethics, they'd put

their equity holdings in blind trusts, so they wouldn't have

the obvious conflict of interest that comes from setting the

rules for the companies they own.

Banking committee members wouldn't invest in financial

institutions, Armed Services Committee members wouldn't

invest in defense contracts, and energy committee members

wouldn't invest in oil companies.

How simple is that? How straightforward is that? How right is that? These stories simply don't reflect well on the world's greatest deliberative body. Most of us think these investments don't affect our decisions here, and they probably don't, but isn't it time we held ourselves to a higher standard?

Senator Merkley and I are proposing the Putting the People's Interests First Act as an amendment to the STOCK Act. It would require Senators and their senior staff who are subject to financial disclosure--no more than two or three or four of our staff people in each office; the most well paid, those in the highest ranking decision- making position--to sell individual stocks that create conflicts or to put their investments in blind trusts or to invest in only widely held mutual funds.

No one is required to avoid equities. We could still invest in broad- based mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. You can keep your ownership interest in your family farm or small business. I will repeat that: In no way does this affect your ownership in your family farm or small business. If you are setting up a blind trust, you can instruct the trustee to hold onto your stock in your family company. This rule would be similar to steps that have already been taken to address financial conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of financial conflicts.

Senate Ethics rule 37.7 requires committee staff making more than $25,000 per year--way more strict than our amendment in that way--``to divest himself [or herself] of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which he works.''

The Armed Services Committee requires staff and spouses and dependents to divest themselves of stock in companies doing business with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The committee does permit the use of blind trusts.

When asked about a requirement to divest, former Defense Secretary William Perry said:

That was very painful, but I do not disagree with the

importance of doing this. The potential of corruption is very

high. It keeps our government clean.

In the executive branch, Federal rules and Federal criminal law generally prohibit employees, their spouses, and their children from owning stock in companies they regulate. All Senator Merkley and I are saying is that Members of the Senate should hold themselves to the same standard we already require of much of our committee staff and executive branch employees. Our staff's requirements are more severe than ours, and we are the ones whose names are on the ballot, we are the ones who are sworn in to do the bidding of the American people. We are the 100 people in this so-called exclusive club and yet we are going to have different rules for us than we do for a $30,000-a-year staff person? That hardly seems right.

Some argue that selling all of our stock will make us lose touch with the rest of society. That kind of thinking falls on deaf ears for most Americans. The ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee doesn't invest in stocks. Instead he invests in State and local bonds with a small amount directed into mutual funds. When asked, Congressman Frank of Massachusetts said: ``I get a steady 4.5 percent, and I help my state in the process. I'm a patriot, and I'm making money too.''

Why should Members of the Senate who own stock in oil companies vote on issues that affect the oil industry? Why should Members of the Senate who might own stock in a pharmaceutical company vote on issues that affect health care, on a generic drug bill or on a biologics bill or on Medicare or Medicaid? Appearances matter. Right now the American people don't trust that we are acting in the Nation's best interest far too many times. Investing in broadly held funds or a blind trust will keep us in touch with society. It is not a retreat from the U.S. economy. Instead it will keep us from picking winners and losers. It will show the public that our focus is on policies that will help grow the economy. Again, I am not accusing any of my colleagues, if they own an oil stock, of voting for more tax breaks for the oil industry. I am not saying they do that; I am saying there is the appearance that some of them might do it.

We need to remember that public service is a privilege. Folks around Washington are already paid well in these jobs. There is no reason they need to be buying and selling stocks in small or multimillion-dollar portfolios.

When asked about the fact that Senate Armed Services Committee conflict-of-interest rules apply only to staff and Department of Defense appointees--but not to Senators--again, when asked about the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee conflict-of-interest rules apply to staff people--and, again, not necessarily highly paid staff--and Department of Defense appointees, President Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, said: ``I think Congress should abide by the same rules we impose on other people.''

No kidding. Really.

In a State of the Union Message, the President said: ``Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.''

As we cast votes, we all--the 100 Members of the Senate--have an impact on all kinds of industries every day, on all our economies.

I agree with Under Secretary England. I agree with President Obama. I agree with Senator Merkley as we offer this amendment. It is simple and direct. The public should expect nothing less from us.

Thank you.

Mr. President, the amendment Senator Merkley and I have proposed would require all Senators and their senior staff to sell individual stocks that create conflicts or to place their investments in blind trusts. You can still invest in broad-based mutual funds. You can keep your ownership interest in your family farm or small business.

If you are setting up a blind trust, you can instruct the trustee to hold on to your stock in your family company.

Current Senate ethics rules require committee staff making more than $25,000 a year to ``divest [themselves] of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which [they work].''

All Senator Merkley and I are saying is, Members of the Senate should hold ourselves to the same standard we already require of our committee staff and executive branch employees.

As Senator Merkley said, baseball players cannot bet on their games. We should not be able to hold stock in individual companies and then vote on issues that affect our holdings.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. President, across the Nation, Americans wonder if Washington is working for them. Congress's approval rate, as we know so well, is an abysmal 13 percent, 12 percent--different surveys--but not very good. One factor contributing to this distrust is the sense that elites in Washington are using their positions to get ahead financially. Members of Congress have the privilege and the honor of being elected to serve the public. Unfortunately, some elected officials have used the information they have acquired through service to the public--and I might put service to the public in quotation marks--to enrich their stock holdings. That is wrong. Public servants should not receive financial benefits for the votes they cast or the issues they work on. That is why I appreciate the work Senator Gillibrand, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Collins are doing in this legislation.

How many articles do we have to read about the appearance of impropriety on the investment decisions of lawmakers and their staff? In a Washington Post article from June of 2010, Taxpayers for Common Sense said:

By being on a committee with a particular jurisdiction,

they're in a better position of influencing the performance

of their investments, or at least appearing to have that

ability.

I am not saying my colleagues do that. I think perhaps some do. I do not know that, but I do know that the appearance to the public is that Members of the Senate are in a position to enrich themselves on a variety of issues and investments.

In a Washington Post article on December 20, the Project on Government Oversight--this was about a year, 13, 14 months ago, this article--said:

It's a problem. They will come back and say that it's

ludicrous that I would think of my stocks, that they only

think about the nation's interests and of their constituents.

The problem is, we can't know.

That is exactly right. We can't know.

This is a USA editorial from yesterday:

If lawmakers were really concerned with ethics, they'd put

their equity holdings in blind trusts, so they wouldn't have

the obvious conflict of interest that comes from setting the

rules for the companies they own.

Banking committee members wouldn't invest in financial

institutions, armed services committee members wouldn't

invest in defense contractors, and energy committee members

wouldn't investment in oil companies.

These stories simply do not reflect well on the world's greatest deliberative body. Most of us think these investments don't affect our decisions. They probably do not. But isn't it time we hold ourselves to a higher standard?

That is what the STOCK Act is all about. The Senate is considering the

STOCK Act, which clarifies the insider trading laws, that they apply the same way to Members of Congress as they do to people in the rest of the country. But the STOCK Act only deals with insider trading, which is very important, but that is only a small part of the problem. Senator Merkley and I are proposing the Putting the People's Interests First Act amendment to the STOCK Act. It would require all Senators and senior staff, probably legislative director, their most senior legislative people--person--and their Chief of Staff, all Senators and their Chiefs of Staff, all subject to financial disclosure, to sell individual stocks, divest themselves of individual stocks that create conflicts or place all of those individual stock investments in blind trusts.

No one is required to avoid equities. We can still invest in broad- based mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. We have already had this in a limited way. Senate ethics rule 37.7 requires committee staff making more than $125,000 a year to ``divest himself or herself of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which {that person} works'' unless the Ethics Committee approves an alternate arrangement.

The Armed Services Committee requires all staff, spouses, and dependents to divest themselves of stock in companies doing business with the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. The Committee does permit the use of blind trusts.

In the executive branch, Federal regulations and Federal criminal law generally prohibit employees, their spouses, and their children from owning stock in companies they regulate.

All Senator Merkley and I are saying is Members of the Senate should hold themselves to the same standard we require of committee staff and executive branch employees. We tell committee staff and executive branch employees they can't do this. Why should we be allowed to do this? If we think this is a sacrifice--which it is not, ultimately-- remember that while the median net worth of all Americans dropped 8 percent from 2004 to 2010, the median net worth of Members of Congress jumped 15 percent over that same period. It is not a judgment of my colleagues, simply what we should do, what the public would want us to do.

Some argue selling our stock will make us lose touch with the rest of society. That thinking falls on deaf ears for most Americans. Why should they vote on issues that affect the oil industry when they own oil stocks? Why should Members of the Senate vote on issues that affect health care when they own stock in pharmaceutical companies--Big PhRMA stocks?

Appearance matters. Right now the American people do not trust that we are acting in the Nation's best interests far too often.

I will close with this and then turn to Senator Merkley. Public service is a privilege. Folks around Washington are paid pretty well for what we do--are paid very well for what we do. We take these jobs seriously. We should take them seriously. We should look at them as the privilege they are to serve in the greatest deliberative body in the world and get to serve my State, 11 million people; the State of Senator Gillibrand, 19 million people, something like that; and the State of Senator Merkley--millions of people we serve. It is a privilege to do it. There is no reason our colleagues need to be buying and selling stocks in multimillion dollar portfolios. When asked about the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee conflict of interest rules apply only to staff and to DOD appointees, President Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said, ``I think Congress should live by the rules they impose on other people.''

In the State of the Union Address the President said, ``Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.''

Everything we do in this body, almost everything we do--committee hearings, floor sessions, calls to agencies--affects businesses and the profits businesses make or do not make. That is why Senator Merkley and I are introducing this amendment. It is simple. It is direct. The public should expect nothing else.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to bring up a modified version of amendment No. 1481.

Mr. President, I would just briefly explain that we narrowed the amendment to only cover those who disclose, which means people pretty much making over $120,000 or so. It conforms with the disclosure requirement under the STOCK Act. Our concern is top staff in major decisionmaking positions and sitting U.S. Senators. That is our target, that is our concern, and we wanted to conform it with provisions Senator Gillibrand has put in her legislation subject to the STOCK Act.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Senator Merkley's input and involvement in helping with this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1478.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1481.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the Senator from Maine. I was just asking that they be offered. I was going to speak on them together, but I am certainly willing for a Republican to go next and then I speak about my two amendments together--whatever the Senator from Maine would like.

Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Maine.

Amendments Nos. 1478 and 1481

I will speak in more detail about my amendments later, but now I want to say a few words about each of them.

First, they are consistent with the spirit of the underlying bill--a version of which I cosponsored. I am particularly appreciative to Senator Gillibrand for her good work on this overall issue.

The underlying STOCK Act clarifies that insider trading laws apply the same way to Members of Congress as they do to the rest of the country, pure and simple. It makes sense.

My amendments would also extend generally applicable laws to Members of Congress.

One amendment would apply financial trade disclosure rules to Members in the same way they apply to others, such as corporate insiders, financial advisers, SEC employees. It would narrow the window for disclosure from 30 days down to 10 days. It would make Member disclosure more consistent with rules that require timely disclosure of transactions by corporate directors, officers, and large shareholders. We should do the same more strictly than we have in the past to do the same as they do. Let's hold ourselves to the same standard of openness and shine the light of transparency on our financial trades, if we make them.

The second amendment would extend to Senators the same conflict of interest rules that currently apply to committee staff and executive branch officials. This amendment, which is No. 1481, is coauthored by Senator Merkley of Oregon.

Members of the Senate and staff would be prohibited from owning or short-selling individual stock in companies affected by their official duties. We would still be permitted to invest in broad-based funds or place our assets in blind trusts, as permitted by the Select Armed Services Committee--SASC--rule and Federal regulations.

When asked about the fact that the SASC conflict of interest rules apply to staff and DOD appointees, President George W. Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, said:

I think Congress should live by the rules they impose on

other people.

That is why I am offering these two amendments. It is pretty simple. We vote on a whole range of very important issues in this country. We should not only not benefit from our votes on investments we might have, but it is important that the perception be that when we make decisions, we make them for the good of the country, not for our own financial interests. That is something the public finds pretty distasteful. These two amendments together will help fix that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to take 60 or 90 seconds to discuss the subject that the Senator from Iowa discussed; that is, the appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Protection Bureau. I checked with the Senator's story earlier during this move through the Banking Committee on which the Presiding Officer sits. Never in history has anybody in one party blocked even a vote of a Presidential nominee who is admittedly qualified only because they don't like the agency.

That would be a little like, as Senator Reed from Rhode Island said, refusing to confirm an appointee to run the FDA until the Congress weakens food safety laws. It runs counter to everything we believe. I wasn't insisting that my Senate colleagues all support Richard Cordray, former attorney general from Ohio, who is eminently qualified for this job. We were saying to just let it come to an up-or-down vote.

Instead, the minority party filibustered, stopped that, and the President had no choice but to act because the agency simply could not do its job. Only 2 years ago, this agency was created, this consumer bureau, to have a consumer cop on the beat to keep Wall Street banks and payday lenders and everybody in between honest. It took 60 votes in the Senate, including the Presiding Officer and me, and 58 others, to say this agency should be created and the consumer bureau should be in effect. That is the history of that.

Madam President, I rise today to honor Detective Brandon Moore, of the Morrow County, OH, Sheriff's Department and Ohio's first recipient of the Congressional Badge of Bravery.

Established in 2008, the Congressional Badge of Bravery is an annual award from the U.S. Attorney General to public safety officers who display bravery in the line of duty.

Earlier this month, Congressman Jim Jordan and I had the honor of presenting the award to Detective Moore, along with Morrow County Sheriff Steven Brenneman and sheriffs and law enforcement officers from across central Ohio.

It was an honor to meet Detective Moore--to hear his story of heroism and to see his humility firsthand.

In October 2010, Detective Moore was shot multiple times and nearly killed in the line of duty during an ambush and firefight.

When you hear about what happened, you can imagine the scene.

Then-Deputy Sheriff Moore received a report of neighbors engaged in a property dispute.

He traveled to the scene. But in the course of the investigation, he suspected criminal drug activity in one of the homes.

The story quickly turned to the unimaginable.

One of the neighbors came out of his house with an assault rifle and started firing.

Detective Moore was shot in the groin, leg, foot, and abdomen.

As Detective Moore has described it, the normal reaction of fear, shock, doubt, and panic was overwhelmed by a calmness that only highly- skilled police training could provide.

Severely wounded and laying on the ground--Detective Moore first used his belt to create a tourniquet on his leg. He then shot and disabled his assailant from more than 50 yards away.

In doing so, he saved himself, three civilians, and other officers.

Yet his injuries were so life-threatening that he made the unimaginable call to his wife--Diandra, his high school sweetheart-- explaining what happened, wanting her to know how much he loved her and their children, Alec and Andrew.

Fortunately, help quickly arrived to the scene.

Detective Moore was airlifted to the hospital for multiple surgeries and where he stayed for a month.

Law enforcement from across central Ohio visited the hospital to show their support--speaking volumes of the solidarity of a sacred brotherhood and sisterhood.

Today, Detective Moore is on the road to recovery--well ahead of schedule.

He was told it could take two or three years before he could return to duty. Detective Moore thinks he'll do it in 18 months.

He recently hit one of his goals of running a quarter of a mile without stopping. Before April, his goal is to run half a mile.

And as difficult as the recovery has been for him--he remains grounded by humility and faith, and the love of his family.

Diandra has been with him on every step of the highs and lows of rehabilitation.

To their children, Alec and Andrew, when you're older, you'll understand more than most people, the meaning of duty, love, and faith.

I had the honor of meeting Detective Moore's parents, who raised him and his siblings near my hometown of Mansfield, OH.

His parents--mother Tommie and father Jim--still live there.

Jim is also a police officer--the sense of duty and faith runs deep in the family.

And it's not just for a father seeing a son follow his footsteps-- it's also for a mother seeing both her husband and son put on a uniform to protect the public.

Like much of our great State, Mansfield is a place where you grow up with the values of hard work and fair play--service, community, and faith.

Detective Moore's story illustrates those values as clearly as any.

We ask a great deal from our law enforcement officials--to risk their lives each day and each night.

And while we may never guarantee their safety, in honoring their service we give meaning to their sacrifice.

That's what the Congressional Badge of Bravery reflects--the very character of our Nation that honors those who serve us.

We ask. And as he says himself, guided by faith in God, family, and his fellow officers, Detective Moore gave. And we're all humbled by that service.

Thank you, Detective Brandon Moore. A proud State and grateful Nation continue to offer our prayers and well wishes for you and your family.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 260, S. 1236.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 357 submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 358, submitted earlier today.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 34, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, and I object to my own request.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, January 31, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.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 half and the Republicans controlling the final half, and that following morning business, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 301, S. 2038, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for weekly caucus meetings.

Madam President, we will begin consideration of the STOCK Act during tomorrow's session of the Senate. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

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

Mr. President, we ask a great deal from our first responders, from firefighters, and from police officers to keep our neighborhoods safe from violence and drugs. We ask them to put their lives on the line, to save people from burning buildings, to track down armed criminals. We ask and they give each day and each night. That is why we cannot just honor them through parades, memorials, speeches on the Senate floor, showing up at various kinds of festivals, but we honor them by the priorities we set in our Federal Government, in State legislatures in Santa Fe and Columbus and Atlanta, in city halls, and in county courthouses.

Earlier this year, Ohioans overwhelmingly rejected issue 2, which would have curtailed the ability of first responders, firefighters, and police officers not just to organize and bargain collectively for their wages and their benefits but, much more broadly than that, to have them sit down and negotiate with their employers, with cities, with counties, with the State, and with taxpayers for safety equipment and adequate staffing.

This was a victory for them. The defeat of issue 2 was a victory for hard-working men and women in Ohio. It was the only time in American history when the issue of collective bargaining was on a State ballot for a statewide vote, and voters voted more than three-fifths--61 percent to 39 percent--to preserve collective bargain rates. Again, collective bargaining not just for themselves in terms of wages and benefits but collective bargaining for police officers' safety vests; for firefighters to have the right kind of safety equipment; for teachers organizing and bargaining collectively at the negotiating table for class size. It was way more than about them and that is why the voters of Ohio, in such a resounding number, voted to preserve collective bargaining and what it meant to public employees and what it meant to our way of life for those who are not public employees, and that is at the State level.

At the Federal level we must continue to fight to ensure these brave public servants have the resources necessary to safely perform their jobs. That is because so many give the ultimate sacrifice. In the last 10 years, 47 law enforcement officials representing 35 Ohio agencies were killed while on duty. Forty-seven law enforcement officials were killed while on duty just in a decade.

According to the FBI, 48 law enforcement officials across the country were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2009. More than 57,000 law enforcement officials were assaulted while performing their duties.

This past May during National Police Week, I attended a Greater Cleveland Police Officer Memorial service in Huntington Park in Cleveland. During the service, I met Sara Winfield of Marysville, OH. Sara's husband Bradley Winfield was a deputy in the Marion County Sheriff's Department, a north central community, when he was shot and killed while on duty. In her grief, this widow, with two young sons to care for, has become an advocate ensuring that those who protect us are protected themselves. That is why I cosponsored legislation introduced by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin that would create a national blue alert system aimed at apprehending criminals who injure or kill law enforcement officials.

Modeled after the Amber Alert System used to find missing children, the blue alert system would disseminate critical information about suspected criminals to other law enforcement agencies, the public, and the media. When someone has gunned down a police officer, police departments all over the region, the State, and the country need to know about it. Blue alerts would be broadcast to local media and on messaging signs. It would include a detailed description of the suspect, the vehicle, and other identifying information. It would encourage State and local governments to develop additional protocols to help apprehend suspects.

Eleven States already have such a system, but if it is only on the State level and the perpetrator who killed the police officer escapes to another State that doesn't have it, it doesn't work so well. That is why Senator Cardin's national blue alert bill is so important.

Ohio doesn't have this. I am encouraged that the Ohio Senate recently passed a version of this law. Again, it needs to be national so that it goes

across State lines, and we can obviously do that as police departments are talking to each other more than they ever have through technology.

I spoke to police chiefs from across Ohio like my city of Lorain, OH. Cel Rivera, the chief there, said the blue alert system would be a critical resource to track down criminals and to protect law enforcement. It would be made possible with existing community-oriented policing services such as, the COPS Program funded by the Department of Justice.

I remember 15, 18 years ago when the COPS Program began with President Clinton and the Congress in the 1990s. It made such a difference in helping local communities, small towns, big cities, rural areas, suburbs, to be able to staff up in a better way with community police officers.

It is these types of Federal investments that are so critical for communities facing significant budget shortfalls. Too many communities are forced to make cutbacks in essential services reducing staff size and scaling back investments on safety equipment. These choices are difficult, and they are made with great reluctance. That is why Federal grants such as the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, so-called SAFER grants, or the assistance for the firefighters grant are critical to help communities hire more firefighters as well as recruit and retain first responders. The omnibus bill we are considering now will provide much needed investments that will help communities do that.

While I fight for stronger investments, it is clear every little bit helps. Earlier this week the Chillicothe Fire Department received a funded grant through the AFG Program. It follows the SAFER grant that not only helped hire personnel, it saves lives. Fire Chief Steve Gallacher, whom I have spoken with prior to this, was off duty when he experienced a pulmonary embolism, a blood clot to the lung. Without a grant that kept his neighborhood firehouse open or without the medic who was hired because of the AFG grant, Chief Gallagher says he would have died.

These Federal investments literally helped to save Chief Gallacher's life. According to him, 40 percent of deaths among firefighters occur due to cardiac arrest. He wrote to me:

When I helped write the grant application, I knew that it

would save lives. But I never imagined that one of those

lives would be my own.

With reduced tax revenues, with the increased need of vital public services such as fire and police, it is critical we help our communities carry out the most basic and lifesaving duties. We can keep first responders and firefighters and officials on the job.

We can establish an alert system to warn us when criminals seek to harm law enforcement officials. These are bipartisan actions that can help communities across Ohio and throughout the Nation.

I yield the floor.