[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 149 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6279-S6320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE OVERSIGHT REFORM ACT OF 2011

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1619, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1619) to provide for identification of 
     misaligned currency, require action to correct the 
     misalignment, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 694, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 695 (to amendment No. 694), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 696, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 697 (to (the instructions) amendment No. 
     696) of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 698 (to amendment No. 697), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Just for a clarification, Mr. President, are we in 
morning business or are we on the bill?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are on the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Is 1 hour of time equally divided?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Until 10:30.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So time is equally divided up to that point?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, I would like to make a comment on the Republican leader's 
comments on the tax bill. Just make note, American people, the leader 
says: Do not raise taxes. But he does not mention what our proposal 
actually does. It imposes a 5.6-percent surcharge only on those whose 
incomes are above $1 million. In other words, 99 percent-plus of the 
American people will not have their taxes raised, nor should they.
  Average middle-class people are struggling. Their incomes are 
declining. We should not be doing that. But for those who are the very 
wealthiest--and this is no aspersion to them. I think most of us on 
both sides of the aisle admire people who have made a lot of money. 
Most Americans would like to be in their shoes, and most of them have 
done it the hard way: by coming up with a good idea, struggling and 
working a business. That is great. But they are the one segment in 
society whose income has actually increased significantly over the last 
decade.
  The one consensus we have in this place is that we have to reduce the 
deficit and reduce the budget. The one consensus we have is that we 
have to do that. Well, you are asking middle-class people to chip in by 
making it harder to pay for college because student loans are not as 
good or cutting back on somebody who has been unemployed. They worked 
their whole life, lost their job, and now are unemployed.
  So how do we have the top 1 percent--the one part of society doing 
the best--chip in? Well, the only way is through the Tax Code because 
they do not need help getting their kids to college. They do not need 
health care help. God bless them. They have enough money to do that on 
their own. So this is the only way to do it. If you say no taxes on 
anybody, even the millionaires--which is what, I assume, the Republican 
leader is saying--you are saying the best off in society, who have done 
the best in the last decade, should not contribute to this deficit 
reduction we have to do.
  I believe--and I will say this again and again--the only way we are 
going to get real deficit reduction is by raising revenues as well as 
cutting spending. The only real way we are going to break through on 
raising revenues is making sure those at the highest income contribute 
and contribute more than others when it comes to the tax system.
  I would like to go to the bill at hand, which is S. 1619, the 
currency act. I know my colleagues have heard me on this all week. It 
is passionate for me. It is passionate not as a Democrat or not against 
Republicans. In fact, we have religiously tried throughout--Senator 
Lindsey Graham and I, throughout the history of this bill, which is a 
long one, and the bills before it, their predecessors--we have tried to 
keep this religiously bipartisan.
  In fact, we have five lead Democratic sponsors and five lead 
Republican sponsors. Lindsey and I have opposed Presidents on this 
issue--whether it was the Republican President Bush or the Democrat 
President Obama--with equal vigor because we think administrations get 
too caught up in that highfalutin diplomatic world to understand what 
American companies, particularly middle-sized companies, go through 
when China does not play fair.

  I am on the Senate floor on this bill many times, more often than I 
usually speak, because I believe passionately this is about the future 
of America. If we continue to lose wealth and jobs to China because 
they manipulate trade laws and intellectual property laws and all kinds 
of other economic laws for their own advantage, unfairly--against the 
WTO rules, against the rules of free trade--we may never recover as a 
country.
  This is serious. This is not to gain political advantage, although 
most Americans agree with it, of course. But I would do this if most 
Americans did not, and if editorialists did not, business leaders of 
multinational corporations did not. I do this because when we have 
small companies that are growing that have great products, and China 
unfairly competes with them--not because China's products are better 
but because China's trade allows it to undercut them in our market and 
in the Chinese market--we are giving away our seed corn.
  Take solar cells. China usually uses a one-two punch to hurt us 
unfairly. First, they will use some trade law to get that business in 
their country, whether it is rare earths, and they will say: You want 
these rare earths? You have to manufacture in China. Whether it is 
intellectual property, they just take it regardless of patent laws and 
other laws. Or in the case of solar cells, whether it is unfair direct 
subsidies to companies, they say: You make the solar cells here--the 
Chinese companies--you will get deep subsidies.
  But that alone would not be enough to put our American companies on 
their butts. What happens is, after they unfairly take the business and 
move them there, they send them here at a 30-percent discount using 
currency manipulation. Our American companies--and I have spoken to 
company after company in manufacturing businesses, in service 
businesses, and things in between--say: I can't compete. My product is 
usually better, but not against a 30-percent currency disadvantage. So 
the price of the Chinese good is 30 percent cheaper.
  There is a window manufacturer I just visited, I think it was last 
Friday. He makes high-end windows for these buildings in New York and 
elsewhere. The window he makes is better than the Chinese window. This 
was not a theft of intellectual property. He would not use the Chinese 
windows because he is a contractor as well. He makes the windows, and 
then he installs them.
  He said: I wouldn't use the Chinese product, but because it has a 30-
percent advantage in currency, it undercuts me in price and lots of 
other people use it.
  Now, who would have thought that we are talking about windows? The 
Chinese are competing against us everywhere. High end, middle end, and 
low end. On the low end, frankly, we will never get the businesses 
back. Toys or clothing or shoes, maybe even furniture--except high-end 
furniture--is not coming back.
  The argument that some of these editorialists use, well, they are 
going to go to Bangladesh or somewhere else if China has to raise its 
currency is true, but that is not what we are fighting for

[[Page S6280]]

here. We are fighting for high- and middle-end companies that have 
great products--solar panels, in which America has a future; jobs that 
if China played fairly we would win because we make a better product, 
and it does not have to be exported. Yet we somehow sit here and 
twiddle our thumbs.
  What I was saying about the window guy is, not only now does China 
compete in manufacturing the windows, Chinese companies come here and 
install them. Again, it is still a 30-percent advantage because they 
are paying the Chinese company and workers the yuan, which is 
undervalued by 30 percent over there.
  So this is serious. It is about the future of America, about the 
future of American jobs. We are all concerned about jobs. There are 
very few jobs bills that are, A, bipartisan, and, B, do not cost money. 
This is one of them. It has been a bipartisan bill all the way. The 
votes showed it.
  I see my colleague from Alabama who has been a great partner. I saw 
my colleague from South Carolina who has been a great partner. How else 
in this deadlocked, gridlocked situation can we help American workers 
in a bipartisan way--that does not cost money--in a big way? This is 
it. There are not many others.
  So I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Leader Reid 
said on the Senate floor a few minutes ago what he said last night, 
that he would certainly entertain amendments and come to an agreement--
amendments from both sides of the aisle, relevant, germane amendments, 
relevant to trade. I am sure if we could move on cloture, Senator 
Hatch's amendment--he is the ranking member of the Finance Committee--
which deals with trade would be debated. We would try to have time 
limits. There would be a fair and open debate on an important issue, 
and then we could vote on the bill.
  So I hope we will get a positive vote on cloture this morning, and I 
hope we will--not for political gain or anything like that but for 
American gain. We cannot, cannot, cannot continue to let China flaunt 
the rules.
  Ten years ago or eight years ago, when Senator Graham and I started 
on this issue, China was a much smaller economy. Now they are huge, the 
second largest in the world. They compete against us up and down the 
line. They have found six ways from Sunday to lure businesses there. 
That deals with the Chinese market. But then, with trade currency, when 
the businesses go there, with currency manipulation they are able to 
undercut us and send the goods here.
  Again, to me--and I am just one person and, obviously, I feel this 
issue more passionately than 99 percent of Americans because I have 
been involved in it so long--if we could do five things to restore 
American jobs and restore American wealth, this would be one of them. 
This would be one of them.
  I want to see our children and grandchildren know that they are going 
to have better lives than their parents and grandparents, and it is a 
difficult and tough world to ensure that with global competition, with 
so many changes.
  We were just talking in the gym about how our kids spend so much time 
on video games all day long instead of learning in school.
  There are so many challenges we face as a country. At this time we 
cannot shrug our shoulders and be benign like maybe 20 or 25 years ago 
when we were in a different situation, saying: China cheats; so what. 
Let's not risk any change. Let's not get them mad.
  We cannot afford that anymore. The future of America is at stake. To 
those who say it will cause a trade war, we are in a trade war. We have 
our clocks cleaned every day and lose jobs every day because of unfair 
Chinese practices. To those who say China will retaliate, China has got 
far more to lose in this than we do. They the are ones who benefit from 
all of these rules, we do not--all of these manipulations. They will 
not retaliate. Yes, they may do a little thing here and there, but they 
will not retaliate big time because it will do even more damage to the 
Chinese economy.
  What they will do--Senator Graham and I have seen this, and Senator 
Sessions and Senator Brown--when they are faced with the hard reality 
that they will no longer be allowed by legislation or, I wish, by 
administration action, but that has not been forthcoming from either 
President Bush or President Obama, they then adjust and play fairer. 
That is what has happened every single time, and that will happen 
again.
  I want to first compliment my colleagues on this legislation. I want 
to hope and pray--I pray in this one, me, for the future of America. 
And the future of America is linked to free and fair trade with China. 
The future of America is linked to the fact that we can no longer let 
China unfairly take advantage of American workers, American wealth, and 
the American future.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I rise in support of moving forward on this legislation. 
I wish I could fix the Senate. It is not functioning the way any of us 
wishes--plenty of blame to go around. The Congress's approval rating is 
at 15 percent.
  But here is some good news. There is a piece of legislation before us 
that, if we can ever get a vote on the legislation, would have 
overwhelming bipartisan support that actually would matter to the 
average, every-day person. When you look through your Congress, you 
have got to say: What is it about those folks up there? Why can't they 
do the things that all of us know need to be done?
  There is a difference of opinion about how to deal with China. This 
is a complicated issue. But the one thing no one is telling me on the 
other side: Lindsey, they are not manipulating their currency. I think 
as the American Taxpayers Union--great organization; I am in pretty 
good standing with them. I disagree with them on how to proceed against 
China in this particular instance. I think they said in their own 
letter: We agree, China manipulates their currency.
  Well, if they do manipulate their currency, what does it matter? It 
matters a lot if you are an American business man or woman trying to 
compete in the world marketplace. As Senator Schumer said, the Chinese 
manipulate the value of their currency--6.3 yuan to the dollar; it used 
to be 8-point something. What does that mean? That means if a product 
produced in China is sold in the world marketplace and you are in 
business in South Carolina, Alabama, or New York, competing with that 
Chinese company, the value of their money builds a discount of 30 to 40 
percent. You are going to have a very hard time winning in the 
marketplace, not because you do not work hard, not because your 
employees are inferior, simply because the Chinese Government is doing 
things with their currency we do not do.
  We have a Federal Reserve. Some of their policies I do not agree 
with. But to suggest that our Federal Reserve system manipulates our 
currency to create a trade advantage is ridiculous. If we are doing it 
for that purpose, everybody should be fired, because we have a $273 
billion trade deficit.
  Every country has a right to set monetary policy. That is not the 
issue. If you disagree with the way we are doing monetary policy in the 
United States, I think you have a valid claim. This is about a country 
manipulating its currency for an advantage in the export market. The 
Chinese manipulation of the yuan has cost this country at least 2 
million jobs--41,000 in South Carolina--and it is an unfair trade 
practice in another name.
  If this were an island nation somewhere, none of us would care. But 
this is the second or third largest economy in the world, and all of us 
should care. The people who are opposing this legislation today are 
probably doing business in China and they are afraid to offend the 
Chinese. I have some manufacturing in my State that has a big footprint 
in China. They are nervous about this bill. I have most people in my 
State dying for me to get them some relief so they can stay in 
business.
  But here is a warning: It will come--this movie will come to a 
neighborhood near you soon. In 2016, the Chinese are going to start 
producing, in large numbers, commercial aircraft. It will be difficult 
for American aircraft companies to compete with China if the aircraft 
is 30 percent discounted because of currency manipulation. One day they 
will be producing cars, not to be

[[Page S6281]]

sold in China but throughout the world. If you are in a high-tech 
industry, what has happened to the textile industry and other elements 
of our country such as steel is coming toward you. All we ask of China 
is build cars, build airplanes, but sell their products based on trade 
practices that are accepted throughout the world. Do not manipulate 
your currency to create a discount on products made in your country at 
our expense.
  Since 2004, I have been dealing with this. We started with a sense of 
the Senate because everybody said this is delicate. I buy into that to 
a point. So sense of the Senate, we all agreed with 100 votes: You 
manipulate your currency. Please stop.
  In 2005, after they did not stop, we introduced legislation, got 67 
votes to proceed forward with a 27.5 tariff. We stopped our bill 
because we hoped things would change. Guess what. The yuan has 
appreciated about 31 percent since we have been doing this exercise, 
but not nearly enough. There is a restriction on the yuan trading. It 
cannot float more than 0.5 percent a day. It is tied to the dollar. It 
is still crushing our manufacturing community unfairly.
  So from 2004 to now, I have been reasonable. I have sent message 
amendments, I have taken votes where I won overwhelmingly, and backed 
off. I have had it. Enough is enough. I am sorry the amendment process 
around this place is so screwed up. It is. There was an effort to get 
some amendments up. Not as much as people on our side would like.
  I hate the idea of filling up the tree and becoming the House. But 
this is not about Senate procedure for me. I try to be a team player 
where I can be because I do believe Senator McConnell is doing a very 
good job. Senator Reid has got his own agenda. It is not about Harry 
Reid. It is not about Mitch McConnell. It is not about some rule of the 
Senate. It is about people in my State who are going to lose their job 
if we do not do something.
  I know what I need to be doing as a Senator here. The institution I 
need to be protecting is the American workforce which is having its 
clock cleaned by a Communist dictatorship that cheats. They do not 
outwork us. They do not outperform us. They steal our intellectual 
property. They manipulate their currency. They subsidize their 
industries. A few years ago they dumped steel all over the world--in 
the American marketplace, in particular--produced in China below cost, 
and the Bush administration pushed back with a countervailing duty 
claim.
  I want to do business with China. The Chinese people are good. Their 
government is bad. They are mercantilists. They look at every 
transaction with an eye of what is best for us in the short term. They 
do not play by the rules. Since they have been in the WTO, their trade 
deficit has almost quadrupled. So enough is enough for Lindsey Graham.
  We are going to have a chance, after 7 years, of getting a vote that 
will matter to the American people. I am sorry we are mad at each other 
all the time about everything. I am tired of being mad about the Senate 
not working well. I am going to set aside my displeasure for the 
process and do something I think will help the people I represent. I am 
going to vote to move forward in an imperfect procedural environment, 
knowing that if we can ever get a vote, it will be the best thing that 
could happen to the American manufacturing community. It will be a shot 
across China's bow that is long overdue.

  The last thing I would say is that Senator Sessions has come into 
this issue, and he has brought an intellectual weight to it, emotional 
commitment. He understands the middle class. Jeff Sessions has been the 
best partner anyone could hope to have to try to push a bill forward 
that will give America a fighting chance in a world economy dominated 
unfairly by a Communist dictatorship. I want to recognize what Senator 
Sessions has done. He is going to vote to move forward. We have had it 
with China. Let's do something that will matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I was very interested in the comments of 
the distinguished Senator from New York and my friend from South 
Carolina as well.
  This morning, the Senate will have the opportunity to send a strong 
message to China and the world community. Whether that signal is one of 
inward protectionism or outward engagement remains to be seen. In my 
mind, the choice is clear. If we support the motion to invoke cloture 
on the underlying bill, we will be sending a signal to China that the 
Senate is angry over China's manipulation of its currency, but we are 
not serious about taking real, long-term action to stop it.
  We are also telling the world community that the United States is 
turning inward once again, seeking protectionist solutions to global 
problems, and not interested in working with other countries to solve 
our current international economic crisis. At the same time, we would 
be interjecting further uncertainty into our own economic recovery as 
our exporters and workers face potential retaliation from one of our 
leading trading partners.
  There is a better way, and it can be bipartisan. We can defeat 
cloture and give Senators an opportunity to vote on my amendment, which 
not only has the best chance of actually resolving our serious currency 
problems with China but also demonstrates to the international 
community that the United States will continue to lead by promoting 
trade liberalization and holding countries accountable to the rules of 
the game for the long haul.
  If given the chance to vote on my amendment, we can demonstrate our 
serious commitment to developing long-term and meaningful solutions to 
the persistent problem of currency manipulation. It tells them we are 
committed to starting that process today.
  Yesterday, I outlined some of the serious problems with the 
unilateral approach adopted by the proponents of this bill. Allow me to 
summarize them for the benefit of my colleagues. First, this is not a 
jobs measure. Proponents of the unilateral approach argue that their 
bill will create thousands of jobs right now and millions of jobs in 
the years ahead. But all we have to do is take a close look at the 
numbers and the process laid out in the bill to see this is not the 
case.
  I am also concerned that the bill will inject economic instability in 
a key bilateral relationship and subject U.S. exporters to potential 
retaliation by the Chinese.
  Yesterday, the White House also expressed concerns about this bill, 
though they still have not stated publicly what those specific concerns 
are. I wish they would. It would be helpful to us up here to have the 
White House weigh in and say what they actually want, instead of 
waiting for the Senate to do whatever it wants to.
  A growing chorus has come out to criticize the unilateral approach in 
this bill--a growing chorus. The New York times called this bill ``a 
bad idea'' and ``too blunt of an instrument'' which, if enacted, is 
very unlikely to persuade China to change its practices, while adding 
another explosive new conflict to an already heavy list of bilateral 
frictions.
  The Wall Street Journal called the underlying bill ``the most 
dangerous trade legislation in many years.''
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a letter yesterday stating that 
the unilateral approach in the underlying bill would be 
counterproductive in persuading China to alter its currency practices 
and that ``in the end, such unilateral action would very likely cause 
retaliation by China and ultimately damage the U.S. economy, including 
exporters, investors, workers, and consumers.''
  It does not get any tougher than that.
  Again, there is a better way. My amendment calls for a bold new 
approach which will empower U.S. negotiators to work within the WTO and 
the IMF to develop long-term effective remedies to counter the effect 
of currency manipulation by China or any other country and develop 
practices to persuade countries to stop currency manipulation. If that 
does not work within 90 days, they are directed to go outside of these 
institutions.
  My amendment would also send a great message to both the WTO and the 
IMF.
  My amendment would also establish a new priority negotiating 
objective, so as we negotiate trade agreements with trading partners, 
we should all commit in those agreements to not manipulate

[[Page S6282]]

our currencies. My amendment also ensures that we have a partner by 
holding the administration accountable until they achieve results--and 
that is whether it is this administration or some administration in the 
future.
  This is not a quick fix. But truly resolving complex and longstanding 
problems, such as currency manipulation, will take much more than a 
quick fix. It requires that we stand together as a country and do the 
hard work necessary with the international community to achieve real, 
long-term results.
  Although my amendment was only recently introduced, it is already 
gaining widespread support. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the 
Hatch amendment, arguing that coordinated and multilateral pressure, 
through international organizations, is essential to encouraging China 
to adopt market-determined currency and exchange rate policies. That is 
precisely the approach taken in the Hatch amendment.

       This morning, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, wrote in National Review Online 
     that the Hatch amendment ``is a more complex solution to the 
     [currency] problem,'' and while ``not nearly as sexy or 
     slogan-inspiring as the Currency Exchange Oversight Reform 
     Act . . . happens to have a much greater likelihood of being 
     effectual.''

  Americans for Tax Reform wrote a letter in support of my amendment, 
saying the Hatch amendment ``offers a sensible approach that utilizes 
the mechanisms created by the international trade community to resolve 
such disputes.''
  The Emergency Committee for American Trade says that the Hatch 
amendment ``will more effectively address concerns about currency 
misalignment by China and other countries, without opening the door to 
many harmful effects on U.S. business and workers.'' These and other 
organizations, such as the Retail Industry Trade Association and the 
Financial Services Roundtable, recognize there is a better way. Let's 
quit playing politics with this issue.
  Today, we face a clear choice. By voting against cloture, we can 
stand against unilateralism, stand against protectionism, stand against 
retaliation, and stand against ``quick fix'' solutions and slogans. We 
can then turn to vote on my amendment, one that offers the prospect of 
real long-term and effective solutions, that shows the Chinese and the 
world community we are serious about solving this problem over the long 
haul, and that tells this and subsequent administrations they will be 
held accountable. Even the administration basically agrees with this.
  Today, we have an opportunity to make a difference. The Atlanta 
Journal Constitution wrote this today:

       We have a trade problem with China. But Georgians will pay 
     dearly if Congress keeps taking the wrong approach to solving 
     it.

  I could not agree more. But it is not just Georgians who will pay 
dearly but all Americans.
  I urge colleagues to make the right choice today, to vote against 
cloture and support my amendment.
  I am even willing to give my amendment to the distinguished Senator 
from New York and others--have it be theirs. I don't care who gets the 
credit. When we work on trade issues, I want them to work right. I 
don't want to have politics played with this. This is too important.
  I hope everybody votes against cloture, and I hope we can then take 
up the amendment I have been talking about--and we can refile it, so 
those who feel so deeply about the Schumer amendment can be for 
something. I would like to do that and see this done. I would like to 
see our country move ahead with an intelligent approach toward currency 
and trade.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the majority leader has agreed that if 
cloture is invoked, Senator Hatch's amendment will be one that will be 
voted on. There was an agreement. Other amendments, too, would be 
allowed. I believe the minority has to protect its right to offer 
amendments, consistent with other processes that we have had here that 
I am not happy with. The amendments offered by the majority, I believe, 
are legitimate.
  I am a bit offended, and I don't appreciate the view that this is a 
protectionist piece of legislation. I believe it protects free trade 
because trade can't exist when one party is manipulating the rules in a 
significant way that substantially impacts the balance of trade.
  I will just ask the question: Is former Governor, now Presidential 
candidate, Mitt Romney a protectionist? Governor Huntsman from Utah, a 
Presidential candidate and also former Ambassador to China for 
President Obama, said he would sign this bill if it came before him if 
he is elected President; and Rob Portman, our fabulous new Senator, 
President Bush's former Trade Representative, said he supports the 
bipartisan legislation.
  I don't think it is protectionism. I think it is an effort to protect 
trade. There are some who are religious about free trade; it is a 
religion. They believe that no matter how bad our trading partners act, 
we should not retaliate because that might cause a trade war. I think 
that is not against common sense. Trade is not my religion. I think any 
trading relationship should depend on how well the agreement serves the 
interests of both parties. It is similar to any other business 
relationship. Is it serving the interests of both parties? In this 
trade situation, it is a dramatic factor in the American loss of jobs. 
It is indisputable, in my opinion.
  A group of professors from California said our trade imbalance, over 
the last decade, has cost 10 million jobs. Let me just say we are going 
to have dynamic changes in our economy. That happens all the time, and 
there are winners and losers. We can compete with China and we are, in 
many ways. When we give them a currency advantage as large as this, 
good companies that are capable of competing and being successful are 
being hammered. The middle class in this country is being hammered.
  This has to stop, and we have to ask ourselves: Is this country going 
to abandon its commitment or belief in a manufacturing economy? Are we 
going to give up manufacturing entirely? I don't think that is remotely 
conceivable. We have had brilliant economists tell us we need to be a 
service economy and we can just deal with computers and e-mails and 
move paper around and that this creates growth and wealth. We need a 
manufacturing economy.
  I see Senator Brown, who has been a strong advocate of this. Senators 
Schumer and Graham have been at this for years. I voted for the 
legislation in 2005. I have become energized about this because I 
believe it is a deep responsibility for every government official to 
protect our national security and protect our economic security. When 
we have clear evidence that a predatory trade policy of a major world 
exporter--the largest exporter in the history of the world is China to 
the United States. They are abusing their trade privileges, and the 
administration refuses to act. I say the Congress can and should act.

  I believe this is a reasonable bill. It allows the administration to 
negotiate an end to this matter over a period of time, and it will 
provide the power and the requirement that that happen.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I appreciate the Senator's consistent push for 
fair trade policies. We have worked on Alabama's and Ohio's issues, 
from sleeping bags to steel. I appreciate that. The Senator said how 
important manufacturing is and that we cannot just turn to a service 
economy or we begin to lose the middle class. I appreciate the 
Senator's advocacy there.
  Will the Senator explain, before the debate is wrapped up, what this 
currency depreciation, if you will, by the Chinese does to our economy. 
Senator Merkley explained yesterday that when we export to China, their 
currency advantage--artificial advantage--gets the Chinese a 25-percent 
tariff on our sales to China, making it harder for a Montgomery or a 
Dayton company to sell into China. Coming the other way, it is a 25-
percent subsidy to the Chinese company--or their government's company--
selling in Mobile or Cincinnati. Could the Senator wrap up the debate 
and go through that again--to the point of what currency does to 
manufacturing and the middle class.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If a manufacturing company in Dayton is competing with 
the Chinese company to manufacture a widget, they can, on the currency 
alone, more than have an advantage

[[Page S6283]]

shipping the product from China here--a 25-percent advantage. As we 
know, in modern trade and sales today, margins are very small, and 25 
percent is a huge margin that would be provided by the currency alone. 
Then we have the things that are done in trying to block our companies 
from moving and selling there. To go beyond currency, it adds to the 
price of our goods if we attempt to sell them in China.
  This is not a two-way street. I believe that any rational government 
should not allow its manufacturing industry and its workers to be 
subjected to such unfair practices. We have an absolute responsibility 
to stand up and fix it. The best way to do it is the bill that Senators 
Schumer, Graham, Brown, and others have offered. It will do it in a 
rational, effective way. Other alternatives are less effective and will 
not do the job. It is time for us to do it now.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, what is the time status for the 
majority and minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has no time remaining. The 
minority has 2 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. They are much better at this than we are.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield the 2 minutes to Senator Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. All four of us have spoken. Again, I make a plea to my 
colleagues. We have had 8 months talking about debt, and many have said 
that is the future for our children and grandchildren. I think there is 
a consensus on both sides that is true. I argue that this is also about 
the future for our children and grandchildren, because if good American 
companies with great ideas are wiped out in the next 10 years--as they 
will be if China continues its predatory practices--the future for our 
children and grandchildren in this country will not be bright. Our seed 
corn, our family jewels are being decimated by a plague of unfair 
competition that has been allowed to continue. It is as if we have a 
plague and some of the leaders of this country, whether political or 
economic, shrug their shoulders and say: That is that. We cannot do 
that much about this.
  In a bipartisan way, we have said we can do something about this 
plague. We are at the moment of decision. It is my belief that if we 
pass this in a bipartisan way--as we have to; it is the way the Senate 
works--the House may not take up our bill exactly, but they will do 
something. We will have a conference committee, and we can get 
something done. The odds are quite high that when China sees the train 
heading down the track, when their ability--I have seen the articles--
and I wanted to read some of them into the record--of China urging 
American companies with plants in China to lobby against this bill. But 
when China sees the train heading down the track and that, for the 
first time, their efforts with their multinational allies to stall this 
bill will not succeed, they will adjust and correct themselves, not 
just on currency but on all the other areas where they don't treat us 
fairly.
  So this is an important vote and an important day for America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am here to discuss S. 1619, the 
currency exchange rate oversight bill. I support this bill. Back in 
2007, I helped draft some of the language that is contained in this 
current bill.
  China is a big beneficiary of international trade, yet it fails to 
allow its currency to float freely. As a result, U.S. exporters get 
cheated. It is time we do something to send the message that enough is 
enough.
  I am all for free trade, I want free trade. Free trade helps our 
farmers, manufacturers, and our Nation as a whole. There is talk that 
this bill will cause a trade war with China. I am not convinced that is 
the case. Plus, keep in mind, this bill is about more than China. This 
bill is a much needed overhaul of a law that dates back to 1988. This 
bill puts in meaningful consequences for countries that do not address 
their currency manipulation.
  All of that being said, I have to say I do not support the way this 
bill is being brought to a vote. While I want a vote on this bill and I 
want to vote for this bill, my colleagues should have the right to 
offer and debate their respective amendments. The majority leader's use 
of cloture to prevent the meaningful debate on motions is unacceptable. 
It is more of the same partisan politics that the American people are 
tired of. And in this instance, when there is bipartisan support for 
the bill, the majority leader's heavyhanded approach just doesn't make 
sense.
  That is why, even though I support the currency bill, I am voting 
against cloture. If cloture fails, I sincerely hope we can have a 
meaningful debate and still move toward passage of this important 
legislation.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report 
the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1619, a bill to 
     provide for identification of misaligned currency, require 
     action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Charles E. Schumer, Al 
           Franken, Jeanne Shaheen, Kay R. Hagan, Robert P. Casey, 
           Jr., Richard J. Durbin, Michael F. Bennet, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Carl Levin, Kent Conrad, Jim Webb, Benjamin 
           L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Harkin, Daniel K. 
           Inouye.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
1619, a bill to provide for identification of misaligned currency, 
require action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Cantwell
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). On this vote, the yeas are 
62, the nays are 38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider and lay this matter on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not in order.
  Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if we could have the attention of the 
Senate, we are now 30 hours postcloture. What the Republican leader and 
I would like to do--there is, of course, with what has happened 
procedurally, no opportunity to offer amendments unless we agree to 
offer amendments, except for the issue dealing with suspending the 
rules. What we would like to do is have Senators work to come up with 
some amendments they feel should be offered.

[[Page S6284]]

  Senator McConnell and all of us are happy to see whether we can work 
our way through this. I would hope Senators would check with floor 
staff and see how we can get this done. It would be to my liking to not 
have to spill over into tomorrow. The highest holy day of the Jewish 
faith is tomorrow starting at sundown. There are a number of people who 
wish to leave to be able to be home with their families on that day, 
but we have to finish this legislation this week. I would like to do it 
today if we can.
  People should have an opportunity to offer amendments, give a little 
speech or a big speech--whatever they feel is appropriate--and we can 
vote. I am happy to do that. I have called off the quorum, people can 
talk, and in the meantime the floor staff will be waiting to hear from 
you as to what we can do regarding amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would only add that the practical 
effect of where we are, not having been allowed to offer any amendments 
during the consideration of this bill, is we are left with motions to 
suspend. As the majority leader indicated, we are going to have some 
discussions about how many motions to suspend the majority will, shall 
I say, tolerate. The bad part of all of this from the Senate's point of 
view as an institution is that the minority is put at a substantial 
disadvantage.
  Having said that, as the majority leader indicated, the floor staff 
is going to work together and see whether we can come up with some list 
of motions to instruct that will at least allow the minority to have 
some voice in the course of the consideration of this piece of 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are a number of things we can do. We 
can do the motions to suspend. We are happy on this side to, with 
consent, just do amendments. That is fine over here.
  I don't want to get into a long debate, but I have been in a 
situation during the entire pendency of this legislation to have 
amendments allowed. I said that yesterday. I have no problem with that. 
The problem we had is that the Republican leader offered the 
President's jobs bill in a form that is not the President's jobs bill. 
I told him this morning: If you want to vote on that, fine. We will do 
that. We will have a vote on that today. It can either be a motion to 
suspend the rules or it can be a regular amendment. I feel that way 
about all the motions to suspend that have been filed.
  There are times when I accept the blame of not allowing amendments. 
There are times that certainly I am willing to take that burden of 
being criticized but not on this one. Not on this one. I have said 
publicly and I have said privately to the different Senators, Democrats 
and Republicans, that amendments could be offered. I don't want to get 
into a long debate about that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would my good friend yield for a question? I listened 
very carefully to what the majority leader said. We interact every day. 
What my good friend has just said is that he would be more than happy 
to have amendments he gets to pick. He gets to pick what amendments we 
get to offer. That is not, I would say to my good friend, the view of 
the minority as to how we ought to operate. We ought to be able to 
determine what amendments we are going to offer, not my good friend the 
majority leader. What he is saying, in effect, is, yes, he would be 
prepared to allow us to offer amendments, but he would select which of 
our amendments might be appropriate. That is not a place that the 
minority, no matter which party is in the minority, would like to find 
themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have tried to set up a system here that 
is fair. Fair is in the mind of the person who says ``fair,'' and I 
understand that. We have had an open amendment process here, and that 
has led, because of the intransigence of the Republicans, to getting 
nothing done. Offer an amendment, and there is no way to get rid of it. 
So the system we have on this bill may not be the best in the world, 
but with what has been going on in the Senate, sometimes we do the best 
we can with the tools we have. There was no way of managing this 
legislation other than how I just described it. People can imagine what 
this place would have been like had we had a simple ``anybody can offer 
anything they want''--get the troops out of Afghanistan and on and on 
with all the many things people would have done in this legislation.
  So without ``he said, she said,'' or I guess in this instance ``he 
said, he said,'' I think what we should do is try to finish this 
legislation today. The motion to suspend has been filed. That is fine 
with us. Let's try to work through as many of those as we can and see 
if we can finish this today; otherwise, we will finish it tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would only add the way the Senate 
used to work was the majority didn't pick the amendments the minority 
chose to offer, but there was some ability to determine whether it got 
a vote because any Senator could prevent a time agreement on the 
opportunity to get a vote on an amendment. So it wasn't totally 
freewheeling. Then at some point, if 60 Members of the Senate thought 
we ought to move to conclusion, we would. It was a much more orderly 
and open process, leading to the same result, which is that if 60 
Members of the Senate wanted to end the matter and bring it to a 
conclusion, they could. So my complaint is about what we do before we 
get to the 60 votes, which I think in this particular instance is 
unfair to the minority.
  Now, my party was divided on this issue. Some Members were for it; 
some Members were against it. That meant for sure that at some point 60 
votes were going to be achieved and it was going to pass. The problem, 
I would say to my good friend, is what we did before then, which has 
the practical effect of putting the minority in the position where it 
gets no amendments at all or is, once again, at the sufferance of the 
majority with motions to suspend at the end, in which we are 
basically--the majority determines how many we get, and all of that.
  This level of control is not necessary, in my judgment, in order to 
make the Senate move forward because, I will say again before I yield 
the floor, if 60 Senators are in favor of bringing a matter to a 
conclusion, it will be brought to a conclusion. That is what just 
happened a few minutes ago.
  So I hope we can move forward in a more orderly process in the 
future, and maybe we can work out some agreement to have motions to 
suspend this afternoon that will not require us to be here tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. The Republican leader and I came here about the same time. 
I remember the good old days too. But everyone who follows government 
at all knows that during the last Congress and part of this one, the 
No. 1 goal of Republicans has been to stop legislation from moving 
through here--look at what has happened this year--and they have been 
fairly successful doing that, I have to acknowledge.
  I have said publicly, and I say here today, I admire my friend, the 
Republican leader, because he was very candid with what his goal is in 
this Congress: to make sure President Obama is not reelected. That has 
been their goal. As a result of that, legislation has been very slow 
moving, and we have not been able to legislate as we did in the good 
old days.
  So let's now try, with the situation in which we find ourselves, to 
work through this on a bipartisan basis. This is a good piece of 
legislation. Let's see if we can get through these amendments. I am 
confident we can. We have two outstanding floor managers for both 
Senator McConnell and for me in Gary Myrick and Dave Schiappa. They do 
great work. They are going to try to sift through all of this stuff and 
put us on a pathway they can show Senator McConnell and I will work 
and, if folks agree, we will get out of here today; otherwise, we will 
do it tomorrow.
  Mr. McCONNELL. My good friend referred to ``the good old days.'' The 
good old days weren't that long ago. I can remember just a few years 
ago when my party was in the majority in this body, and I was the 
assistant leader,

[[Page S6285]]

making the point with great repetition while listening to a lot of 
grumbling that the price for being in the majority is, you have to take 
bad votes; you have to take votes you don't like in order to get 
legislation across the floor and finished.
  So this is not ancient times we are talking about where the minority 
actually got votes, took votes, and were not shut out. I hope we can 
move back in that direction. I think it would be a lot better for the 
Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am not going to argue with my friend. The 
record speaks for itself. We know what has happened. I repeat, we are 
where we are today, and that is what we have to do to move forward on 
this most important legislation. I will do my best to cooperate and 
allow the Senators to have votes on issues they believe are important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the motion to 
recommit amendments thereto fall as being inconsistent with cloture.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              the Jobs Act

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, as were many of my colleagues, I was back 
home last week talking, in my case, to Alaskans, and the issues on 
their minds are pretty simple: the economy and jobs. Alaska has fared 
better than most States over the last 2 years, but no matter where I 
go--maybe a small convenience store, while I am driving around town or 
at Home Depot, a gas station, or wherever I may get a chance to engage 
with Alaskans--people are concerned about the economy and the ability 
for jobs to be created in this great country of ours.
  Alaskans know the economy will take some time to turn around. That is 
why today I am pleased to talk a little bit about the jobs act before 
us this week and, hopefully, while moving forward we will spend some 
time on the debate about how important this work will be.
  Last week when I was in Alaska, I had Transportation Secretary LaHood 
in Alaska, and we had a chance to travel around and get a good sense of 
what is important to Alaska with regard to ports, roads, airports, and 
rail. The core infrastructure of our State is no different than any 
other State. It is critical that we repair, put into shape, some of the 
facilities that are falling apart or, in some cases, expand them. The 
jobs act alone would mean $200 million to repair Alaska's 
transportation network.
  As one can imagine, that $200 million will be spent in the private 
sector by construction companies and contractors hiring private 
individuals, workers to work on those jobs--good-paying jobs to provide 
good incomes for their families. The same is true that the jobs act 
will offer for Alaska around $62 million for school construction.
  As I travel around my State--and I am sure for many other States--the 
need is strong for improvements to and expansion of schools for those 
that have been there for many years and have not had the renovations 
necessary, again, providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs.
  The jobs act also has some good steps to deal with small businesses--
how to ensure they get a break off their taxes, to ensure they have a 
benefit as we try to move this economy forward. The tax provisions, the 
payroll tax reduction, which would affect 20,000 Alaska businesses in a 
positive way, will reduce their tax burden, as well as working 
families, who will see a reduction in their payroll taxes.
  On average, for a middle-class family, it would be almost $2,000--not 
a bad gift, in a sense, as we move into this holiday season. But it is 
really their money. Giving back this $2,000 to middle-class families 
means they will put it into the economy. They will spend it in the 
economy. They will use it as they see fit.
  However, I wish to lay down a marker. As I have said, the jobs bill 
is important for the roads and water and sewer and ports that need to 
be repaired and renovated and expanded, the schools that need to be 
built or expanded and repaired also, as well as the benefits to our 
small business community and the benefits to our middle-class working 
families--all important. But how we pay for it is also important 
because we have to make sure it is paid for. But I wish to put down a 
marker on at least the first proposal that was laid down regarding how 
the President was planning to pay for this.
  Let me first start with the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas 
industry for Alaska is about 85 percent of our economy in the sense 
that the money goes into our State treasury and provides well over 
40,000 jobs. Nationwide, the oil and gas industry produces over 9 
million jobs and contributes over $2 trillion to our economy.
  I know some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle like to blast 
Big Oil. But as we know, the oil and gas industry is made up of 
hundreds, well over 500 companies of all sizes--small, medium-sized, 
and large. Singling out a growing industry and imposing a tax penalty, 
in my view, is the wrong choice. It is the wrong road to go down. We 
need to recognize the potential for more job creation instead by 
supporting increased domestic oil and gas development.

  By developing Alaska's Arctic offshore resources alone, we can create 
over 50,000 jobs nationwide over the coming decade, jobs being created 
right here in our country. As an example, 400 jobs just in Washington 
to upgrade the Kulluk drilling unit which will be utilized in Alaska or 
the 1,000 jobs in Louisiana to build a new Arctic supply ship right 
now.
  So when we look at the potential, and when we look at the 
opportunities in the Arctic for oil and gas development, it creates 
American jobs, American jobs not only in the Arctic in Alaska but also 
throughout the country where many of the facilities or the material 
utilized is located to construct what is needed, such as in Washington 
State and Louisiana, as I mentioned.
  Also, Federal revenue would be generated. The Chamber of Commerce has 
estimated that developing and increasing production on Federal lands 
could produce well over $200 billion in new revenues to our country.
  An Alaska analysis puts the Federal revenues just for Beaufort and 
Chukchi Sea at $160 billion. For those who are not familiar with where 
those are, those are just above the North Slope in the Arctic. These 
have a potential of well over 24 billion barrels of oil development in 
the known technically recoverable reserves today--upwards to 24 
billion, 26 billion.
  I will tell you I do support--and I understand in the original 
proposal they wanted to take away some of these tax incentives that 
help our industry move forward, especially the smaller companies to 
expand exploration and development. I recognize that tax reform needs 
to be done, and I am a strong supporter of tax reform. Senator Wyden 
and Senator Coats and I have supported a piece of legislation that is 
all about tax reform. I believe in a holistic proposal, not just 
selective industries. So do not get me wrong. Do I believe in tax 
reform? Do I believe in trying to clear out loopholes and incentives 
that are not working or may be used improperly? Absolutely. Again, that 
is why we supported a much broader perspective. But in pay-fors or tax 
proposals to pay for the jobs bill, this is not the right approach.
  Another concern I have is on aviation. Alaska has 6 times more pilots 
and 16 times more aircraft per capita than any other State in the 
country. Alaska has limited road infrastructure. Eighty percent of our 
communities are accessed not by roads but by water or air. So it is 
critical we have the right kind of aviation system.
  General aviation is not a luxury in Alaska, it is a necessity. It is 
our highway in the sky. That is the utilization of our airlines and 
small planes. The general aviation component is critical for business, 
life safety, moving things from one village to another.
  One piece of the President's jobs bill would change the way 
businesses can treat the depreciation of general aviation aircraft and 
create a disincentive to buy American-made aircraft and further depress 
an industry that has already felt a significant impact due to the 
recession.

[[Page S6286]]

  The administration and Congress should not be demonizing legitimate 
business travel. General aviation is more than just business jets. I 
know we like to read about it and see it in papers and that is what 
people like to highlight. But in Alaska it is about moving from one 
community to the other. This would impact the turbo-prop aircraft which 
are the workhorses for Alaska's general aviation fleet.
  Another administration proposal would impose a $100-per-flight user 
fee on certain general aviation aircraft. This is not a wise or even 
cost-effective way to administer a tax. General aviation users pay 
their fair share now. They pay for the aviation system through a per-
gallon tax on their aviation fuel.
  As a matter of fact, the general aviation industry has even agreed to 
a modest increase in this fuel tax as part of the FAA, Federal Aviation 
Administration, reauthorization bill which passed the Senate earlier 
this year. It shows their commitment to pay their fair share, but in an 
efficient way, and also puts it back into aviation, which is what in 
our State is, again, as I said, the highway in the sky to move goods 
and people all across our State. Again, I think the idea the 
administration has of a $100-per-flight user fee is just another 
burden, another fee, another tax that is not necessary and very 
inefficient.
  As we think about job creation and what is going on, the other piece 
of this I am concerned about as to the taxes that are associated with 
this idea of the jobs bill--which I support elements of, as I 
mentioned; very important--but the issue when it comes to limiting the 
itemized deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest 
for families earning over $200,000, again, I think this is not a well-
founded idea. I recognize the administration is trying to find ways to 
pay for things, but this is not, in my view, a good idea or a smart 
move.
  When we think of a family, some might say: A family making $200,000 
is wealthy. I will tell you, if they have a couple kids in school and 
are trying to figure out their future, after they figure out the 
deductions, their health care costs, and everything else, $200,000 
disappears very quickly. We need to ensure that the deductions for 
mortgage interest and charitable contributions continue for these 
middle-class families at the level they can take a benefit from.
  So for those three or four items I have a concern with the way the 
pay-fors or the tax increases to pay for the jobs bill are being 
handled. I know there is new discussion. I am glad there is new 
discussion because it would be difficult for me to support any jobs 
bill with a pile of these new taxes or tax increases that are being 
proposed. This would not be in the interest of my constituents in 
Alaska. It would not be in the interest of my industries that work hard 
in Alaska, creating jobs not only in our State but across this country.
  I agree we need to do what we can to have a jobs bill, but let's have 
a fair pay-for in order to pay for it, not these additional taxes that 
I think would be a burden on working families and small businesses.
  Mr. President, I would like to digress for one last second before I 
yield the floor to speak on another issue. It is always enjoyable. I 
read every business newspaper I can. I try to read every business 
magazine I can. I want to absorb as much information as I can when I am 
here in Washington during the sessions and workweeks and then when I go 
back home, hearing from individuals. But it is amazing to me--and I 
know on the Senate floor we have our philosophical debates. We saw some 
of that just a little bit ago on the old days versus the new days. I 
have never seen the old days. I have been here only 3 years, and this 
place has not run very well in the sense of trying to get things up and 
dealt with.
  But I will tell you, Mr. President, some of the positions you have 
taken and I have taken and many on this side of the aisle have taken 
have been a lot of votes that have helped move this country forward. I 
will tell you one specifically which is about the auto industry.
  As I was sitting here waiting for the debate, I was looking through 
these articles. Here is one from yesterday from the Wall Street 
Journal, which is not the most liberal newspaper, to say the least. But 
if we recall, a couple years ago we made a decision that we were going 
to take some risk, we were going to try to move the country forward, 
save an industry that was struggling that employed people in this 
country and was competing worldwide.
  Folks on the other side said we were going to create a disaster by 
our actions, we would destroy the economy, we would sink this industry. 
The list went on and on--all the complaints. But as I read the headline 
in the Wall Street Journal from yesterday, it reads: ``Automakers Now 
Import Jobs.''
  ``Import jobs,'' what does this mean? This means they are bringing 
jobs back to this country. They specifically mention Japan and China.
  Now, 3 years ago, I could read a different headline: Auto Industry on 
Their Deathbed, never going to survive. Maybe we would only have one 
auto company left. We now have three. Actually, if we look at the 
numbers, Chrysler is 27 percent up over the previous year in sales; GM, 
20 percent up; Ford, 9 percent up. The American auto industry is doing 
well because of what we did here.

  Some called it a bailout. I disagree. What we did was partner with 
industry to help them get over the hump, the recession, the struggle. 
They are paying back every dime the Federal Government loaned them, and 
they are profitable. They are hiring people. They are growing the 
industry, and they are bringing jobs back to this country.
  I would say the policy we had--despite the naysayers, the negative 
attitudes people had on the other side--worked. Maybe the Wall Street 
Journal is wrong, but I do not think so because I have seen article 
after article that states the same. I can point to many others.
  Is it as robust as we want in the economy? No. Can it do better? 
Absolutely. That is why the jobs bill is important--important for my 
State, important for every State, investing in the issues that matter: 
water, roads, sewers, electrification, schools, you name it, putting 
money back into taxpayers' pockets instead of the IRS taking it and 
hoarding it, putting it back where it counts. That is what the jobs 
bill does.
  We have disagreements on how to pay for it. I think we are going to 
get to a better solution because several of us--more the moderate wing 
of the Democrats--are arguing that we cannot have these selective taxes 
the way they are laid out in the proposal presented by the President. 
We need to have a more simplified system and pay for it in a different 
way but not penalize certain companies because maybe we do not like 
them or it creates a great headline. But let's focus on the right way 
to do this.
  I anticipate we will be able to have a different pay-for, a different 
proposal on how to pay for a great potential to bring more jobs back. 
But I end on that note only because I want to make sure--I know we are 
going to hear more naysaying, but the bottom line is the proof is in 
the pudding. That article I just read from gives us that.
  Mr. President, I, again, thank you for the time and the opportunity 
to say a few words about the jobs bill, my concern, where I want to lay 
my marker down, but also to speak about the success we have had on 
taking some votes that were tough votes and the success we have had to 
move this economy forward--not as fast as we all would like, but better 
than I think what the folks said on the other side who just say nay, 
say no to everything.
  So let me end there, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor back and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Unemployment Crisis

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this country faces many problems. But I 
think if we go out on Main Street, if we go out to rural America, if we 
go to my State of Vermont, what people will tell us is, the major 
crisis we face is we have a massive problem with unemployment.
  Some people will suggest that unemployment is 9 percent in this 
country.

[[Page S6287]]

That is not quite accurate. If we look at the numbers for those people 
who have given up looking for work, if we look at the numbers for those 
people who are working part time when they want to work full time, we 
are looking at a situation where 16 percent of the American people are 
unemployed or underemployed. That is 25 million Americans.
  The job of the Congress now is to start putting those people back to 
work. That is what we have to do. There is an enormous amount of work 
that needs to be done. Virtually every American who gets into his or 
her car understands that our infrastructure is crumbling; that is, 
roads and bridges. Talk to mayors all over Vermont and in the United 
States of America, and they will say they are having major problems 
with their water systems. If we look at our rail system in this 
country, it is way behind Europe, Japan, and China. We need to rebuild 
public transportation and have a 21st-century rail system.
  So if you put people to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, 
rebuilding our transportation system, you are going to make the United 
States of America more productive, you are going to make us more 
competitive internationally, and you are going to create the millions 
of jobs we desperately need. It is stunning to me that we have not 
moved aggressively in terms of job creation. That is exactly what we 
have to do.
  If we put $400 billion into infrastructure, we can create millions 
and millions of good-paying jobs, we can make our country more 
productive and more internationally competitive. Every single year we 
are importing and spending about $350 billion on foreign oil, bringing 
that oil in from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries. As we move 
to energy independence, as we break our dependence on fossil fuels, 
moving to energy efficiency and sustainable energy such as solar, wind, 
geothermal, biomass, we can create millions more jobs.
  It seems to me at a time when the middle class is disappearing, at a 
time when poverty is increasing to a record-breaking level, at a time 
when people in every section of the country are saying we need to put 
our people back to work, now is the time to do that.
  Last year I introduced the concept which said, let's have a surtax on 
millionaires. The reason I said that is the wealthiest people in this 
country are becoming wealthier. Their real effective tax rate is the 
lowest in decades. I am very pleased to see that the Democratic 
leadership is moving forward in that direction.
  As we create the jobs we need by rebuilding our infrastructure, by 
transforming our energy system, it is absolutely appropriate that at a 
time when the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is 
getting wider that we ask the wealthiest people in this country to help 
us fund job creation so we can pull the middle class out of the 
terrible recession they are suffering.
  I think the job is a major jobs program now for our country, rebuild 
our infrastructure, transform our energy system, ask the wealthiest 
people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. Let's 
end many of these tax loopholes and breaks that large corporations 
have. We can fund a serious jobs program and put millions of our people 
back to work, which is something we absolutely have to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) The Senator from Missouri.


                             Jobs Creation

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, as we discuss what we should be talking 
about--how to get more people back to work--there are a lot of 
different approaches on how we get there. But I hope we can reach the 
decision that we need to do the things in government that allow private 
individuals to make the decisions they make to create jobs. Our Federal 
debt has reached, of course, a record high. It continues to grow every 
day. National unemployment is lingering around 9 percent. Home prices 
have plummeted in almost every community in America. Gas prices and 
health care costs have skyrocketed.
  On the energy issue my friend from Vermont was talking about, the 
shortest path to more American jobs is more American energy. I am not 
opposed to any of the green jobs he was talking about. I wish to see us 
have all of those jobs, if they can eventually be a competitive part of 
an energy environment. I think they can. But I think we should also 
focus on the jobs that power America today.
  Even if we knew what the country was going to look like energywise 30 
years from now, it would take a long time to get there. I am for more 
American energy jobs of all kinds. For 50 years we have not met the 
marketplace need with what we could produce. But the marketplace need 
is always there. It is always there in a bad economy, it is always 
there in a good economy. Let's meet that need. Certainly that can mean 
more solar and more wind and more biofuels and more anything else we 
can think of. It also needs to mean more shale gas and more shale oil, 
more using the fossil fuel deposits such as coal that we have as we 
move toward a different energy future, and to do that in a way that 
allows us to continue to be competitive.
  If our utility bill doubles in the middle of the country where the 
Presiding Office of the Senate today and I are from, we are not as 
competitive, and I don't think we lose the jobs we lose to 
Massachusetts or to California. I think we lose those jobs to places 
that care a whole lot less about what comes out of the smokestack than 
we do.
  At the same time, jump-starting our economy will require 
bipartisanship. If we are going to compete in a global economy and help 
create economic opportunities, we have to be willing to work together. 
This week we saw a long-awaited but still a real example of that kind 
of bipartisanship when President Obama submitted the three pending 
trade agreements. They have been pending for 3 years and we have lost 
opportunities in those markets for 3 years. But in fairness to the 
President, for at least the first 2 of those 3 years, the House of 
Representatives would not have passed these agreements. But they would 
pass them now, and they will pass them now, and so will the Senate--I 
am hopeful as early as next week. That creates opportunities in 
Missouri, where I am from, and across the country.
  I have worked closely with our colleagues. Senator Portman and I put 
a letter together from Republicans who told the White House we are 
willing to work on the trade adjustment assistance as part of the 
package, if that is what it takes to get these trade agreements sent to 
the Capitol. And we did. Those trade adjustment agreements have now 
passed the Senate and are ready to move forward with the trade bills. 
These free-trade agreements would mean an additional $2\1/2\ to $3 
billion in agricultural exports every year. Every billion dollars of 
agricultural exports is an estimated 8,000 new jobs. These are the 
places where we can get the jobs: trade, travel, tourism, energy. This 
is not that complicated a formula, but the government cannot continue 
to stand in the way of all of those things moving forward.
  In Missouri, exports accounted for 5.4 percent of our gross domestic 
product in 2008. Companies in our State sold products in nearly 200 
foreign markets. Since 2002, exports have increased three times faster 
than the rest of our economy. That is one State in the middle of the 
country working to be competitive in the world.
  The passage of these trade agreements will increase trade for 
soybeans, for beef, for corn, for pork, for dairy products, for 
processed food, for fish, all of which we produce in our State, plus 
all kinds of manufactured products which in South Korea, in Colombia, 
and Panama, given the choice of two products on the shelf, the American 
product is still a product that consumers in those countries will 
choose even with some disadvantage. Imagine what will happen when we 
eliminate more of that disadvantage.
  This week the bill on the floor--I think this bill that concerns me 
about managing China currency, but only if the President does not 
disagree with what the Congress has passed--has much greater potential 
to start a trade war than it does to solve any given problem. I am not 
here to defend the Chinese or its leaders or its trade practices. In 
fact, one of those practices where you make a product in China and 
there is already a finding that that product is somehow unfairly being 
imported or exported in the WTO agreements, and so you put another a 
label

[[Page S6288]]

on it that says it is from somewhere else, sometimes called 
transshipment, Senator Wyden and I have a bill, the ENFORCE Act, that 
would deal with that, and it deals with that specifically, directly, 
and actually will produce a result. I look forward to that bill being 
on the floor.

  I am proud to cosponsor Senator Hatch's alternative to the bill that 
is on the floor this week that, in fact, is multilateral. It involves 
other countries plus the WTO, plus the IMF, in a discussion that might 
actually produce a real result of what the various countries in the 
world, including China, are doing as they manage their currency in ways 
that may not be found to be fair in the foreign marketplace.
  But we need results. We do not need legislation purposes of using up 
time when we have so many important things we could be doing. I have 
cosponsored the Affordable Footwear Act with Senator Cantwell. That 
will ease the tax burden on American consumers who unknowingly pay up 
to 40 percent duties on retail costs that cover this import duty or the 
shoe tax on shoes made outside the United States. All of those bills 
represent ways we can level the playing field for American workers, for 
American job creators, and spur economic growth right here at home.
  Another topic we should be focused on is Federal regulation and 
regulation that simply does not make sense. I have met lots of job 
creators in Missouri even this year, and certainly in past years. But 
this year more than any other, they want to talk about the regulators. 
They want to talk about the air rules, the utility MACT rule, the 
cross-State air pollution rule, that could cause as much as 15 percent 
of our coal-producing energy plants to shut down. When they shut down, 
that means the price goes up. I know it is a philosophy of many in the 
current administration that our problem is that our energy is not 
expensive enough, but I do not find any Missouri families who are 
sitting down at the kitchen table looking at their utility bill and 
saying, the problem here is this bill is not high enough. What we need 
to do to solve our energy problem is raise this. Nobody is saying 
that--even though the cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House 
in 2009 would have doubled the utility bill in Missouri in about 12 
years.
  A lot of things work at today's utility bill that do not work later. 
Under the new EPA regulations on cross-State air pollution, the Ameren 
Electric Company announced that they will be forced to close two of 
their coal-fired plants by the end of this year. Not modify, not redo, 
close. The only thing that makes sense is to close those plants. The 
people who get the utility bill will know those plants are closed 
because they are going to be paying a higher price. Electric rates 
could rise 20 percent in some areas in a very short time.
  Fugitive dust. There is actually a rule the EPA is talking about 
where farmers cannot let dust from their farm go to another farm. I was 
raised on farms and around farms. You cannot farm without dust. You 
cannot harvest a crop without dust. You cannot farm in the mud. You 
cannot contain the dust that is part of farming. It is the kind of rule 
that simply does not make sense.
  There is a rule on boilers that would impact universities and 
hospitals as well as sawmills and other facilities that generate their 
energy from industrial boilers.
  There is a cement regulation.
  We are not going to have the kind of recovery we want in this country 
without a recovery in housing.
  The House recently passed a bill that would require the 
administration to evaluate the economic toll of the new EPA rules on 
cement and other industries. The House also is set to take up a bill 
that would delay the cement rules for at least 5 years. You are not 
going to have a construction industry if you do not have access to 
products that make sense to build things out of.
  I have said for some time that we ought to have a moratorium on all 
of these regulations. In fact, I am cosponsoring Senator Collins' bill 
to call a timeout on new major regulations and give employers the 
certainty that they need to create new jobs in an environment that they 
understand what it is going to be like as those jobs have a chance to 
become permanent jobs.
  This is an easy solution to help job creators. But instead, we are 
talking about the jobs bill. Almost all of the President's speeches on 
the jobs bill are in politically competitive States. I am wondering if 
that is not a 2012 political strategy instead of a 2011 legislative 
strategy.
  There are 1.7 million fewer American jobs since the President signed 
the first stimulus bill into law. We do not need stimulus 2. We need to 
do the things that encourage private sector job creators to create 
private sector jobs. Let's vote on the bill. Instead of this debate we 
are having this week on China currency, let's vote on the President's 
bill. He said in, I think, Dallas last Tuesday, late morning in Dallas: 
Let the Senate at least vote on the bill. So the minority leader, 
Senator McConnell, came to the floor and said, let's vote on the bill. 
We are ready on our side. Let's vote on the bill. Let's get beyond the 
``pass the bill,'' let's see if the votes are there to pass the bill so 
we can get to the things that will get the country going again.
  These regulations and this talk of higher utility bills and higher 
taxes put a big wet blanket on the entire economy. This discussion of 
who we are going to be puts a big wet blanket on the entire economy. 
Let's take that blanket off and do the things at the government level 
that allow private job creators to do what they can to create private 
sector jobs. I hope we can get on with the business the country needs 
to get done.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the issue 
of creating jobs in America--more specifically, the loss of jobs that 
has been driven by the unfair trade practices of China. The bottom line 
is this: Chinese manipulation of currency is a tariff on American 
products and a subsidy to Chinese exports, greatly disadvantaging 
manufacturing in America and destroying thousands of American jobs.
  When we look at our challenge, it is not to simply strengthen the 
overall economy, often measured by the gross domestic product. Our 
challenge is to strengthen the American family, the financial 
foundations that depend upon a good living-wage job. So every proposal 
we consider should be weighed by whether it creates jobs or destroys 
jobs. That is true in times of a robust economy. It is particularly 
true now when we have a persistent high unemployment rate, when 
families have been battered not just by the loss of jobs but by the 
loss of equity in their homes, by the loss of their health care that 
went with their jobs, by the loss of their retirement savings--all of 
these at a time when the price of things fundamental to families keeps 
going up.
  There are many who looked to the opening of China as an opportunity 
to have a vast market for American products. Indeed, many continue 
today to talk about China in terms of the market opportunities for 
American products. But the picture has changed dramatically over the 
last decade, and we, as policymakers here in the Senate, must recognize 
that change: that China has become a vast manufacturing enterprise, 
that it has done so through a deliberate manufacturing and export 
strategy, and that strategy is destroying jobs in the United States of 
America.
  Over the last 10 years, China has reaped benefits, but it has not 
upheld its end of the bargain. Indeed, one piece of the deal is that 
they would create a rule of law that they would enforce restrictions on 
the theft of intellectual property. But I can tell you that when we 
took a bipartisan delegation to China earlier this year, led by the 
majority leader, company after company told us the stories of their 
products being stolen by Chinese enterprises, and not just the design 
of their products that were then replicated and sold without the 
appropriate patents but also the software.
  If you want a simple example of this, take Microsoft Windows and its 
products and its Office suite. Only about

[[Page S6289]]

half of the copies used by the official government in China are legal 
copies, and outside of the government, only a very small fraction of 
the copies are legal copies. That is just the beginning of the vast 
intellectual theft where China has not upheld its end of the bargain to 
create a rule of law and stop the outright thievery of American 
intellectual property, damaging American companies.
  Second, we have the Chinese-pegged currency. Now, when a country pegs 
its currency to another, as they have their currency to the dollar, 
they can do so and adjust it periodically according to market 
influences; they can decide to end the pegging and let it float, which 
then you get a real market valuation or they can deliberately keep 
printing money to sustain a situation in which the currency is 
undervalued. And that is exactly what China has done. When they make 
their currency cheap, what they do is make their products much less 
expensive to other nations. That is equivalent to subsidizing their 
exports. When they make their currency cheap and make dollars very 
expensive, it is equivalent to putting a tax on American products, a 
tariff on American products.
  While much of America has thought of the World Trade Organization as 
one that created a platform for free trade or even a level playing 
field, that is far from the truth. The truth is that China has been 
allowed to sustain a pegged currency that puts the equivalent of a 25-
percent tariff disadvantage to American products and a 25-percent 
subsidy to Chinese products.
  There are those in this Chamber who have come to this floor and said 
that to challenge the Chinese tariff on American products is to launch 
a trade war. My friends, do you not realize that the Chinese tariff on 
America is a trade war and that they are winning this war and they are 
destroying American jobs while vastly increasing their own production? 
If not, please go to China and talk to American companies and talk to 
the American companies that have been shut down in America. We have 
lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 1998, a little bit over a 
decade. Not all of that is the consequence of Chinese practices, but a 
great amount of it is.
  We must not stand by trying to pretend that the world is one way and 
that China represents solely a market and not a manufacturing 
competitor when the truth is they are a fierce competitor using 
industrial policy and a pegged currency to outcompete American 
products, to penalize American products.
  In terms of the currency manipulation, our Secretary of the Treasury 
said this:

       Whatever your definition of manipulation is, what matters 
     is the currency is undervalued. They are intervening--

  Referring to China--

     to hold it down. That adversely affects our economic 
     interests, and there is an overwhelmingly compelling economic 
     case for the world, for China's trading partners, for China, 
     for us, to try to alter that basic practice.

  Well, certainly we have the Secretary of the Treasury echoing that we 
have a challenge that is hurting America and that we need to respond to 
that challenge. That is why we have this bill on the floor addressing 
the Chinese manipulation of currency.
  This is not the only strategy China uses. They also, through their 
use of rules, use a strategy of holding down interest rates below the 
inflation rate. This means any Chinese citizen who puts their money in 
a state-controlled bank--and that is the only option they have--loses 
value every year on that money. This is sometimes given the fancy name 
of ``financial repression'' by economists--where they repress or hold 
down the interest rates. But let's call it something a little more 
understandable: insurance rate manipulation. That is done in order to 
allow the central bank--the Chinese banking system--to reap great 
revenues, which they can then take to subsidize their manufacturing. 
They do this through a series of grants and through a series of 
subsidized loans.
  An American entrepreneur was in my office the morning before 
yesterday talking about how an individual he knows went to China and 
started out negotiations with China, where they offered him a 3-percent 
interest rate on money to operate his enterprise. They ended up 
offering a negative 3-percent interest rate. In other words, they would 
pay him to take the money in order to bring that manufacturing to 
China. In other words, take his plant out of the United States and 
bring it to China. They would pay him to do that. That is a vast 
subsidy.
  That is not the only subsidy. The grants, the subsidization of water 
costs, and the subsidization of electricity--all these subsidies--have 
a big impact. If we go to the WTO Web site, we will see how it 
summarizes the structure of the WTO. Under the section called 
``Subsidies,'' they note:

       [Subsidies] are prohibited because they are specifically 
     designed to distort international trades, and are they're 
     therefore likely to hurt other countries' trade.

  So the plan was, when subsidies were used deliberately to distort 
international trade, they would be outlawed. Guess what. China is 
ignoring this. China is flaunting this. They are required to disclose 
each and every year all the subsidies they provide to their 
manufacturing, and they do not do it. They did it once in 2006, a very 
minimal disclosure.
  Why is it we continue to believe we have a structure that facilitates 
mutually beneficial trade in the WTO when China, through currency 
manipulation and direct subsidies to exports, is breaking every key 
aspect of the WTO framework with hardly a protest from the United 
States?
  We have on the floor a bill which says we will no longer turn our 
head from the deliberate distortion of the international trading regime 
that was supposed to benefit both nations but, in fact, has become a 
powerful international tool for stealing jobs from the United States of 
America and undermining the success of the American worker.
  Let's take a look at paper. Just a few months ago, Blue Heron, a 
company that has operated for nearly a century in Oregon, shut down. It 
is a paper company. They shut down for one simple reason: because the 
Chinese currency manipulation and the Chinese direct subsidies to those 
who manufacture paper for export in China completely undermined the 
market for manufacturers in the United States. So the lives of these 
American workers are destroyed. The workers owned Blue Heron. When they 
got notice they were going to have to shut down because of these 
Chinese subsidies and Chinese currency manipulations, they basically 
were completely out on the street--no health care after the Friday they 
shut down, no severance payment. Indeed, they are having to start from 
scratch--workers who are 40, 50 years old starting from scratch--in an 
economy where there are no jobs to be found. But they are not alone. 
Paper companies across the United States have been shutting down for 
exactly the same reasons.
  Let's take the case of wind turbines. Wind turbines imported into 
China are subject to a 10-percent tariff, while wind turbines imported 
into the United States are subject to only a 2\1/2\-percent tariff. Why 
do we--on top of everything else I have noted--add to the injury by 
putting a lower tariff on their imports than they put on ours?
  Can someone in this Chamber explain to me why shutting down 
manufacturing in the United States and opening manufacturing in China 
and piling on lower tariffs on a country that is already subsidizing 
its exports and already putting a tariff on ours makes any sense? I 
certainly would be very interested in that explanation. I think the 
workers in an industry that would otherwise be manufacturing these wind 
turbines in the United States would be very interested in the 
explanation.
  China doesn't give our wind turbines a fair chance to be used in 
their energy products. Let me read this quote from 2009 regarding the 
award of contracts on Chinese projects.

       . . . all multinational firms bidding on National 
     Development and Reform Commission projects [were] quickly 
     disqualified on technical grounds within 3 days of applying.

  In other words, a nontariff barrier in China was added, on top of 
everything else, to make sure that only Chinese manufacturers would 
have a chance to get the contracts.
  Let's turn to solar--solar voltaic panels. The whole technology was 
invented in the United States, but we can see that over the last 3 
years the tremendous subsidies to solar in China are destroying the 
American industry. One of the few remaining manufacturers is

[[Page S6290]]

SolarWorld. It is located in my State--the State of Oregon. In the span 
of less than 10 months--from 2009 to 2010--three major manufacturers 
shut down, destroying hundreds of jobs--jobs that would not be 
restored.
  SolarWorld is incredibly efficient. They are working with American 
technology. We should be building and selling these solar panels to the 
world, but we aren't going to be able to do so if China--using their 
manipulated interest rates to produce funds for grants and subsidized 
loans--continues to virtually pay folks to ship their manufacturing 
into China and discriminates against American products. I want 
SolarWorld to be there not just next year but 10 years from now or 20 
years from now. That will not happen if we don't address this massive 
assault on American manufacturing.
  Because China has failed to disclose its subsidies, as required under 
WTO, I have proposed an amendment to the bill--an amendment that will 
not be heard because a deal cannot be worked out to allow amendments on 
this bill. I am very disappointed in that. This amendment simply says, 
if China or any other country under the WTO fails to do the 
notification of subsidies that is required, our U.S. Trade 
Representative will do a counternotification, putting those subsidies 
on the table. That way we can see exactly what they are and we can be 
part of this debate. It is the beginning of holding China accountable 
for breaking the WTO rules.
  This is not a Democratic amendment and it is not a Republican 
amendment. This is an amendment about the future of the middle class in 
America, the future of the worker in America. I am pleased to have 
Senator Enzi as my chief cosponsor and additional colleagues from 
across the aisle--Senator Barrasso and Senator Snowe. I am pleased on 
this side of the aisle to have Senators Nelson, Schumer, and Levin as 
cosponsors. That pretty much spans the spectrum of opinion in this 
Chamber, where everyone agrees China should be held accountable. If 
they are subsidizing their manufacturing, which they are, they have to 
disclose it, and they are not. We can have a better debate about how to 
end their rule-breaking under the WTO if we have that information.
  In closing, I just wish to note that this debate should have happened 
a decade ago--it should have happened 5 years ago--because over that 
timespan we have continued to hemorrhage jobs, we have continued to 
hope China would apply the rule of law on intellectual property, we 
have continued to hope they would end their manipulation of their 
currency, we have continued to hope they would end their illegal 
subsidies and the undermining of American products. Those hopes have 
not been realized. China has not chosen to honor the framework that was 
established. So while we hope, American workers are losing their jobs. 
That is why we have to have this debate on the floor. That is why this 
bill before us must be passed--to give the President greater leverage 
and to send a message to China that we are now fully paying attention 
at a level we should have a decade ago. The fact we have not paid 
attention is water under the bridge, but we are paying attention now. 
If anyone cares about having an American middle class, with living 
wages for workers, then I ask them to fully support this bill. The 
trade war China has been carrying out, decimating manufacturing in our 
Nation, must not go without full debate and a full response.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I stand here to talk about the case of an 
abuse of another kind than we are currently speaking of with regard to 
China and its currency manipulation. Youcef Nadarkhani was arrested in 
October of 2009 in Iran. I will read the charges against him, pursuant 
to a document signed by two judges, and I will say their names because 
I think one day they will be held accountable: Morteza Fazel and 
Azizoallah Razaghi. I think I got the pronunciation right. Here is what 
the document says, as reflected in a news article: ``Mr. Youcef 
Nadarkhani, son of Byrom, 32 years old, married, born in Rasht in the 
state of Gilan, is convicted of turning his back on Islam, the greatest 
religion the prophesy of Mohammad at the age of 19,'' the document 
states.
  The article goes on to say:

       He has often participated in Christian worship and 
     organized home church services, evangelizing and has been 
     baptized and baptized others, converting Muslims to 
     Christianity. He has been accused of breaking Islamic Law 
     that from puberty . . . until the age of 19 the year 1996, he 
     was raised a Muslim in a Muslim home. During court trials, he 
     denied the prophecy of Mohammad and the authority of Islam. 
     He has stated that he is a Christian and no longer Muslim. 
     During many sessions in court with the presence of his 
     attorney and a judge, he has been sentenced to execution by 
     hanging.

  He was sentenced to hanging for this alleged crime, and that is what 
he has been convicted for. That conviction was upheld by an appeals 
court in Gilan in September 2010.
  In July, the Supreme Court of Iran overturned the death sentence. 
Again, this is according to media reports. They did not overturn the 
conviction, just the death sentence, and sent the case back to his 
hometown of Rasht. Here is what has happened since it has gone back to 
his hometown.
  The deputy governor of that province says, while he is guilty of 
apostasy, that is not why he was sentenced to death. They have come up 
with some new charges. They say he is a security threat--in particular 
he is an extortionist and, they claim, he is a rapist.
  By the way, they had never said this before until the case came back 
to them. By the way, he is also a Zionist, which in and of itself, 
according to them, is punishable by death in Iran. That is where the 
case stands today.

  There have been reports time and again about what has been happening 
in Iran with this case. His lawyers have now been publicly saying they 
expect to know by Saturday whether their client will be executed in 
Iran, quite frankly for the crime of not just being a Christian but of 
converting others to Christianity.
  Obviously, this is an outrage. I am glad to see that the voices from 
this government and from all over the world have expressed themselves 
against it. But I think it is important for us to express ourselves 
against it for another reason. This is a time when Americans in this 
Nation have increasingly been asked to turn to international bodies to 
resolve disputes. Let's visit that for a moment because we have 
international bodies and we have international conventions that Iran 
has signed--particularly two. One is the Declaration of Human Rights. 
They signed it in 1948. The other is the International Covenant of 
Civil and Political Rights. They signed that in 1966. Any nation that 
signed on to these covenants--any action like this in the courts of 
your country are unconscionable, illegal. They violate these 
agreements.
  I hope we will see some action on the part of the United Nations and 
nations such as Russia and China, for example. Of course it would be 
difficult for China to speak out against oppressing religious 
minorities when they do that quite often in that country as well. But 
that being said, we are interested in seeing where some of these 
countries will be on this matter. We are obviously very encouraged that 
the European Union has spoken about this matter. We would like to see 
some of these other countries step up. We would like to see the United 
Nations take a break from figuring ways to sanction and take on Israel 
and maybe focus a little bit on these sorts of things, where people are 
facing a hangman's noose because of their religion.
  By the way, in Iran this sort of thing is not just happening to 
Christians. Not only Christians feel oppressed, but non-Shiite Muslims 
experience great oppression.
  But here is the greater point. Beyond this outrage, let me say I 
encourage everyone to pray tonight for the safety of Youcef Nadarkhani 
and his family. We hope this will resolve itself. We hope, in that 
nation and in that Government of Iran, there are reasonable people who 
realize what an outrage, what an atrocity, what a human rights 
violation, what a crime it would be for this man not just to be 
sentenced to death but even to be in jail.
  We should be sorry for the people in Iran. It is hard to believe that 
the vast

[[Page S6291]]

majority of people in that country agree with us. In fact, they look at 
their government and say: You are isolating us from the world.
  If the people of Iran want to know what it is that is isolating them 
from progress in this 21st century, they need to look no further than 
Tehran and the people running that government. It is sad because I 
think, going back to 2009, the evidence is there that especially young 
people in that country just want to have normal lives and live in a 
normal country. Instead, their country is being run by individuals who 
think this sort of thing is OK.
  By the way, I also point out to leaders in places such as Venezuela 
and other nations of Latin America who so warmly welcome leaders from 
Iran when they visit that this is whom you are doing business with. I 
encourage those people in Latin America to turn to their leaders and 
ask them: Why do we have a relationship with people like this? Why are 
people like this being invited to come into our countries and do 
business with us and tour our streets as heroes?
  This is who they are. Forget the rhetoric, put everything aside, if 
you want to know what the leadership and Government of Iran is about, 
it is about this. This is who they are. I can think of no other case 
before us today with regard to Iran that more clearly outlines the 
monsters we are dealing with within that government than this case I 
have outlined.
  I believe there is a broader conversation to be had about what Iran 
means. There is a lot going on in the world, but what is happening in 
Iran is important, and Iran's neighbors know it. Whether they will 
admit it publicly, Iran's neighbors know what a danger that government 
and its vision for the region and the world poses.
  But I think this case is one we should all speak out about. The eyes 
of the world should be turned to this case. It is an absolute outrage, 
and there is no way in the world we should stand by and allow anyone to 
be silenced or anyone to be silent, particularly our allies around the 
world and other countries and members of the so-called international 
community. It is time to step to the plate and condemn these acts 
because Youcef Nadarkhani should not--not only should he not be facing 
a death sentence, he should not even be in jail.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would like to address the Senate on an 
amendment I have to the pending legislation, which will be familiar to 
my colleagues because it is similar to a bipartisan bill Senator 
Menendez of New Jersey and I have introduced, a stand-alone bill. It is 
called the Taiwan Airpower Modernization Act of 2011.
  It does something very simple but very important: It requires the 
United States to respond to a request by the Government of Taiwan to 
purchase 66 F-16C/D models of fighter aircraft. Why is this important? 
It is important for all sorts of reasons, one of which Robert Kaplan 
recently pointed out in an op-ed in the September 23 edition of the 
Washington Post:

       By 2020, the United States will not be able to defend 
     Taiwan from a Chinese air attack, a 2009 RAND study found, 
     even with America's F-22s, two carrier strike groups in the 
     region and continued access to the Kadena Air Base in 
     Okinawa.

  The United States will not be able to defend Taiwan. So it is very 
important that we sell Taiwan, at no taxpayer expense--it is cash money 
coming from the Taiwanese Government to the United States that happens 
to sustain thousands of jobs right here in America--that we sell them 
these F-16s so they can defend themselves.
  Dan Blumenthal, in an October 3, 2011, article published by the 
American Enterprise Institute, lists what he calls the top 10 unicorns 
of China policy. He says in the article:

       A unicorn is a beautiful make-believe creature, but despite 
     overwhelming evidence of its fantastical nature, many people 
     still believe in them.

  He lists the top 10 unicorns of U.S.-China policy. The No. 2 unicorn 
relates to the subject of this amendment, and it is entitled 
``Abandoning Taiwan will remove the biggest obstacle to Sino-American 
relations.'' In other words, rather than antagonize China, Communist 
China, by selling 66 F-16C/D models to Taiwan, some might suggest we 
should withhold and not make that sale, as the Obama administration has 
apparently at least decided to do for now, because we do not want to 
antagonize China. If we antagonize China, our relationship will 
deteriorate. But, as Mr. Blumenthal points out, rather than basking in 
the recent warming of its relationship with Taiwan, China has picked 
fights with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and India.

  He goes on to say:

       It doesn't matter what obstacles the United States removes, 
     China's foreign policy has its own internal logic that is 
     hard for the United States to shape. Abandoning Taiwan for 
     the sake of better relations is yet another dangerous 
     fantasy.

  As my colleagues may recall, I introduced this amendment earlier on 
the trade adjustment assistance provisions, the TAA, and the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, from Montana, 
quoted Ecclesiastes to make the point that it was not the right time. 
He said, ``For every thing there is a season.'' He also indicated that 
my amendment might derail the carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement 
on trade assistance. I did not agree with him at that time because my 
amendment was related to trade because these F-16s represent an export 
for the U.S. economy that creates jobs right here at home, in addition 
to its importance for other reasons.
  But now the reason for that objection no longer exists. The pending 
legislation is not a carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement. And I 
hope my colleagues who shared my concerns--or shared the concerns the 
chairman of the Finance Committee argued earlier--will find an 
opportunity to support this amendment on the merits today because I 
think it is very important.
  The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee also argued at the 
time against my amendment on the TAA bill. He said it was unprecedented 
for the Congress to force the White House's hand when it comes to 
foreign military sales. The fact is, I remind my colleagues, the Taiwan 
Relations Act that passed and was signed into law in 1979 makes it 
clear that Congress has a very important role to play. The Taiwan 
Relations Act says:

       The President and the Congress shall determine the nature 
     and quantity of such defense articles and services based 
     solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan. . . .

  This is the law of the land.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe the administration's policy when it 
comes to selling defensive weaponry to Taiwan, that their agreement 
that we should just upgrade the existing fleet of F-16s is adequate to 
meet the demands of the Taiwan Relations Act.
  This chart, taken from Defense Intelligence Agency public materials, 
shows the incredible shrinking Taiwan air force. Taiwan's projected 
fighter fleet over time goes from roughly 400, as part of a total of 
490 combat aircraft. As you can see, the F-5 is an obsolete American 
aircraft, basically because of needed repairs, replacement parts, and 
it is basically not dependable anymore. The French Mirage 2000, it is 
estimated, will basically drop off the chart shortly after 2015 or so. 
Then we see the F-16 A/B models, which the administration says we 
should upgrade, and roughly 150 of those will be basically the 
remaining Taiwan air force, down from a total of roughly 400 fighters 
today. Actually, the administration's proposed upgrade will essentially 
take some of these F-16s offline, a whole squadron of F-16A/Bs, during 
the retrofitting period, further diminishing the number of aircraft 
available for Taiwan to defend itself.
  The Taiwan Relations Act was a responsible decision in response to a 
decision of the executive branch of the Federal Government that 
Congress happened to disagree with. Congress can disagree with the 
administration and force the administration's hand when Congress 
believes it is appropriate to do so. The Taiwan Relations Act was one 
example of that. That decision was based on President Carter's 
diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China and the 
breaking of diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
  Congress had a different view and wanted to make sure the freedom of 
the Taiwanese people was secure, so we passed bipartisan legislation 
which was ultimately signed into law by President Carter.

[[Page S6292]]

  But what is great about the Taiwan Relations Act and the relationship 
of the United States with Taiwan is it has always enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support. This is not a partisan issue at all. Here is what 
former Senator Jesse Helms said about it 20 years after the passage of 
the Taiwan Relations Act:

       It is a bit of a rarity when an issue comes up that brings 
     Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy together.

  I never served with Senator Helms. I did serve with Senator Kennedy. 
I can assure you, from what I know about Senator Helms and his record, 
that was an understatement.
  He said:

       But this was precisely such an issue. Senator Kennedy, 
     Senator Goldwater, and I--along with Congressman Wolff, 
     Derwinski and others--set out to ensure that after having 
     their treaty of alliance tossed in the trash can, our friends 
     in Taiwan would be left with far more than the vague verbal 
     promises the Carter administration was offering Taiwan. So we 
     went to work and the result was the Taiwan Relations Act.

  I believe my amendment is a natural extension--actually, a 
fulfillment--of the Taiwan Relations Act and a reaffirmation of the 
bipartisan leadership the Senate has brought, which originally brought 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Helms together way back in 1979. We should 
not depart from that strong bipartisan tradition of supporting our ally 
in Taiwan and providing the defensive weaponry they need in order to 
defend themselves so the United States will not have to fill that gap.
  During the debates on the trade assistance authority bill, the 
Senator from Massachusetts and distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, argued that President Ma of Taiwan is 
happy with the administration's decision merely to upgrade the existing 
F-16A/B models and not to replace the F-5s and Mirages and other 
aircraft that are fast becoming obsolete. The Senator from 
Massachusetts went so far as to say at the time that ``the President of 
Taiwan has said [the approved package] is entirely adequate. He feels 
they have the defensive capacity necessary under the [Taiwan Relations 
Act] in order to be able to defend themselves at the current level with 
the upgrade we are providing.''
  The facts are the government of Taiwan needs both the existing F-16A/
B models upgraded through this upgrade but also the 66 additional F-
16C/D aircraft that are the subject of my amendment. To quote Taiwan's 
foreign minister, he said:

       Our government will continue to work closely with the 
     United States to strengthen our national defense and security 
     . . . by urging the United States to continue its arms sales 
     to Taiwan with needed articles and systems for our defensive 
     capabilities . . . including F-16C/D aircrafts and diesel-
     electric submarines.

  Again, to remind my colleagues, this is a familiar chart from the 
last time I offered this amendment, which shows the growing imbalance 
of the Taiwan Strait, with China having some 2,300 operational combat 
aircraft and Taiwan with 490 operational combat aircraft, including 400 
fighters, as part of their air force.
  The fact is we know China doesn't tell the truth when it comes to its 
defensive and national security expenditures. It shows only a fraction 
of what it spends as it projects power across the world to follow its 
economic needs and interests.
  Let me quote the Taiwan defense minister. Earlier I quoted another 
Taiwanese official. Taiwan's defense minister said:

       The F-16A/B fleet upgrade package and the F-16C/D fighters 
     purchase have different needs and purposes. It is not 
     contradictory to have both cases done.

  Last Friday, September 30, a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, who happens to be of the other party, met with President Ma 
in Taiwan. According to the official press release by the Government of 
Taiwan, President Ma commented that:

       The upgrades of the F-16A/B series aircraft are aimed at 
     extending the life of fighter jets and avoiding a lack of 
     spare parts due to the age of the F-16A/B series. Meanwhile, 
     [Taiwan] wishes to purchase F-16C/D fighter jets to replace 
     its aging fleet of F-5E fighter jets.

  That is in red here, the aging F-5E fighter jets.
  President Ma explained, ``Therefore, the objectives of the two are 
different.''
  Let me leave with one final comment. Several of my colleagues have 
argued the Obama administration could approve the sale of the F-16C/D 
series at a later date, but that is actually not the case. The F-16 
production line recently received a small order from the Air Force of 
Iraq to sell Iraq F-16s, but without additional orders the production 
line will soon be shutting down. The people who are working there will 
be laid off or reassigned other jobs. We are rapidly approaching a 
point at which the President of the United States will not be able to 
approve the sale of new F-16s because they will not be able to be 
manufactured because the production line will be shut down. I hope my 
colleagues will keep this in mind as they consider my amendment.
  Even if the production line was not an issue, why should we make our 
allies in Taiwan wait? Why would the United States tell our friends to 
come back later? Well, as I said, the chairman of the Finance Committee 
quoted Ecclesiastes during our last debate. Allow me to conclude with 
some wise words from Proverbs:

       Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due when it 
     is in your power to act.
       Do not say to your neighbor, come back tomorrow, and I'll 
     give it to you when you already have it with you.

  To that, I hope my colleagues would give a hearty amen.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Authorization

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the majority 
leader's refusal to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor. 
On Monday, the Majority leader came to the floor and acknowledged the 
importance of bringing the Defense authorization bill forward. He said, 
``It is vital that we get to this bill and pass it.''
  I could not agree more. That is why it is nothing short of outrageous 
that the majority leader is blocking this important bill from being 
debated and passed by the Senate based on misguided objections that the 
administration has raised to a bipartisan provision in the Defense 
authorization bill which addresses how we detain and treat terrorists 
who are captured under the law of war.
  The American people and our military men and women deserve better. 
The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act addresses many essential 
issues for our warfighters. I want to mention just a few of the 
important measures that the majority leader is blocking from 
consideration by failing to bring this bill to the floor. The bill 
ensures that our warfighters have the weapons they need to win the 
fight, ranging from small arms and ammunition to tactical vehicles to 
satellites. Some examples include advanced helicopters and 
reconnaissance aircraft, as well as combat loss replacement. It helps 
ensure that our soldiers and their families have quality housing. The 
authorization gives our wounded warriors better access to educational 
opportunities.
  The bill enhances the deployment cycle support system and 
reintegration for our National Guard and Reserve given how much they 
have done in sacrificing with the multiple deployments they have 
endured. It strengthens oversight of our taxpayer dollars that are 
being used for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, and it ensures 
that our money does not continue to be funneled to our enemies.
  What is so disappointing is that the majority leader is willing to 
prevent passage of the Defense authorization bill, which addresses 
these essential needs I have talked about for our warfighters and our 
soldiers, because the Obama administration does not like one provision 
of the bill, the detainee provision of the bill that was passed 
overwhelmingly by Senators from both parties who serve on the Armed 
Services Committee.
  If the majority leader insists on preventing the Defense 
authorization bill

[[Page S6293]]

from coming to the floor this year, 2011 would be the first year since 
1960 in which the Congress has not passed the Defense Authorization 
Act. In over 50 years, this would be the first time this bill has not 
been passed by this esteemed body.
  Let me say that again. Here is where we are: in the midst of two 
wars, with our brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives fighting in 
Iraq and Afghanistan--and I am the wife of a combat veteran who served 
in Iraq--with our country facing a very serious threat from radical 
Islamist terrorists, this would be the first time in a half century in 
which we have not passed the National Defense Authorization Act.
  It would be shameful to not bring forward the Defense authorization 
bill to the floor and to pass it, after robust debate, where Senators 
from both parties can amend it, we can talk about it, and we can let 
the American people know what is in this bill.
  I met recently with the sergeant major of the Marine Corps. Sergeant 
Major Barrett shared with me the stories of several marines serving our 
country. I cannot discuss all of them, but I want to give a few 
examples. One is Sergeant Ramirez, a squad leader assigned to the 1st 
Battalion 5th Marines in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.
  Sergeant Ramirez has a hook as a left hand. In February of 2006 
Sergeant Ramirez lost his hand when he was wounded in action while 
serving in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion 5th Marines. Now he is leading 
patrols in Afghanistan. He wanted to go back and serve our country. 
Talk about bravery. Talk about courage.
  There is also Sergeant Gill at Quantico and Corporal Pacheco at Camp 
Pendleton and thousands of other soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
who after being injured on the battlefield have continued to serve 
their country. They are doing their jobs with skill and courage in this 
10th year that our country is at war. I just wish we would show half, 
even a quarter of the courage of our military men and women in taking 
up the important issues that need to be addressed to protect our 
country, and many of them are addressed in this Defense Authorization 
Act.
  That is why I am on the floor today. I think it is so important this 
bill be brought forward and we have a debate over it; that we are 
allowed to amend it and allowed to pass it to make sure our military 
men and women know we are fully behind them.
  I know the majority leader has said if we just drop the detainee 
provision in the bill that he would bring forward the Defense 
authorization bill. But this is not how this body is designed to 
operate. If Senator Reid and the administration do not like the 
detainee provision in the bill, Senator Reid should move to amend it or 
vote against the bill rather than prevent the entire Defense 
authorization from being considered. That is how the Senate is supposed 
to operate.
  Of course, the irony is that in a place where we rarely agree on 
anything, the detainee provision that is holding up this bill the 
administration has objected to actually received overwhelming support 
in the Armed Services Committee--25 out of 26 members of the Armed 
Services Committee voted for this detainee compromise. That rarely 
happens around here. I think it shows this was a thoughtful compromise 
and that members of both sides of the aisle worked hard to address this 
important issue.
  This compromise was actually a compromise put together by Chairman 
Levin of the committee, ranking member John McCain of the committee, 
and Senator Lindsey Graham, who also has substantial experience in the 
Guard as a Judge Advocate General attorney.
  The overall Defense Authorization Act passed out of the Armed 
Services Committee 26 to 0. How often does that happen around here, 
that every single member of the Armed Services Committee from both 
sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, and Senator Lieberman an 
Independent, that we all voted to pass this bill? Yet this bill that is 
so important to our national security and to our warfighters is being 
held up right now from being considered and brought to the floor.

  In this era of partisanship, the American people want us to work 
together, and that is what we did. As a result, not a single member, as 
I mentioned, voted against the final bill. That is not to suggest that 
every member of the Armed Services Committee got what they wanted in 
that compromise. I was someone who fought hard in the committee for the 
compromise to be tougher on terrorists.
  But I respect that we came together as colleagues to come to this 
compromise and to move forward on the Defense Authorization Act so it 
could be brought for full consideration for every Member of the Senate. 
If the majority leader were to bring this compromise to the Senate 
according to normal and well-understood procedures, every Member of 
this Senate, including the majority leader and myself, would have the 
opportunity to debate it, to amend it, and to vote on the Defense 
authorization bill, including the detainee compromise I just 
referenced.
  I may be new around here, but I must ask: Why isn't the majority 
leader bringing this forward? I know he is clearly doing the 
administration's bidding on these detainee issues. But why would he 
prevent the American people from hearing this important debate? Why 
would giving terrorists greater rights to our civilian detention and 
court system, which seems to be the administration's position, be more 
important than ensuring that our warfighters have the right weapons and 
equipment, or ensuring that our wounded warriors get better access to 
educational opportunities, and all of the other important issues that 
are addressed in the Defense authorization bill related to both our 
national security and to our warfighters?
  I believe those issues deserve to be addressed by debating and 
passing this bill. I also believe the American people deserve to know 
all of the facts about where we are with respect to our detention 
policy with terrorists.
  I have to tell you, as a new member of the Armed Services Committee 
during the last 8 months and having our military leaders come before 
that committee, when I have asked them about our detention policy and 
how we are treating terrorists we have captured, how we are gathering 
intelligence from them, what we are doing to protect the American 
people, I have been shocked to learn that 27 percent of the terrorists 
we have released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have 
actually returned to the battle or we suspect have returned to the 
battle to harm us and our allies.
  Too many former Guantanamo Bay detainees are now actively engaged in 
terrorist activities and are trying to kill Americans. Former 
Guantanamo detainees are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting 
radicals, and training them to kill Americans and our allies. Said al-
Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of former Guantanamo 
detainees who have returned to the fight and have assumed leadership 
positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing 
Americans and our allies.
  Said al Shihri has worked as the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian 
Peninsula. Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban military commander 
and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta Shura.
  Can you imagine having to tell a mom or a dad that their son or 
daughter was killed in Afghanistan by a terrorist whom we released from 
Guantanamo Bay?
  Given the facts, I understand why the majority leader and the Obama 
administration don't want to talk about our detention policy, but as 
John Adams said, facts are stubborn things. The American people deserve 
to hear this debate and to have us address this issue through the 
Defense Authorization Act.
  Under our Constitution, we have a fundamental duty to protect the 
American people and to provide for our warfighters.
  We owe it to our military men and women to take up the Defense 
Authorization Act right now. Majority Leader Reid, as the leader of 
this esteemed body, should allow that to happen so we can fulfill our 
responsibility to the American people.
  Let me conclude by urging the majority leader to bring the defense 
authorization bill forward for debate, for amendment, and for passage. 
In the midst of two wars, it is time Congress does its job and provides 
for our warfighters and their needs.
  Sergeant Ramirez, Sergeant Gill and Corporal Pacheco and the 
thousands of

[[Page S6294]]

other soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen of our All-Volunteer Force 
deserve no less.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise, first, to thank my 
colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, for supporting cloture 
today. It is the second major step in this body, passing the largest 
bipartisan jobs bill we have seen in this body in years. The bipartisan 
jobs bill has the potential to create or save around 2 million jobs, 
without cost to taxpayers, because it is simply standing up for 
American companies and American workers. For a change, we put American 
workers and American manufacturers first.
  It is important to, for a moment, consider how we got here. This 
effort did not begin this week or even this year. Efforts to combat 
Chinese currency manipulation have been underway for over half a 
decade. It began in earnest around 2005. Since then, the situation has 
grown worse for workers and businesses. In 2005, there was an intense 
debate inside the National Association of Manufacturers, which was 
representing a whole range of American manufacturers, from the small 
tool and die shop in Akron to the medium-size manufacturing company in 
Toledo, to GM, Ford, and other huge manufacturers. The division was 
smaller companies, generally--not in every case, of course, but smaller 
companies generally supported taking action against currency 
manipulation with China. Larger companies, many of which had already 
outsourced production to China, generally were opposed to standing up 
to the Chinese. That was because the Chinese are well known for 
punishing companies that are doing business in China if those companies 
actually criticize the Chinese Communist Party Government.
  So it was an interesting, if unholy, alliance between some of 
America's greatest, best known, largest, longest existing companies. 
There was an unholy alliance between them and the Communist Party of 
China--something that would have made, perhaps, Henry Ford turn over in 
his grave. Nonetheless, that is what happened. Some of these companies 
actually left the organization--the smaller ones--because the larger 
companies dominated an organization like that. They paid the biggest 
dues and are the most influential people in the country. Some of the 
smaller companies left partly because they have to stay in a community 
and do their manufacturing and supply components to companies that 
outsourced these jobs.
  What is interesting--and we have talked about this--it has become 
almost--not almost, it has become a business plan, perhaps 
unprecedented in world history, where a large number of companies in 
one country--this country, the United States--shut down production in 
Steubenville or Springfield and moved production to Wuhan or Xi'an, 
China, and sell the goods back to the United States. So it is a 
business plan for many companies to shut down production here, move 
overseas, and sell the product back. To my knowledge, that has never 
happened the way it has in this country in the last dozen years, since 
permanent normal trade relations was approved here to set the stage for 
China's entry into the WTO.
  I remember--and the Presiding Officer was in the House when I was--
when that debate happened in 1999 and 2000. What I remember is, the 
largest corporations in America were--the CEOs were walking the Halls 
of Congress and doing the bidding of the Communist Party of China, the 
People's Republic of China, and they were saying that putting China in 
the WTO would mean China would follow the rule of law. They also said 
they couldn't wait until they could get access to 1 billion Chinese 
consumers, although 5 years later it was apparent they wanted access to 
1 billion Chinese workers. But the whole idea of putting China in the 
WTO was to have them live under the rule of law and practice trade 
under the rule of law, and that is what we have not seen. We have 
simply not seen the Chinese follow the rule of law.

  That is why so many economists, including Republican economists and 
Democratic economists, and including some economists who worked for 
President Reagan and some economists who worked for President Clinton 
and President Obama--the ones who are looking at sort of an expansive 
world--say things like Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute--a 
pretty much pro-free-trade, middle-of-the-road organization--who said:

       Some American corporations will fret that these actions--

  These actions meaning regulations on dealing with this currency 
issue, as our bill does--

     that these actions would needlessly antagonize the Chinese 
     and threaten a trade war. I believe these fears are 
     overblown. The real threat to the world trading system is in 
     fact the protectionist policies, including undervalued 
     currencies of other countries, and the vast trade imbalances 
     that result.

  And Bergsten went on to say:

       Not since World War II have we seen a country practice 
     protectionism to the degree the People's Republic of China 
     does.

  We were talking earlier about the split in the National Association 
of Manufacturers--and I am not making too much of it. Most companies 
didn't leave. But some of the smaller companies, which may or may not 
have left, have suffered greatly during the gaming of the currency 
system.
  Let me cite one example: the Bennett brothers' Automation Tool & Die 
in Brunswick, OH, a city about 25 miles outside of Cleveland. The 
Bennett brothers run this tool-and-die shop, Automation Tool & Die, and 
they had a $1 million contract they thought they were about to sign 
with a new customer. The Chinese came in at the last minute with a bid 
20 percent under their bid. That meant I don't know how many jobs that 
didn't stay in America but went to China, and that 20 percent was given 
to them because of currency.
  As Senator Merkley said on the Senate floor yesterday, this currency 
advantage given to the Chinese because they purposely keep their 
currency devalued means when we sell products made in our country--made 
in Whirlicote, OH--to China, they have, in effect, a 25-, 30-, 35-
percent tariff because of the currency undervaluation. When the Chinese 
sell a product into Chillicothe, OH, they get a 25-percent bonus or 
subsidy--25 or 30 percent. So that is why we have seen this huge trade 
deficit grow by multiples of something like three or four times.
  Last week, there was a column by the former president of the National 
Association of Manufacturers, Jerry Jasinowski. He was president during 
the time of this debate in 2005. He has watched as members struggle 
with this disadvantage of the currency manipulation. He wrote this week 
that Congress is ``belatedly stepping up to the plate on China's 
currency manipulation.'' He called this currency manipulation ``an 
assault on U.S. manufacturing'' that is ``having a deadly impact on the 
overall economy.''
  Because these companies have lived with this, more than 300 companies 
have signed a petition in support of this legislation according to the 
Coalition for a Prosperous America. We can see companies such as McAfee 
Tool & Die in Ohio, and we highlighted some of the ones in different 
Senators' States and lots of national organizations, lots of State and 
local organizations, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of 
companies are supporting this because they know--and all kinds of 
organizations know--this isn't working for American companies. It is 
not working for American manufacturing. It is not working for American 
communities or American workers.
  I had mentioned what happened up until 2005. In 2007, Senator 
Stabenow of Michigan, a Democrat; Senator Snowe, a Republican from 
Maine; Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia; and Senator 
Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky--of those four, only Senator 
Bunning has left the Senate--created the Fair Currency Coalition, which 
pulled together manufacturers and labor united to address a serious 
problem. We can see some of those here.
  In the 111th Congress, the Senate introduced several bipartisan 
bills. Senator Snowe and I worked this year on countervailing duties, 
legislation similar to what the House of Representatives passed, 
providing industries a remedy when it comes to imports that are proven 
to be subsidized by currency manipulation. Since then the Senate 
combined Senator Snowe's and my bill with that of Senator Schumer and 
Senator Graham into the bipartisan legislation we have today.
  This bipartisan legislation is a no-cost job creator. In fact, it is 
better

[[Page S6295]]

than that because when we have the biggest bipartisan jobs bill--
passing overwhelmingly 62 to 38 today, with some party leaders trying 
to block it but still passing 62 to 38--increasing jobs, particularly 
if we are not spending money doing it, we are obviously saving on the 
budget deficit.
  The Economic Policy Institute says this is more than job creating, 
and it will create more than 1 million jobs. If we have 1 million 
people going back to work, that means 1 million people who aren't 
drawing unemployment benefits, who aren't filing for food stamps, and 
who aren't getting any other kinds of subsidies. They are working and 
paying taxes, and that, obviously, is why we can't cut our way to 
prosperity. We have to grow our way to prosperity and grow our way to a 
more balanced budget.
  So that is what this is all about. And I would quote a couple of 
other people--Republicans. David Camp, the Republican chairman of the 
House Ways and Means Committee, who has supported this measure in the 
past, said the bill doesn't ``presuppose an outcome,'' but sends ``a 
clear signal to China that Congress' patience is running out, without 
giving China an excuse to take it out on U.S. companies and workers.''
  Mitt Romney, Presidential candidate, Republican, former Governor of 
Massachusetts, said taking action to remove protectionist market 
distortions wouldn't result in a ``trade war,'' but failing to act will 
mean the United States has accepted ``trade surrender.''
  That is exactly the point because the strongest objection to this 
bill and the most frequent and compelling argument from, apparently, 
the three Democrats and the, I guess, roughly three dozen Republicans 
who opposed the vote a couple of hours ago is that this bill declares a 
trade war; that it would lead to some kind of trade war.
  I first want to remind everybody listening that the United States is 
already in a trade war. When we see the trade deficit in 10 years 
triple with a country that is not playing by the rules, it is pretty 
clear there is a trade war going on, and they are winning in so many 
ways because we are buying so much from them, and they are buying so 
little from us. Yes, our exports have increased over the last 10 years, 
but only marginally. Our imports from China are just growing much more 
rapidly.
  In the end, common sense says the Chinese aren't going to initiate a 
trade war. You don't initiate a trade war if you are China--they might 
threaten to--because we are their biggest customer. One-third of 
Chinese exports come to the United States. They have way more to lose 
than we do if they initiate a trade war.
  We can predict it, like we can predict the Sun will come up. Whenever 
we stand up to the Chinese--when President Clinton or President Bush or 
President Obama would sort of do a start-and-stop in standing up to the 
Chinese, and then back down--the last President to enforce trade law 
well was Ronald Reagan. President Obama has done it marginally well, 
but the other Presidents haven't done it much at all. But whenever we 
act like we are going to do that, it is so predictable what the Chinese 
Government will say: Trade war. Trade war. Then some Members of the 
Senate will stand up and say: Trade war. Trade war. But just because 
the Chinese say there is going to be a trade war, they always bluster 
like that.

  So as certain as the Sun was going to come up on Tuesday morning 
after the vote Monday night--which was 79 to 19--the People's Bank of 
China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce--like 
all birds flying off a telephone wire when one bird does--said this is 
protectionism, this is a trade war, and all the kinds of things they 
say. But just because they say it isn't necessarily what they are going 
to do. They want us to believe they are going to do that because far 
too often American politicians--Presidents especially--will back down.
  This bill will begin to help us do what we should be doing in this 
country, and that is following--as the Presiding Officer has said so 
many times before and fought for--real manufacturing policy. Thirty 
years ago, in the early 1980s, between 25 and 30 percent of our gross 
domestic product was manufacturing. Today it is only about 11 percent. 
Those manufacturing jobs created an awful lot of middle-class families 
in Garfield Heights, OH, and in Norwood, OH, and in Grove City, OH. 
Today a lot of those families struggle because they have lost their 
$14-, $15-, $18-, and $20-an-hour job making things. Instead, they are 
working in a service industry, which never pays as much and never has 
the spinoff effect of job creation that a good manufacturing job has.
  So I am thrilled about this vote today. What makes me even more 
excited is I think it is the beginning of the United States having a 
more coherent manufacturing strategy. We are the only wealthy country 
in the world that doesn't have a manufacturing strategy. While all of 
our trade competitors practice trade according to their national 
interests, we practice trade according to a college textbook that is 20 
years out of print.
  I am hopeful those days are behind us, and I especially thank Senator 
Graham and Senator Sessions for their stance and making a difference on 
this vote today. I think this is the beginning of something much better 
for our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time is being divided now or is it 
divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has up to 1 hour under cloture.
  Mr. KERRY. Well, Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use 
under the 1 hour, and I will not use all that, by any means.
  Mr. President, this is obviously an issue that is more complicated 
than the debate may have indicated--at all moments, at least. I think 
there are complicated and longstanding frustrations that have built up 
with a lot of Senators and a lot of people in America that bring us 
here to this moment on the Senate floor.
  As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a reluctance 
to see us engage in an effort that I think can put other interests at 
risk in certain ways. On the other hand, I have voted to allow and help 
this legislation to reach the point of postcloture because I think it 
is an important debate and because I think China needs to carefully 
think about the process and the substance of what people are saying on 
the floor of the Senate.
  This is a very complicated relationship, with enormous interests on 
both sides, and we need to avoid a confrontation in a lot of different 
ways. There are a lot of different kinds of confrontations--trade, 
physical confrontation in the South China Sea and the straits and 
elsewhere, confrontations over human rights in Tibet--and there are a 
lot of issues at play. But with respect to the trade issue, China has a 
huge interest in the United States being able to export more 
effectively to China.
  China has an interest in its middle class growing in its purchasing 
power and expressing that purchasing power through consumption. One of 
the things China needs is its own higher level of domestic consumption. 
It is saving too much. One of the reasons it saves too much is it 
doesn't have a safety net structure of any kind, really, so people do 
save. That is the nature of life there. But at the same time, I think 
China is seeing a slowdown of its own economy now. One of the reasons 
for the slowdown in China's economy is the fact that we have had a 
slowdown in our economy and our ability to consume, and the American 
consumer is paying off debt, wisely, and consuming less of the goods 
brought in from China. So it all is interconnected.

  China is also our biggest banker. China is critical to our ability to 
deal with our current economic challenge in many ways--and Europe's, I 
might add. Both Europe and the United States would benefit 
significantly with a new trade relationship with China.
  That is what I want to talk about for a moment. I believe in trade. I 
have supported trade here. I don't believe in unequal trade. I don't 
believe in unfair trade. I believe in enforcing the agreements we have. 
If you look at NAFTA, for instance, NAFTA had side agreements--side 
agreements on the environment, side agreements on labor standards--and 
they were never enforced. People have a right to be angry if they see 
an agreement that is made and then parts of it are enforced, parts of 
it are not, and they see their jobs go

[[Page S6296]]

overseas, whether it is from North Carolina or Georgia or Massachusetts 
or Ohio or any other place in our country. So I think it is important 
to have trade that is fair and sensible.
  You are not going to grow your economy trading with yourself--no 
way--particularly if your overall population growth isn't growing that 
fast and you are a mature economy. Economics just doesn't work that 
way. You need newer markets and other places to expand. So I believe it 
is important for us to recognize that the world's trading system only 
works if the participants treat each other fairly.
  Over the last decade, our national debate on the costs and benefits 
of trade has intensified, and, frankly, the uneasy alliance, the uneasy 
consensus that had been created from the 1980s forward with respect to 
trade is being frayed right now, is being frayed for understandable and 
clearly definable reasons.
  The American worker is not seeing their wages go up. There are a lot 
of reasons for that: the unfairness of our Tax Code, the inability of 
people in America today to be able to bargain the way they used to, the 
lack of an NLRB and a court that uphold the rights of labor to be able 
to negotiate--a whole bunch of reasons people are disadvantaged today. 
One of them is the fact that you have this unfair competition.
  In order to keep the consensus that allows Americans to say: Yes, 
trade is a good thing, it has to be a good thing. And to be a good 
thing, it has to be fair and it has to result in people's lives being 
improved by it, meaning their wages go up, their job gets better, and 
their opportunities are better. But everything has been working in the 
opposite direction. I think that is why so many of our colleagues feel 
a responsibility to come to the floor on this legislation and make sure 
that China and others hear from the American people loudly and clearly.
  We did this before on a vote we took on currency legislation back in 
2005. I think China heard us then, and China began slowly to allow the 
value of its currency to begin to fluctuate rather than keeping it 
pegged tightly to the dollar.
  China has taken measures. In fairness, China's currency has 
appreciated over the course of the last few years. Some argue exactly 
how much--somewhere in the vicinity of 27 percent, maybe 7 percent the 
last year--but it is not fast enough, and it is still not fair enough. 
And the fact is that there are other Chinese trade tactics that 
contribute to our increasing trade deficit with China, not just 
currency.
  Unfortunately, our efforts through multilateral institutions--nobody 
can point a finger at the United States and suggest that we haven't 
played by the rules or that we haven't gone to the global institutions 
in order to try to resolve these differences. We have gone to the World 
Trade Organization, and we have won, step by step, slowly but surely. 
But if your tactic is to just keep in this highly mercantilistic, 
focused strategy of China's to just keep on pushing, take advantage of 
everything you can, and you get a little nibble against you here and 
there at the WTO, a little nibble over there, that is really just an 
inconvenience on the road to a kind of trade domination that is bad for 
everybody.
  That is why I am here today. That is why I have voted for this 
legislation to come to the floor, to have this debate. This debate is 
an imperfect stand-in for the broader discussion we need to have about 
our economic relationship with China. The truth is that our bilateral 
relationship is both filled with promise and plagued by complex 
challenges we have to overcome for the good of both countries.
  The Chinese market is a huge and growing opportunity for American 
firms, obviously. Despite the hurdles to entry--and there are hurdles--
China is still our fastest growing export market today. People had 
better think about this as we go forward.
  I am convinced that the key to America pulling itself out of this 
economic challenge we are in today and the key to Europe pulling itself 
out is for the United States and Europe to actually work out, almost 
formally, a new and better relationship with respect to trade with 
China, as well as with the other fast-developing countries--Mexico, 
South Korea, Brazil, India--because if those societies will allow us 
adequate entry to market and if those societies will purchase more from 
Europe and the United States, then we will export more, manufacture 
more, and come out of the economic doldrums. That reverberates to 
China's benefit, also, because their investments in the United States 
become more secure, because our debt goes down, because we have a 
stronger economy, and because we are purchasing more in return from 
them. What goes around comes around.
  My hope is that we can agree on fair terms and conditions for trade 
with these rising powers. If we do, we will create jobs. That is the 
fastest way we have to create jobs and pull out of our economic 
doldrums today. The simplest, fastest, most obvious way to do this is 
to be able to access those other markets rapidly with American goods 
and begin to restore confidence to the marketplace so that people 
believe they will get a larger return on their investment and begin to 
reinvest in job creation and in the marketplace.
  The current trade model we are operating under with massive U.S. 
trade deficits and enormous Chinese trade surpluses is not only unfair, 
it is unsustainable. So we have to rebalance that relationship. And 
China's own leaders need to understand that their country's long-term 
economic health absolutely cannot rest on a foundation of subsidized 
exports fueled by an indebted American consumer and the credit card of 
the American consumer. That is a deathly unvirtuous--to use our former 
Fed Chairman's comments about virtuous and unvirtuous cycles, it is 
about as unvirtuous as you can get in that economic relationship.
  Now, conflict, in my judgment, is not the best way to resolve our 
tensions. Making clear how we feel and what we think the reality is and 
what is important in our relationship is critical.
  Some of our colleagues have come to the floor to argue that our two 
countries are already in a trade war. Others have come to the floor to 
say this bill is going to trigger one. I don't agree with either view. 
I don't think either one of those views is correct.
  If we were in a real trade war with our largest lender, let me tell 
you, they would be doing a heck of a lot more damage than the 
misalignment of currency is currently doing to us.
  The specific remedy proposed in this legislation is neither as 
dramatic nor as offensive as some people have said. This is a pretty 
carefully structured piece of legislation, and I think the language has 
been chosen in a thoughtful way and the remedies that are available 
under this bill are not as dramatic as some would suggest. It doesn't 
propose raising tariffs on all Chinese goods. It only proposes 
increasing tariffs on those Chinese goods that receive an unfair 
advantage from an undervalued currency and then compete with American-
made goods here in the United States. It is a pretty limited and 
targeted message. And that is within our rights. If the yuan is 
properly valued, that will simply not be necessary. That is China's 
decision, China's choice.

  I would much prefer a negotiated, multilateral solution, as I 
described, involving this new relationship, a new trade relationship on 
a global basis, which I think would send an extraordinary message to a 
beleaguered Europe, where Greece, as we all know, is basically 
fundamentally insolvent, needing some kind of a managed, structured 
transition hopefully that avoids a greater crisis in Italy and Spain 
and contagion in their banking system, which clearly needs 
recapitalization, clearly needs more than the $440 billion that was put 
on the table, clearly needs some kind of a rescue fund with some very 
tight kinds of requirements not dissimilar to what we did in the United 
States in 2008 and 2009 out of sheer necessity. My hope is they will do 
that.
  Nothing would do more to send a message of confidence about the 
future of job growth than to have this new trade understanding and 
relationship where responsible partners are behaving responsibly and 
accepting responsibility for the global marketplace in which we all 
operate, not just exploit it but support it, protect it, nurture it.
  Beyond the currency, there are many other sources of tension in our 
economic relationship, and they need to be resolved. China does not 
protect adequately our intellectual property in its

[[Page S6297]]

market. That is almost a euphemism. The violations of intellectual 
property rights, the outright theft in some streets and communities 
within China of billions of dollars of American designed and marketed 
and developed property is shocking. In addition to that, China imposes 
artificial regulatory barriers to the entry of many of our goods. It 
fails to crack down on cyber attacks, and it has executed a thinly 
veiled effort to appropriate key foreign technologies. On each of these 
issues, and others, we have been going to the WTO, we have been 
bringing cases, and we have been winning those cases. As I have said, 
that is not a substitute for this larger fix in the relationship that 
is critical.
  I believe overcoming market access challenges is actually where we 
ought to be focusing our efforts in China and also in the other large, 
fast-growing markets. That, as I have said several times, is really the 
answer--the quick answer, if you will. We can develop goods and we can 
invest in companies here, but if we can't sell the goods to more than 
ourselves, we have some serious limits on us. It is important for us to 
be fighting for that market access.
  I believe that to increase our exports, we are going to have to 
increase our competitiveness at home and we are going to have to 
convince our partners to lower their tariffs, remove discriminatory 
regulatory restrictions on our exporters, protect intellectual 
property, use scientific standards as the basis for allowing our 
agricultural goods to enter, and recognize that trade in services is 
becoming as important to the modern economy as trade in goods. We need 
to make the case that doing all of these things is not to the advantage 
of one country or another, it is to all of our shared advantage because 
of the nature of the global marketplace in which we live.
  Countries such as China, India, and Brazil are stakeholders. Whether 
or not they want to admit it publicly, they are stakeholders in the 
West's economic success. They need access to our customers. They need 
access to our investors. They want to make deals over here. They want 
to be in joint ventures. They want to own companies. And their 
businesses and citizens will benefit from strong, sustainable growth in 
the world's largest economies.
  China is an important partner of the United States in a lot of ways. 
It is also a major investor in the United States. So I don't think we 
are here to rupture that relationship; I think we are here to send a 
message to the Chinese about the urgent need to repair it. We want a 
mutually beneficial relationship, an equitable partnership that will 
pay dividends for both countries. And I believe, if we listen to each 
other and work in good faith, we can make that happen and we can enter 
into a better framework of cooperation that inures to the benefits and 
the security and the stability and the leadership demands of both of 
our countries.
  We both sit on the Security Council of the United Nations. We both 
have remarkable responsibilities through our economic power. We are 
still the largest economy on the face of this planet, maybe three times 
larger than China--still, even as China is growing. China will surpass 
us. With that reality of where China stands today economically comes 
major responsibility. No country has exercised that responsibility 
through all the last century and into this century with a greater sense 
of purpose and responsibility than the United States. Hopefully, China 
will embrace the notion that its new economic power brings with it that 
same shared responsibility. I hope we can engage in the creation of 
that kind of mutually beneficial relationship.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                              Jobs Crisis

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about our Nation's jobs 
crisis. This is a crisis that is real and it is a crisis that is not 
going to be addressed by the bill currently being considered by this 
body. It is not a crisis that is going to be solved by more tax 
increases, as some would have it. It is a crisis that will be solved 
when Congress creates the conditions for job creation by giving greater 
certainty to businesses and individuals and liberating them to take 
risks.
  Americans are more than uneasy about our current jobs deficit. The 
failure of this economy to create jobs is the single most important 
issue to the citizens of this country. For years now, whenever I have 
talked to my fellow Utahns about the economy, their No. 1 concern has 
been jobs. Throughout the country, particularly in those places that 
are worse off than my own home State, I am quite certain people have 
the exact, same concern.
  We have had more than our fair share of posturing on job creation in 
Washington. We heard a speech to a joint session of Congress from the 
President, wherein he demanded passage of this jobs bill. Of course, 
the President's bill has no real chance of passing in either Chamber of 
Congress. Indeed, Members of the Senate Democratic leadership have been 
quoted publicly as saying they don't even believe enough Democrats 
would vote for the bill to pass it in the Senate, with or without a 
filibuster.
  But not all hope is lost. Members of both parties agree we need to 
pass a jobs package of some kind. The American people demand it and I 
believe Congress can deliver. However, I am not under any illusions. 
This will be a difficult task, and it will require Congress to 
recognize some hard truths and to make some difficult decisions. But if 
we are serious about job creation and not just about campaigning on job 
creation next year, that is what we are going to have to do.
  It will not be enough to simply pass legislation that will stimulate 
the economy in the short term. We have tried short-term stimulus time 
after time again and it does not work. One of the President's first 
acts after his inauguration was to promote and sign a partisan big 
spending stimulus package. It did not work then and it is not going to 
work now. What we need to do is change the economic environment in 
America to make it more jobs friendly, to change incentives to allow 
for long sustained job growth.
  As I said, it will not be easy, but I believe it is doable because, 
frankly, there are things we should have been doing all along that will 
create more jobs and prevent more job losses in the future.
  That is what I wish to talk about. I want to unveil my own jobs 
proposal. It is a comprehensive, 10-point plan that I believe 
encapsulates much of what we should be doing to create more jobs in 
America. I wish to take just a few moments to talk about each of the 10 
points in my jobs plan.
  No. 1, we need to restore fiscal sanity in Washington. Our Nation's 
$14 trillion debt is an anchor around the neck of every American and a 
threat to our economic growth and job creation in the future. Congress 
must take meaningful steps to reduce our debt and get America's fiscal 
house in order.
  This is something my friends on the other side of the aisle do not 
seem to get--debt and deficit reduction is a jobs issue. The failure to 
get this spending under control led to a downgrade of our Nation's 
credit rating, an action that will impact our interest rates and impede 
job growth. The failure to get spending under control and the constant 
threat from the other side of higher taxes to pay for this historically 
large government keeps businesses on the sideline and discourages risk-
taking. The failure to get spending under control crowds out the types 
of investments in national defense and infrastructure that actually 
have some impact on jobs. Reining in spending should be our highest 
priority.
  Given the fights we have had over spending in the last year, this 
goal may seem to some to be out of reach, but I am optimistic. I expect 
some success from the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction that is 
currently working on finding significant savings and currently trying 
to find a way out of our problems. Members of both parties are on 
record supporting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
which would ensure greater fiscal discipline in the long run. This is a 
vital element to securing economic growth and job creation in the 
future, and we need to act now. As the ranking member on the Senate's 
Finance Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues there 
to achieve meaningful reform of our Nation's largest spending programs.
  No. 2, we need to expand markets for U.S. exports by approving the 
pending

[[Page S6298]]

three free-trade agreements and renewing trade promotion authority. 
Every President has wanted that except this one. Congress waited far 
too long for the President to send the pending trade agreements with 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, which would increase U.S. exports by 
$13 billion and create more than 70,000 domestic jobs. Some estimate 
even higher than 250,000 jobs. Unfortunately, in delaying submission of 
these agreements, the President prioritized his anti-trade union allies 
at the expense of the American workers who stood to benefit from their 
passage. Now that these agreements are before Congress, we need to 
ratify them promptly. However, we also need to move forward with a 
robust trade agenda for the future.
  Unfortunately, by refusing to seek renewal of trade promotion 
authority, the President is undercutting our Nation's ability to 
realize these new trade agreements.
  No. 3, we need to reform our Nation's Tax Code to allow American 
businesses to compete with foreign competitors on a level playing 
field. Rooted in a bygone era, the U.S. Tax Code is antiquated, 
impeding our economic recovery and slowing job growth. Our tax system 
is too burdensome, it is too inefficient. Fundamental tax reform will 
allow both individuals and businesses to focus their efforts on their 
families and businesses instead of tax compliance. There is bipartisan 
agreement on the need to fix our Tax Code and if the President and his 
party will agree that the goal of tax reform should be job creation and 
economic growth rather than raising taxes, I think progress can be 
made.
  No. 4, we need to repeal ObamaCare. I am certain my Democratic 
colleagues will write this proposal off as blind partisanship, but to 
paraphrase President Obama: This is not partisanship, it is math. 
ObamaCare's unconstitutional individual health care mandate will result 
in a $2,100 increase in premiums for families buying insurance on their 
own. Rather than saving money, ObamaCare is costing individuals and 
States more money, including $118 billion in new costs imposed on 
States for Medicaid expansions, meaning that our States will have to 
cut other programs such as education or law enforcement to pay for this 
unfunded mandate. Additionally, ObamaCare will result in over $1 
trillion in new taxes and penalties over a 10-year period once it is 
fully implemented in 2014, while still increasing the deficit by $701 
billion during that same time.

  Collectively, the various provisions included in ObamaCare will 
continue to hinder job creation and industry innovation by mandating 
the imposition of anti-industry burdens such as a 2.3-percent excise 
tax hike on medical device manufacturers that could result in job 
losses of over 10 percent of the device industry workforce. That is 
nearly 43,000 potential lost jobs. Some experts have calculated that 
nearly 800,000 jobs could potentially be lost as a result of full 
implementation of all of ObamaCare's provisions.
  Clearly, calls to repeal ObamaCare are more than political 
blustering. It is simply a necessary step forward toward job creation.
  No. 5, we need to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act. Again, it would be easy 
for our friends on the other side to write off this proposal as just 
partisan posturing, but facts are facts. American companies and small 
business owners are paralyzed by the excesses of the Dodd-Frank Act 
which has created massive new bureaucracies, imposed job-killing 
mandates, and heaped upon American businesses a slew of regulations 
that are choking off job opportunities for Americans. Dodd-Frank is 
leading to reductions in the availability of credit to American 
families and businesses and increases in the cost of credit to those 
who are able to borrow. The price controls required by Dodd-Frank and 
by the Dodd-Frank interchange amendment are a case in point of what 
happens when government wades carelessly into the economy.
  I don't know why it came as a surprise to anyone that the price 
controls imposed by the interchange agreement, drying up a revenue 
stream for banks, would require new fees on consumers. Yet I doubt the 
announcement that banks are eliminating free checking and increasing 
debit card fees, a direct result of the interchange amendment, will 
result in a long look in the mirror for those responsible for this 
regulation. Rather, the favored response will no doubt be more 
regulation. It is essential that we repeal this fundamentally flawed 
law to unleash the full potential of the American economy by unfreezing 
much needed credit for small businesses as well as stripping away new 
layers of burdensome and ineffective regulations.
  By the way, I have not mentioned Sarbanes-Oxley, which is adding 
accounting costs and other costs so astronomical to small business that 
many of them are not able to hire, they are not able to accomplish what 
they want to accomplish, and it has stalled our economy. That doesn't 
mean we don't need some regulations, but these bills have gone way to 
the excess.
  No. 6, we need to make our regulatory system more jobs friendly. 
America's regulatory system is out of control. Time and again, 
unelected Washington bureaucrats erect walls of redtape that place 
significant burdens on the job creators. Far too often, businesses are 
forced to spend time and resources trying to comply with unnecessary 
Federal rules and regulations rather than on growth and development. 
With unemployment at over 9 percent, Congress needs to ensure that 
policies pursued by Federal agencies make it easier for businesses to 
hire and do what is necessary to be able to compete globally. There is 
bipartisan support for this idea. President Obama has proposed 
requiring regulators to perform a cost-benefit analysis in drafting new 
regulations. This requirement should be set by statute and should apply 
to all Federal agencies.
  In addition, Congress should have greater influence in the regulatory 
process and should pass legislation such as the REINS Act, S. 299, 
which would, among other things, require Federal agencies to obtain 
congressional approval for regulations that will have significant 
economic impact.
  No. 7, we need to develop America's energy resources. In the United 
States, energy is produced by private industry. Yet most energy 
resources are controlled by the Federal Government. The Obama 
administration has aggressively withdrawn access to Federal energy 
resources and has stalled or proscribed countless domestic energy 
projects sought by industry. This willful inaction by our President has 
cost Americans hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs. It has also 
cost our Federal and State governments billions of dollars in lost 
revenues from Federal energy royalties which they share. A recent Wood 
Mackenzie study found that if our Nation were permitted to allow more 
domestic energy production in the next two decades, an additional 1.4 
million jobs would result and Federal and State governments would enjoy 
more than $800 billion in additional revenue. According to the study, 
it would mean more than 40,000 new jobs in Utah alone.
  I have worked with my colleagues, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana 
and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, on two legislative proposals that 
would reverse the President's attacks on domestic energy production. 
The 3-D, Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act, 
that is S. 706, and the American Energy and Western Jobs Act, S. 1027, 
will get America back in the business of producing its own energy, 
creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and billions in new revenue 
for Federal and State governments.
  No. 8, we need to help America compete by protecting and encouraging 
innovation. We must modernize and make permanent research and 
development, the R&D tax credit to help keep America on the leading 
edge of technological innovation.
  The United States once led the world in research and development 
incentives when we created the R&D credit back in 1981. However, in the 
years since other countries have responded with their own incentives, 
and now we rank 17th behind many of our global competitors. Senator 
Baucus and I have been the prime sponsors of the research and 
development tax credit over the years. In order to provide a more level 
playing field for American companies that compete in the global 
marketplace, we must provide more certainty to companies that invest 
heavily in research and development.
  In addition, international infringement of U.S. intellectual property

[[Page S6299]]

rights costs American businesses billions of dollars every year. This 
affects big corporations and small businesses alike. By simply ensuring 
that our trade partners fulfill their international obligations to 
recognize and enforce intellectual property rights, we can create 
millions of jobs in this country. Starting now, this administration 
must take more meaningful steps to address this problem and protect 
American job creators.
  No. 9, we need to create incentives and remove barriers for small 
businesses to create jobs. Small businesses drive the American economy 
and they are the soul of our Nation's entrepreneurial heritage. Small 
businesses create two-thirds of the jobs in our Nation's economy. As 
such, they should be at the forefront of our economic recovery. To 
achieve this, we need to ensure that American small businesses operate 
in a more business-friendly environment. Big-government solutions have 
failed to produce jobs, so it is long overdue that we release the 
entrepreneurial power of the private sector to grow our economy once 
again. We can and must make it easier for small businesses to invest, 
grow, and create jobs.
  For example, Congress could provide a 20-percent tax deduction for 
small businesses on their income, and Congress could repeal the 3-
percent withholding requirement for Federal contractors. Both of these 
ideas would expand job creation among small businesses.
  No. 10, finally, we need to reform America's labor laws and rein in 
the National Labor Relations Board. Congress must enact significant 
reforms to our Nation's labor laws to counteract the pro-union 
extremism of the Obama National Labor Relations Board, or the NLRB. 
Instead of allowing the NLRB to rewrite America's labor laws every time 
a new administration takes office, Congress should reform those laws to 
provide greater oversight, accountability, and judicial review of the 
NLRB's decisions. They are usurping the power of the Congress. They are 
usurping the power of the courts. The fact of the matter is they don't 
have the right to do that, and they are overturning 76 years of solid 
labor law which is slightly in favor of organized labor. They want to 
make it totally in favor of organized labor.
  In addition, Congress should pass legislation such as the Employee 
Rights Act, S. 1507, which I introduced in August to protect the rights 
of workers who do not want union representation, to prevent unions from 
exploiting their current members, and to ensure that the NLRB is no 
longer able to trample employee rights via regulatory fiat.
  Congress should finally repeal the outdated prevailing wage 
requirements in the Davis-Bacon Act or, at the very least, suspend them 
until the economy recovers. Doing so would reduce burdens on small 
businesses, save the taxpayers money and, of course, create more jobs.
  Once again, I am not under any illusions that passing this type of 
jobs agenda will be easy, but I am convinced of its necessity. Each of 
these proposals would achieve a commonsense objective, and most of 
these ideas have broad support within Congress and the American people. 
One thing is certain, however. We cannot stand by and do nothing. The 
people of Utah, whom I serve, and people across the country are 
demanding more jobs. This plan would accomplish this goal, but not 
through government, more regulation, more spending, and more taxes. 
Rather, it would encourage private sector job growth by getting 
government the heck out of the way. And by ensuring greater economic 
stability in the future, it would help to maintain the conditions for 
robust job creation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Illinois.


                           American Jobs Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to follow on the speech made by 
my friend and colleague from Utah about the current state of 
unemployment in America and what to do about it. One of the last things 
he says is, get government out of the way. I wish to suggest that 
maybe, if he has some time--and I know he is a very busy man--he join 
me on a trip to Peoria, IL, where I was last week visiting Lucas & Sons 
Steel Company. This company has been in business since 1857. It has 26 
employees. The CEO is a delightful, dynamic young woman named Margaret 
Hanley. She has, as I said, 26 union employees, all ironworkers. What 
she does is fabricate steel for construction projects all over the 
Midwest and as far away as Antarctica. As I said, the company has been 
around over 150 years.
  I asked her, Where do you get your steel? She said, It is all 
American steel. I asked her, How are you doing? She said, Great. She 
said, One of the reasons we are doing great is because of President 
Obama's stimulus package. The President said to American businesses 
such as hers, you can borrow money at low interest rates to buy new 
machinery that will help you be more competitive. She said, Come on, 
let me show you. We walked in the other room, and here was a computer-
driven machine as big as a small room being handled by a fellow that 
was literally taking steel girders, boring holes in them, and bending 
them where they are supposed to be bent. She said, I can compete with 
the big boys with this. We are going to increase the number of people 
working at Lucas & Sons Steel. Senator Hatch says, Government, get out 
of the way. Thank goodness, government was there for that company, a 
private company, paying a living wage with decent benefits, that has 
been around for a century and a half and is prospering because they are 
making quality products out of American steel with equipment they 
bought through President Obama's stimulus package.
  How many times do we hear Senator McConnell come to the floor and 
say, The President's stimulus package was a punch line on nighttime TV? 
Well, it isn't a punch line in Peoria. It is dead serious because 
people are working, making a good wage, thanks to the investment in 
small business through government help.
  I believe, and most Americans believe, real job creation is going to 
be in the private sector. Well, look what happened here. Because of the 
investment of government helping her to buy this machinery and be 
competitive, production and manufacturing jobs stayed right here in the 
United States, and that is what we want. There are 14 million people 
out of work.
  As I traveled up and down my State of Illinois, I visited some days 
with those who are unemployed, desperately trying to find jobs, and 
other days with businesses such as Lucas & Sons Steel in Peoria which 
are doing well. I asked them the key to their success. They basically 
say they have been lucky to have good products and great workers and 
great infrastructure.
  Senator Hatch says, Get government out of the way. Government has to 
be in the way for infrastructure. It is government that builds the 
highways, the bridges, the airports, the railroads. That is part of 
what the government is investing in for the future of our economy. Part 
of President Obama's jobs package is to put Americans back to work 
rebuilding basic infrastructure. We need it. We need it all across the 
Midwest and across the Nation. If you think we can afford to get 
government out of the way and not invest in infrastructure, take a look 
at what is going on in China today. In China, our No. 1 competitor in 
the world and our No. 1 creditor in the world, they are building right 
and left. They are preparing for the 21st century. They are going to 
build 50 new airports in the next 5 years that will accommodate every 
plane of every size made by Boeing Aircraft. That is how big these 
airports are. There will be 50 new ones. They are building the 
infrastructure to not only compete but pass the United States.
  When my colleagues on the other side come to the floor and say: Get 
government out of the way, what do they mean? That we should not be 
investing in infrastructure to make America strong for the 21st 
century; that the businesses, large and small, in Illinois that need 
modern, safe highways to move their goods back and forth to market 
should not turn to government for that help? It makes no sense. 
Historically we have agreed on a bipartisan basis when it comes to 
infrastructure. We should agree again, and that is part of the 
President's jobs bill.

  Let me tell you what else is in there. We know America's working 
families are struggling paycheck to paycheck. They took a survey 
recently, and they asked working families in America: How many of your 
families could come

[[Page S6300]]

up with $2,000 in 30 days either out of savings or borrowing? That 
isn't an unreasonable amount of money. A very moderate injury in an 
emergency room might cost you $2,000. So they asked them, and it turned 
out only a little over half of working families had access to $2,000. 
It shows you how close to the edge many families are living. It shows 
you many of them are surviving paycheck to paycheck. Although they work 
hard, they cannot seem to get ahead.
  President Obama's jobs act says this: These working families deserve 
a payroll tax cut of 3 percent. What would that mean? Three percent 
doesn't sound like much, but look what it means in Illinois. Our 
average wage in Illinois is about $53,000 a year. The 3-percent payroll 
tax cut would give to these families between $125 and $130 a month. A 
Senator may not miss that amount of money, but for a lot of working 
families, it is the difference between filling your gas tank and buying 
the shoes for the kids to go to school. So the President's payroll tax 
cut puts money in the hands of working families to buy the goods and 
services to get the economy moving forward.
  What else does the President suggest? He suggests in his jobs act 
that we need to provide tax incentives for small businesses to hire the 
unemployed. One of the things the President said when he spoke to us is 
we ought to make sure every veteran who served our country can find a 
job when they get home by offering incentives for businesses to hire 
returning soldiers. That is government involved. We create that 
incentive. The Republican side says: Get government out of the way. I 
don't think so. These men and women who served our country, who risked 
their lives, who fought for America, should not have to come home and 
fight for a job and lose that fight. We ought to stand by them and help 
them find work. That is part of President Obama's jobs bill, and it is 
a reasonable part. Cutting the payroll taxes, cutting the taxes that 
businesses, including small businesses, pay so they are more profitable 
and can hire more people is a reasonable thing to do.
  I was amused that the Senator from Utah brought up one of my issues 
that I have worked on, and that is the debit card swipe fee. If you use 
a debit card to make a purchase at a restaurant, a grocery store, a 
drugstore, a bookstore, whatever it happens to be, and they would swipe 
that card, the retailer you bought that good or service from has to pay 
a fee to the bank and major credit card company. Well, it turns out 
that the fee--the so-called swipe fee--is dramatically larger than the 
actual cost of the transaction to the bank and credit card company.
  Let me give you some numbers. The Federal Reserve investigated, and 
here is what they found: To use a debit card to make a purchase costs 
the bank and credit card company somewhere between 4 cents and 12 
cents. That is to process everything. For you to take money out of your 
checking account with a debit card to pay for a purchase, what do they 
charge? On average they charge the retailer 44 cents. That is somewhere 
between 600 percent and 400 percent of their actual costs. So what we 
did is to say that retailers across America deserve a break. With the 
Federal Reserve establishing the number, we said a reasonable fee is 
about 24 cents. That splits the difference, which is the common outcome 
in Washington. It gives the banks more than they actually have to 
expend to process, but it doesn't hit the retailers hard.
  I went to the Rock Island Country Market when I was back home in 
downstate Illinois. Carl, the manager, talked about his morning 
special, a cup of coffee and a doughnut at the country market, 99 
cents. He said, Senator, do you know what it feels like when someone 
hands me a debit card for that 99-cent transaction? I not only didn't 
break even, I lost money, and I will lose it every time.
  We have to give retailers a fighting chance. When the Senator from 
Utah comes to the floor and says we should not do that, that we should 
stand by the Wall Street banks and the credit card companies, I think 
he lost sight of the fact that Main Street, not Wall Street, is where 
jobs are created in America. Helping retailers, large and small, be 
profitable, be able to reduce prices on their goods and hire more 
people is the way for us to emerge from this situation and have more 
people working across America.
  There is great controversy associated with the fact that President 
Obama made a suggestion when he spoke to us about the jobs bill and 
when he said to us: I am going to pay for it. Whatever I do with this 
jobs bill, whether it is extending unemployment benefits, payroll tax 
cuts for working families, a break for small businesses to hire 
veterans and other unemployed people, we are going to pay for it. We 
are not going to add this to the deficit. He came up with a plan to do 
it. I thought his plan was reasonable. We have talked on the Democratic 
caucus side and come up with a plan that is more acceptable to our 
caucus, and I can accept it too. Here is what it is. It is a little 
over a 5-percent surcharge on people who are making over $1 million a 
year--a 5-percent surcharge on their income tax. These are people who 
are making $20,000 a week--$20,000 a week--and the President has 
suggested they should pay their fair share. We have come up with a more 
specific approach--a little over a 5-percent surtax to pay for what it 
will take to get the jobs act moving forward and get the economy moving 
forward, which will be to everyone's benefit, rich and poor alike, 
across America.
  One would think we said something heretical--the protests that were 
received from the Republican side of the aisle in the House and the 
Senate. What I find interesting about their opposition to this is, when 
we ask the American people point-blank: Do you think to pay for the 
President's jobs bill, to get people back to work, it is reasonable to 
close tax loopholes and ask millionaires to pay a little more on their 
income tax, here is what the poll says: 64 percent--almost two out of 
three Americans--support raising taxes on millionaires. How about 
Independents? ABC News poll: Seventy-five percent support raising taxes 
on millionaires. But what about Republicans? Fifty-seven percent of 
Republicans support raising taxes on millionaires and--hang on tight--
55 percent of tea party supporters agree with raising taxes on 
millionaires.
  It turns out that the majority of Americans at every political level 
believe this is a reasonable proposal. The only problem is, we can't 
find a Republican Senator or a House Member who agrees. They have said 
they will vote against anything that includes a penny more in taxes for 
those who are making over $1 million a year.
  I think Americans believe we are all in this together. Everyone has 
to sacrifice. Families sacrifice every day. Businesses are sacrificing, 
trying to stay open and prosper in a rough and challenging economy. It 
is not unreasonable to ask those who are doing well in America to pay a 
little more so we can get this economy moving forward and create jobs.


                           Wall Street Reform

  There are two other points raised by the Senator from Utah I wish to 
address. One of them is, he said he is against the Wall Street reform 
package we passed. Do my colleagues remember--it hasn't been that long 
ago--when we were told by the previous President that if we didn't 
provide almost $800 billion of taxpayers' money to the biggest banks in 
America, they would fail and the economy would crater? It is a day I 
will never forget because it is a stark choice: take $800 billion out 
of our Treasury with all our debt and give it to Wall Street banks or 
run the risk of our economy collapsing. Many of us said we will stand 
with President Bush's proposal. We will see if we can keep these banks 
staying afloat. Does anyone remember the thank-you note we got from the 
major bankers across America for the $800 billion in TARP funds? They 
gave million-dollar bonuses to their officers. The same people who were 
in charge and who drove their banks into the ground and drove the 
economy into the ground that forced the taxpayers' bailout were ending 
up with millions of dollars in bonuses.
  We decided with Wall Street reform to say, once and for all, we are 
not going down this road again. This notion that some of these Wall 
Street banks and bigger banks are too big to fail has to come to an 
end. So we passed Wall Street reform to try to straighten out some of 
the abuses that led to this recession. We didn't get a

[[Page S6301]]

single vote on the Republican side of the aisle--not one. They don't 
want the government to exercise any power of oversight, to police the 
ranks of those in the financial industry who are not dealing with this 
situation responsibly. That is their position.
  I happen to believe government has a legitimate role. When those 
banks were about to fail, they loved government. They couldn't wait to 
get our money. They got the money and survived and then gave one 
another bonuses. The government said: Now you have to clean up your 
act, and they said: Get out of the way. Government is nothing but a big 
old problem.
  The American people know better. We want Wall Street and the big 
banks to be held accountable. We never want to go down this bailout 
road again, and I think--and I hope most Americans believe--that 
oversight of these banks is absolutely essential to make sure we have 
money available and these banks are sound.


                           Health Care Reform

  The last point I will make relates to the health care issue. I see my 
colleague from Colorado on the floor, and I am happy to yield to him in 
just a couple minutes.
  The health care issue is one that is a frequent source of 
conversation among the political talking heads and elected officials 
here in Washington. Recently, many on the other side of the aisle have 
been holding almost daily press conferences--one was reported today in 
the Washington Post--where they get very worked up over the President's 
health care reform bill, which I was proud to support, and say it is 
the reason for virtually every problem in America.
  Let me tell my colleagues on both sides the reality. Having served on 
the deficit commission, we cannot reduce the deficit and the rate of 
growth in our national debt without coming to grips with the cost of 
health care. Whether it is a family, a business or any level of 
government, the cost of health care is breaking the bank. What we tried 
to do, and I think we will do, is to come up with a fair way to bring 
down the rate of growth and the cost of health care. I am not naive 
enough to believe we are going to actually bring down health care costs 
dramatically. What we are trying to do is to slow that rate of growth, 
and that is something we can achieve.
  I take a look around at what we are faced with when it comes to 
health care and the dilemmas we face, how many people before this 
health care reform bill had virtually no protection. One of the things 
we did in health care reform, which I suppose those who want to repeal 
it want to get rid of, was to say they couldn't penalize a person or a 
family because of preexisting conditions. Children under the age of 18 
could not be denied on a family policy because of a preexisting 
condition. Many parents, such as my own family, have lived through this 
and have known that if we couldn't get basic health insurance for our 
child, it could jeopardize the quality of care that was available. We 
changed that law. We said they cannot discriminate against children 
under the age of 18 because of preexisting conditions. We are moving 
toward eliminating that discrimination across the board. Is that 
unreasonable? I think it is realistic and humane and it is a good thing 
to do.
  The second thing we did was to help senior citizens getting 
prescription drugs under Medicare who get stuck with something called 
the doughnut hole. It is a gap in coverage of almost $2,000 a year that 
they have to take out of their savings accounts to pay for expensive 
prescription drugs. We are closing that hole over a period of a number 
of years so seniors will have seamless coverage, start to finish. That 
is part of health care reform. Those who are calling for its repeal 
ought to stand and say exactly that they want to get rid of that as 
well.
  We also provide coverage under the family health insurance plan for 
children up to the age of 26. It expands the reach of family health 
insurance for recent high school and college graduates who may not have 
a job. It is an important coverage factor that I am glad we included in 
this bill.
  There is more we need to do. But to walk away from health care 
reform, to walk away from efforts to preserve quality and reduce the 
cost in health care is a step in the wrong direction for the quality of 
life of American families and for dealing with this deficit challenge 
we face.

  I sincerely hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
consider joining us in offering amendments and modifications to the 
President's jobs act. What is absolutely unacceptable is to do nothing. 
Unfortunately, many of them believe that is exactly what we should do: 
Don't let government get involved in any respect when it comes to the 
unemployment across America. Whether it is unemployment benefits, 
helping working families, giving incentives to small businesses to hire 
veterans and other people, putting money into infrastructure in 
America--these are things we can and should do together as a nation to 
bring this economy forward and to reduce the unemployment we are 
currently facing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Expressions of approval are not in order.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, if I had the time, I would contest a few 
things my colleague from Illinois said, but I am not going to make a 
political speech; I am going to speak on the bill that is currently 
before the Senate which is the China currency bill.
  So I rise to speak on the China currency bill. China's undervaluation 
of its currency is a serious problem. It is an issue I studied when I 
was a member of the Senate Banking Committee and now as a member of the 
Finance Committee. Earlier this year, I also had an opportunity to 
visit China with a number of my colleagues and learn more about this 
issue as we met with their government officials.
  It is clear the efforts of the Chinese Government to peg its currency 
against the dollar give unfair benefits to the Chinese exporters at the 
expense of U.S. manufacturers. The United States should take additional 
action to pressure their government to reevaluate Chinese currency.
  However, this is not a new problem. China currency has been a 
priority for both President George W. Bush and President Obama. Through 
a number of venues, including the Joint Commission on Commerce and 
Trade talks, our officials at all levels have raised this issue with 
little response. This experience shows that action by the United States 
alone is not enough. We know other major global trading powers have the 
same concern, but we continue to act individually. Just this summer, 
the German Government made a renewed attempt to gain more flexibility 
in China's currency. The full European Union has followed suit, but 
they, too, have had little gain. But the United States and the European 
Union are not the only ones concerned about China currency. A number of 
emerging economies, including both India and Brazil, have also made the 
same plea. So the question I ask now is why are we considering a bill 
that puts the United States in a position of going it alone?
  That is one reason I am a cosponsor of the Hatch amendment No. 680. 
This substitute amendment retains the designations included in the 
underlying bill that define a ``fundamentally misaligned currency'' 
while giving direction to the administration to pursue action through 
multilateral channels. The amendment also thinks forward by making the 
issue of currency misalignment a priority issue in both our current 
trade negotiations and in future trade agreements. It is important that 
the United States not act by itself when it comes to pressuring China 
on this issue. I have found in my experience that when it comes to 
economic policy in our globalized world, the multilateral approach is 
the most successful. That is one reason I do not support imposing 
unilateral economic sanctions on any nations. I am hopeful the Senate 
will have an opportunity to vote on and include the Hatch amendment in 
this bill.
  I also wish to speak about an amendment I am working on with my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. Given that this bill is about 
enforcement of trade obligations, we filed an amendment that would 
encourage our officials to counternotify those nations that have failed 
to report on the government subsidies that are provided to industries 
engaged in international trade and in competition with us. The World 
Trade Organization agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures 
establishes base rules for when

[[Page S6302]]

members can provide subsidies. An important element of that agreement 
for compliance is a measure that requires each country to disclose 
annually information about their subsidies. China agreed to these 
obligations in 2001. However, since joining the WTO 10 years ago, China 
has only made its required notification once. That was in 2006, and it 
was largely incomplete. The amendment we have offered requires the U.S. 
Trade Representative to use its authority under the WTO subsidies 
agreement to counternotify a nation that has failed to meet this 
obligation 2 years in a row. I am told the U.S. Trade Representative 
plans to act this afternoon by submitting information to the WTO that 
identifies China's failure to comply with this requirement. I am 
hopeful this will lead to accurate and consistent reporting by those 
governments that continue to disregard their trade obligations.
  This problem with reporting subsidies points to the larger issue we 
have with China aside from currency misalignment. There are other 
significant Chinese policies that put the United States at an economic 
disadvantage and deserve our attention. One such policy I wish to 
highlight is China's policy of giving value-added tax--VAT--rebates to 
artificially promote exports.
  On April 1, 2009, China reinstated a 9-percent rebate of its 17 
percent VAT on soda ash exports, another instance of China manipulating 
commercial outcomes through a government industrial policy. In 2009, 
during the depths of the global economic crisis, China's soda ash 
exports increased 9 percent, while global demand for soda ash was in 
free fall. That same year, U.S. exports of soda ash fell 19 percent. 
This is just one of the countless examples where China's producers pay 
little attention to market conditions and instead are being driven by 
artificial incentives to export.
  Continuation of such a policy puts U.S. jobs and the soda ash 
industry at risk, which is why I have led an effort to have our 
government press China for the elimination of the VAT rebate on soda 
ash.
  The U.S. natural soda ash industry employs over 3,000 workers in 
Wyoming and California, another 100 dock workers in Portland, OR, as 
well as railroad workers who help transport soda ash. Half of all 
workers employed in the soda ash industry are dependent on exports for 
their jobs.
  The U.S. soda ash industry is an export success story. For the first 
time in 2010, the U.S. soda ash industry shipped more product to 
overseas markets than it did to domestic customers, and exports 
continue to grow in 2011. Domestic demand for soda ash is flat, so 
growth in the U.S. soda ash industry is entirely dependent on 
maintaining and expanding its exports.

  The United States is the most competitive soda ash producer in the 
world, but it will continue to be confronted by China's trade-
distorting policies that put it at a competitive disadvantage. 
Specifically, China's VAT rebate on exports reduces China's production 
costs. It undermines U.S. soda ash exports in other markets. Moreover, 
Chinese soda ash is produced through synthetic processes that are both 
extremely harmful to the environment and are energy intensive.
  China's manipulation of its VAT rebate has been raised multiple times 
by Members of this Chamber, as well as our House colleagues. On May 31, 
2011, we asked Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and U.S. Trade 
Representative Ron Kirk to keep this issue on its agenda with the 
Chinese and fight for its elimination.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the text of the letter to Secretary Locke and Ambassador Kirk.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 31, 2011.
     Hon. Gary Locke,
     U.S. Secretary of Commerce,
     Constitution Ave., NW,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ron Kirk,
     U.S. Trade Representative
     17th Street, NW.
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Locke and Ambassador Kirk: We are writing to 
     express our continued concerns about China's use of a Value-
     Added Tax (VAT) rebate to promote its soda ash industry at 
     the expense of U.S. exports. For over two years, China has 
     provided its domestic manufacturers with an artificial 
     incentive to export through a 9% rebate of the 17% VAT. For a 
     number of reasons, we ask that the issue of the soda ash VAT 
     rebate be specifically included on the JCCT agenda this fall.
       After suspending its VAT rebate for soda ash in July 2007, 
     China reinstated the soda ash rebate in April 2009 to 
     encourage its own exports during the global economic crisis. 
     China's state-supported soda ash industry is the largest in 
     the world and this policy is harmful to its international 
     competitors, particularly U.S. soda ash manufacturers. As you 
     may know, U.S. soda ash has a natural advantage over Chinese 
     soda ash, based on a manufacturing process that is much more 
     sustainable in terms of environmental protection and energy 
     use than the synthetic processes used in China. China's 
     manipulation of the VAT rebate to support its domestic soda 
     ash industry also has wider implications--not only is it 
     economically unjustified, it contravenes China's own 
     interests in shifting energy resources from more productive 
     and efficient industries.
       We must focus on Chinese policies that are a direct threat 
     to U.S. exports and U.S. jobs. The soda ash VAT rebate is one 
     such policy. Chinese exports compete directly with U.S. soda 
     ash exports in the Asia-Pacific market and beyond. Although 
     the VAT is just one part of China's overall industrial 
     policy, the soda ash VAT rebate is a distinct threat to U.S. 
     manufacturing in a sector where the United States enjoys a 
     natural competitive advantage. If we don't stand up for the 
     pillars of our export-based manufacturers like the soda ash 
     industry--and the U.S. workers employed throughout the soda 
     ash supply chain--we cannot seriously contend we are doing 
     everything we can to support U.S. exports.
       We ask that the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade 
     Representative's Office ensure that the soda ash VAT rebate 
     is raised at the highest levels with Chinese officials at the 
     JCCT meetings this year. The message should be as clear as it 
     is convincing; namely, China should live up to its repeated 
     pledge to discourage the expansion of highly-polluting and 
     energy-intensive sectors such as its own soda ash industry. 
     Policies aimed at promoting soda ash exports, such as the VAT 
     rebate, are inconsistent with China's own stated goals and a 
     direct threat to U.S. interests.
       We greatly appreciate your consideration of this request 
     and look forward to your response.
         Michael B. Enzi, John Barrasso, M.D., David Wu, Joseph I. 
           Lieberman, Robert Menendez, Cynthia Lummis, Ron Wyden, 
           Jeff Merkley, James A. Himes, Frank Lautenberg.

  Mr. ENZI. For over 2 years, China has provided its domestic 
manufacturers with an artificial incentive to export through the 9-
percent VAT rebate on soda ash. When this incentive is removed, a truly 
competitive market can be restored for global exports of soda ash. I 
look forward to a lively discussion on this issue when the United 
States and China meet for the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade 
ministerials this fall.
  I do not want to underestimate the importance of the China currency 
issue. However, this debate cannot overlook the significant trade 
imbalances caused by other Chinese Government policies that 
disadvantage U.S. industries. If you ask our officials, they will not 
hesitate to say that the currency issue is just the tip of the iceberg. 
There are countless tariffs, subsidies, and nontariff barriers that 
keep the United States out of China at the cost of U.S. jobs. That is 
why I am disappointed my colleague, the majority leader, has not yet 
allowed Members to offer the amendments on trade and jobs they wish to 
offer.
  Our economic policies with China extend far beyond the currency 
issue, and this bill should be the forum to raise and debate those 
concerns. This bill has been sold as a jobs bill and a trade bill and, 
therefore, should be open to amendments about jobs and trade. Allowing 
amendments now is especially important since this is yet another bill 
brought directly to the floor without the benefit of committee 
consideration.
  Our companies and exporters are among the best in the world, but it 
is tough for them to succeed when other nations allow competitors to 
ignore the rules they have agreed to follow. Without a doubt, something 
needs to be done about currency misalignment in China. However, for it 
to be successful, we have to take a holistic approach. I am hopeful the 
Senate will consider these ideas, including the Hatch amendment. If the 
United States continues to go it alone, we will continue to have the 
same problems. We must consider legislation that not only authorizes 
U.S. action but encourages

[[Page S6303]]

the administration to pursue the currency issue with other nations that 
may have the same concern.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I am here today to talk a little bit 
about the state of our economy. I have spent the summer and early fall 
traveling around the beautiful State of Colorado, having townhall 
meetings and listening to people who mostly start the conversations by 
saying: What is wrong with you people in Washington? Why can't you work 
together to actually get anything done there?
  They are short of slogans these days, and they are desperate for us 
to turn this economy around. They know what the consequences have been 
of living in a country that for the first time in its history has had 
median family income falling, at a time when their cost of health 
insurance has been skyrocketing, their cost of higher education is 
going through the roof.
  I thought the Wall Street Journal captured this in a way that I have 
been unable to. In a very vivid way, on the front page a couple weeks 
ago, there was an article that was entitled: ``As Middle Class Shrinks, 
P&G''--that is Procter & Gamble--``Aims High and Low.'' That article is 
about one of the most iconic middle-class brands imaginable, Procter & 
Gamble.
  Ninety-eight percent of the households in this country have a product 
in their house that is produced by Procter & Gamble: Crest toothpaste, 
Head & Shoulders shampoo, Tide water detergent, Pampers diapers, Bounty 
paper towels. The list goes on: Duracell batteries, Mr. Clean, Pepto-
Bismol, Pringles potato chips--stuff that did not even exist before 
there was a middle class in this country to buy it.
  That is the great brand of Procter & Gamble, and it is still a great 
brand. But this article is about how they are changing their business 
model to reflect the current economic realities and economic realities 
they believe are actually going to persist for some time.
  I will quote from the article, Madam President, which I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 12, 2011]

             As Middle Class Shrinks, P&G Aims High and Low

                            (By Ellen Byron)

       For generations, Procter & Gamble Co.'s growth strategy was 
     focused on developing household staples for the vast American 
     middle class.
       Now, P&G executives say many of its former middle-market 
     shoppers are trading down to lower-priced goods--widening the 
     pools of have and have-not consumers at the expense of the 
     middle.
       That's forced P&G, which estimates it has at least one 
     product in 98% of American households, to fundamentally 
     change the way it develops and sells its goods. For the first 
     time in 38 years, for example, the company launched a new 
     dish soap in the U.S. at a bargain price.
       P&G's roll out of Gain dish soap says a lot about the 
     health of the American middle class: The world's largest 
     maker of consumer products is now betting that the squeeze on 
     middle America will be long lasting.
       ``It's required us to think differently about our product 
     portfolio and how to please the high-end and lower-end 
     markets,'' says Melanie Healey, group president of P&G's 
     North America business. ``That's frankly where a lot of the 
     growth is happening.''
       In the wake of the worst recession in 50 years, there's 
     little doubt that the American middle class--the 40% of 
     households with annual incomes between $50,000 and $140,000 a 
     year--is in distress. Even before the recession, incomes of 
     American middle-class families weren't keeping up with 
     inflation, especially with the rising costs of what are 
     considered the essential ingredients of middle-class life--
     college education, health care and housing. In 2009, the 
     income of the median family, the one smack in the middle of 
     the middle, was lower, adjusted for inflation, than in 1998, 
     the Census Bureau says.
       The slumping stock market and collapse in housing prices 
     have also hit middle-class Americans. At the end of March, 
     Americans had $6.1 trillion in equity in their houses--the 
     value of the house minus mortgages--half the 2006 level, 
     according to the Federal Reserve. Economist Edward Wolff of 
     New York University estimates that the net worth--household 
     assets minus debts--of the middle fifth of American 
     households grew by 2.4% a year between 2001 and 2007 and 
     plunged by 26.2% in the following two years.
       P&G isn't the only company adjusting its business. A wide 
     swath of American companies is convinced that the consumer 
     market is bifurcating into high and low ends and eroding in 
     the middle. They have begun to alter the way they research, 
     develop and market their products.
       Food giant H.J. Heinz Co., for example, is developing more 
     products at lower price ranges. Luxury retailer Saks Inc. is 
     bolstering its high-end apparel and accessories because its 
     wealthiest customers--not those drawn to entry-level items--
     are driving the chain's growth.
       Citigroup calls the phenomenon the ``Consumer Hourglass 
     Theory'' and since 2009 has urged investors to focus on 
     companies best positioned to cater to the highest-income and 
     lowest-income consumers. It created an index of 25 companies, 
     including Estee Lauder Cos. and Saks at the top of the 
     hourglass and Family Dollar Stores Inc. and Kellogg Co. at 
     the bottom. The index posted a 56.5% return for investors 
     from its inception on Dec. 10, 2009, through Sept. 1, 2011. 
     Over the same period, the Dow Jones Industrial Average 
     returned 11%.
       ``Companies have thought that if you're in the middle, 
     you're safe,'' says Citigroup analyst Deborah Weinswig. ``But 
     that's not where the consumer is any more--the consumer 
     hourglass is more pronounced now than ever.''
       Companies like Tiffany & Co., Coach Inc. and Neiman Marcus 
     Group Inc., which cater to the wealthy, racked up outsize 
     sales last Christmas and continue to post strong sales.
       Tiffany says its lower-priced silver baubles, once a 
     favorite of middle-class shoppers craving a small token from 
     the storied jeweler, are now its weakest sellers in the U.S. 
     ``I think that there's probably more separation of affluence 
     in the U.S.,'' Tiffany Chief Operating Officer James 
     Fernandez said in June.
       Firms catering to low-income consumers, such as Dollar 
     General Corp., also are posting gains, boosted by formerly 
     middle-class families facing shrunken budgets. Dollar stores 
     garnered steady sales increases in recent years, easily 
     outpacing mainstream counterparts like Target Corp. and Wal-
     Mart Stores Inc., which typically are more expensive.
       P&G's profits boomed with the increasing affluence of 
     middle-class households in the post-World War II economy. As 
     masses of housewives set up their new suburban homes, P&G 
     marketers pledged that Tide detergent delivered cleaner 
     clothes, Mr. Clean made floors shinier and Crest toothpaste 
     fought off more cavities. In the decades since, new features 
     like fragrances or ingredient and packaging enhancements kept 
     P&G's growth robust.
       Despite its aggressive expansion around the world, P&G 
     still needs to win over a healthy percentage of the American 
     population, because the U.S. market remains its biggest and 
     most profitable. In the fiscal year ended June 30, the U.S. 
     delivered about 37% of P&G's $82.6 billion in annual sales 
     and an estimated 60% of its $11.8 billion in profit. P&G says 
     that Americans per capita spend about $96 a year on its 
     products, compared with around $4 in China.
       During the early stages of the recession, P&G executives 
     defended its long-time approach of making best-in-class 
     products and charging a premium, expecting middle-class 
     Americans to pay up.
       But cash-strapped shoppers, P&G learned, aren't as willing 
     to splurge on household staples with extra features. Droves 
     of consumers started switching to cheaper brands, slowing 
     P&G's sales and profit gains and denting its dominant market 
     share positions.
       In late 2008, unit sales gains of P&G's cheaper brands 
     began outpacing its more expensive lines despite receiving 
     far less advertising. As the recession wore on, U.S. market-
     share gains for P&G's cheaper Luvs diapers and Gain detergent 
     increased faster than its premium-priced Pampers and Tide 
     brands.
       At the same time, lower-priced competitors nabbed market 
     share from some of P&G's biggest brands. P&G's dominant 
     fabric-softener sheets business, including its Bounce brand, 
     fell five percentage points to 60.2% of the market as lower-
     priced options from Sun Products Corp. and private-label 
     brands picked up sales from the second quarter of 2008 
     through May 2011, according to a Deutsche Bank analysis of 
     data from market-research firm SymphonyIRI.
       P&G's grasp of the liquid laundry detergent category, led 
     by its iconic Tide brand, also posted a rare slip over the 
     same period as bargain-priced options from Sun and Church & 
     Dwight Co. gained momentum. Even the company's huge Gillette 
     refill razor market suffered, declining to 80.1% by May from 
     82.3% in the second-quarter of 2008, as Energizer Holdings 
     Inc.'s less-expensive Schick brand gained nearly three 
     points.
       P&G began changing course in May 2009. After issuing a 
     sharply lower-than-expected earnings forecast for the 
     company's 2010 fiscal year, then-CEO A.G. Lafley said the 
     company would take a ``surgical'' approach to cutting prices 
     on some products and develop more lower-priced goods. ``You 
     have to see reality as it is,'' Mr. Lafley said.
       When the company's 2009 fiscal year ended a month later, 
     P&G's sales had posted a rare drop, falling 3% to $76.7 
     billion.
       In August that year, P&G's newly appointed CEO, company 
     veteran Robert McDonald, accelerated the new approach of 
     developing products for high- and low-income consumers.
       ``We're going to do this both by tiering our portfolio up 
     in terms of value as well as

[[Page S6304]]

     tiering our portfolio down,'' Mr. McDonald said in September 
     2009.
       To monitor the evolving American consumer market, P&G 
     executives study the Gini index, a widely accepted measure of 
     income inequality that ranges from zero, when everyone earns 
     the same amount, to one, when all income goes to only one 
     person. In 2009, the most recent calculation available, the 
     Gini coefficient totaled 0.468, a 20% rise in income 
     disparity over the past 40 years, according to the U.S. 
     Census Bureau.
       ``We now have a Gini index similar to the Philippines and 
     Mexico--you'd never have imagined that,'' says Phyllis 
     Jackson, P&G's vice president of consumer market knowledge 
     for North America. ``I don't think we've typically thought 
     about America as a country with big income gaps to this 
     extent.''
       Over the past two years, P&G has accelerated its research, 
     product-development and marketing approach to target the 
     newly divided American market.
       Globally, P&G divides consumers into three income groups. 
     The highest-earning ``ones'' historically have been the 
     primary bracket P&G chased in the U.S. as they are the least 
     price sensitive and most swayed by claims of superior product 
     performance. But as the ``twos,'' or lower-income American 
     consumers, grew in size during the recession, P&G decided to 
     target them aggressively, too. P&G doesn't specifically 
     target the lowest-income ``threes'' in the U.S., since they 
     comprise a small percentage of the population and such 
     consumers are typically heavily subsidized by government aid.
       At the high end, it launched its most-expensive skin-care 
     regimen, Olay Pro-X in 2009, which includes a starter kit 
     costing around $60. Previously, the Olay line had topped out 
     around $25. Last year, the company launched Gillette Fusion 
     ProGlide razors at a price of $10 to $12, a premium to 
     Gillette Fusion razors, which sell for $8 to $10, and 
     Gillette Mach3, priced at $8 to $9.
       At the lower end, its new Gain dish soap, launched last 
     year, can sell for about half per ounce of the company's 
     premium Dawn Hand Renewal dish soap, which hit stores in late 
     2008.
       Developing products that squarely target the high and low 
     is proving difficult for a company long accustomed to aiming 
     for a giant, mainstream group.
       Conquering the high end is difficult because it usually 
     involves a smaller quantity of products.
       ``We do big volumes of things really well,'' said Bruce 
     Brown, P&G's chief technology officer. ``Things that are 
     smaller quantities, with high appeal, we're learning how to 
     do that.''
       Likewise, the cost challenges at the bottom of the pyramid 
     are also proving difficult, Mr. Brown said. Over the past two 
     years, P&G has increased its research of the growing ranks of 
     low-income American households.
       ``This has been the most humbling aspect of our jobs,'' 
     says Ms. Jackson. ``The numbers of Middle America have been 
     shrinking because people have been getting hurt so badly 
     economically that they've been falling into lower income.''

  Mr. BENNET. I quote:

       P&G's profits boomed with the increasing affluence of 
     middle-class households in the post-World War II economy.

  The story I was just telling.
  The article starts out by saying:

       For generations, Procter & Gamble Co.'s growth strategy was 
     focused on developing household staples for the vast American 
     middle class.
       Now, P&G executives say many of its former middle-market 
     shoppers are trading down to lower-priced goods--widening the 
     pools of have and have-not consumers at the expense of the 
     middle. . . .
       P&G isn't the only company adjusting its business. A wide 
     swath of American companies is convinced that the consumer 
     market is bifurcating into high and low ends and eroding in 
     the middle. They have begun to alter the way they research, 
     develop and market their products.

  In other words, they have begun to alter their business plan with the 
assumption that the middle class is evaporating in this country and 
that their growth markets are the very richest among us, on the one 
hand, and the very poorest among us, on the other hand.
  Let me close on this part by reading near the end of this story:

       To monitor the evolving American consumer market, P&G 
     executives study the Gini index, a widely accepted measure of 
     income equality that ranges from zero . . . to one. . . . In 
     2009, the most recent calculation available, [there was] a 
     20% rise in income disparity over the past 40 years. . . .

  Here is the next quote:

       ``We now have a Gini index similar to the Philippines and 
     Mexico--you'd never have imagined that,'' says Phyllis 
     Jackson, P&G's vice president of consumer market knowledge 
     for North America. ``I don't think we've typically thought 
     about America as a country with big income gaps to this 
     extent.''

  I do not think that is the way we have thought about America either 
because that is not what America has been for generation after 
generation, decade after decade, going back to the founding of this 
country.
  Why do I come to the floor to talk about this? It is because the 
debate in this place is becoming more and more unmoored from the facts, 
and people need to be reminded, I think, here--not in Colorado--but 
here about what the problem is we are actually trying to solve.
  Here, as shown on this chart, is our current economic challenge. The 
top line is our productivity index, going back to 1992, that blue line. 
You will notice it fell slightly during the recession, and then it took 
off again like a rocket. Why? Because firms all over the country were 
having to figure out how to do what they were doing, produce what they 
were producing, with fewer people in order to survive in this 
recession. The combination of competing in a global economic 
environment, which was not even present remotely in the way it is today 
in the 1980s, required us to be more productive. The technological 
revolution this country has spawned and led has allowed us to become 
more productive.
  You can see from this green line--which is gross domestic product--
our economy actually has started to come back. We are about two-thirds 
of the way back to where we were before this recession started. But 
what my families are feeling in Colorado and what the Presiding 
Officer's families are probably feeling in Missouri is in these other 
two lines. This line represents median family income which, as I said 
earlier, continues to drop, for the first time in our country's 
history, in the last 20 years. What that means is people are earning 
$4,000 and $5,000 less in real income at the end of the decade than 
they were at the beginning of the decade. Although I guess I should 
point out here, as well, that during the time median family income was 
falling, average family income went up, reflecting the widening gap 
between rich and poor in this country and reflecting a diminishing 
middle class.
  This line is unemployment. It does not take a genius to figure out 
that when the green line crosses again and our GDP is where it was 
before we even had this recession--and it will--we do not have an 
answer for people who have been dislocated as a consequence of our 
economy becoming more efficient and more productive. These jobs are 
going to be created not by legacy firms from the last century but by 
businesses that are going to be started tomorrow and the week after 
that and the week after that.
  Rather than having a partisan debate here in Washington, we should be 
having a bipartisan discussion about how to change our Tax Code and 
change our regulatory code to make it easier--not harder--for small 
businesses to be created and to compete and to make sure we are 
creating jobs here in the United States that are actually lifting 
median family income rather than driving it downward.
  This is what has happened to manufacturing in the United States since 
2001. I invite anybody to look on our Web site if they want to look at 
these charts themselves or use them in their own meetings. But this top 
line is our manufacturing output. You can see that has been rising. 
This other line, going back from 2001 to today, is manufacturing 
employment. Output rising; employment falling.
  People in my State know we did not get here yesterday. This has been 
happening to them for the last decade or so. They want us to be 
responsive to that.
  This is the median family income chart: In 1999, median family income 
was roughly $53,000. In 2010, it was $49,000--a $4,000 drop in real 
dollars since 1999; a 7.1-percent decrease. People are coming to me and 
saying: Michael--they may not know it is a 7.1-percent decrease, but 
they know they are earning less. They know that 10 years ago when they 
set out to save for college for their 8-year-old, they were expecting 
to be earning more at the end of the decade. Now their kids are going 
to school, and they are saying: I can't afford it. Tuition has 
skyrocketed. I can't send my kid to the best school they got into. What 
a waste.
  I would ask you, Madam President, whether any of us think we can 
afford another decade like that at the beginning of this new century. 
If we consume a fifth of the 21st century driving American middle-class 
income down, we are going to have a very tough time recognizing 
ourselves.

[[Page S6305]]

  This next chart is something that is not noted by many, but I used to 
be a school superintendent, so I have an interest in our education. 
This chart shows unemployment during this recession based on 
educational attainment. The worst it ever got for folks with a college 
degree in this country was 4.5 percent during this recession. For 
people who had less than a high school diploma, it was 15 percent. For 
people with a high school degree, it was around 12 percent.
  Here is what else we have done over the last 10 years. This chart 
shows our poverty rate in this country.
  This is why we have to move past the politics and into a substantive 
conversation about where we want to take this country as Republicans 
and Democrats together. These lines are people who are Republicans and 
Democrats and Independents, who are seeing their income driven down, 
who are seeing their wealth destroyed, and expect us to at least be 
able to have a civil conversation about it on the floor of the Senate.
  Did you know that poverty has increased by 46 percent since the year 
2000 in the United States of America? There are 46 million people in 
our country of 300-and-some million that live in poverty today. Thirty-
five percent of them are kids. Two percent of the children in the 
United States today are living in poverty. One-fifth of the children in 
our country are living in poverty.
  As I mentioned earlier, this has not affected everybody the same in 
our economy. This is the average income growth for the top 1 percent of 
income earners in the United States. This is the top 5 percent. This is 
the top 10 percent. And it seems almost insane to describe it this way, 
but the bottom 90 percent, 9 out of 10 income earners--9 out of 10 
income earners--this is what has happened to their income since 1967 in 
real dollars, inflation-adjusted dollars. It has been absolutely stuck 
and flat at the bottom of this curve, all of which leads me to show the 
most disturbing slide of all, which I know is hard to read. But let me 
tell you what it says--and you can find it on the Web site.
  It says we have not seen this level of income inequality in the 
United States of America since 1928. That is the last time that the so-
called bottom 90 percent of earners--9 out of 10 earners--earned 
roughly 45 percent of the income in the country. Here in 1928, and here 
in 2011. I do not think our democracy can sustain itself with another 
decade or two of numbers such as this. We have to do better.
  The bottom 90 percent of earners, as I mentioned a minute ago, are 
Republicans and they are Democrats, they are Independent voters, and 
they expect their government to work together. We cannot create their 
jobs, but we can create the conditions under which we can create high-
paying jobs in the United States that are lifting family incomes rather 
than driving them down. That is what we should be debating in 
Washington.
  Like you, Madam President, I have a deep concern about the fiscal 
condition of the country. We have $1.5 trillion of deficit, and we have 
$15 trillion of debt, and we do not have the apparent will to address 
that problem. We can address that problem. We should be adopting the 
kind of policies that were recommended by the bipartisan commission, 
Bowles-Simpson, that together combines to take $4 trillion out of our 
deficit situation over the next 10 years.
  They did it by asking everybody to have a share in the sacrifice. We 
should be debating that on the floor of the Senate. We should be 
supporting the work that the Gang of 6 has tried to do, not just 
because it will help us with our fiscal situation, which is critical, 
but because it will help us with our jobs situation.
  There is $2.3 trillion of cash, by some estimates, sitting on the 
balance sheets of America's corporations that is not being invested now 
because people are deeply worried that they cannot predict what 
interest rate environment we are going to be in because we cannot get 
our fiscal house in order and because the government is financing its 
debt on short-term paper, which easily could rise. Every rise in our 
interest rate will add $1.3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 
years.
  These are the facts. I have a list of what we could be doing today. I 
will not dwell on it. We could be reforming and simplifying our Tax 
Code. We could be adopting a long-term research and development 
strategy. We could be investing, as Republicans and Democrats have done 
for decades if not centuries, in our infrastructure. We could bring our 
public education system into the 21st century, which would matter a lot 
not just to our middle-class kids but to kids living in poverty as 
well.
  Did you know that today, if you are a child born in poverty--whether 
you are rural or urban, it does not matter--your chances of getting a 
college degree are 9 in 100--9 in 100--which means that the day you are 
born, if you are among those 100 kids, out of the shoots 91 of you are 
consigned to the margins of the democracy, the margins of our economy.
  If we do not change the way we educate our kids, and even if we do 
not care from their point of view what the implications of that are--
and I deeply do care about that as the father of three little girls. I 
think everybody should have an opportunity to graduate from high 
school, go on to college and succeed. Even if you did not care from 
that perspective, look at what happens if you do not have an education 
in the 21st-century economy. Look at the unemployment rates people are 
having to suffer through if they do not have a high school degree or a 
college degree compared to if they do have a degree. That is not going 
to change.
  The last time we were creating jobs in this country we created 
roughly 5.3 million for people with a college degree, 3.5 million for 
people with something north of a high school diploma. No new jobs for 
people with a high school degree, and we lost jobs for high school 
dropouts.
  So if you care about the strength and success of the American 
economy, if you care about maintaining the mantle of the land of 
opportunity, if you care about the idea that the job of one generation 
is to put another generation into a position to succeed and contribute 
in the economy and the democracy, you need to care about what we are 
doing with our education system.
  We could be talking about that. We could be doing regulatory review 
to make sure we have a process to get rid of old regulations that do 
not make sense and put in ones that do. I know in Colorado we have a 
huge interest in ending our reliance on foreign oil. Everywhere I go 
people talk about that. Everywhere I go people wonder whether it would 
not be better to have an energy policy that created energy independence 
for this country instead of having one--or a lack of one may be a 
better way of saying it--that forces us to shift billions of dollars a 
week to the Persian Gulf for the privilege of buying their oil because 
we do not have a policy.
  We could be thinking about advanced manufacturing. We could be 
eliminating the technology gap. We could be modernizing the FDA. There 
is no shortage of things we can do if we come together to do it.
  I see my colleague from Oregon is here, so I will wrap up in 1 
minute. But in order to be able to get to any of that, in order to get 
to any of that, we have to knock off the political games and actually 
start working together around this place.
  Two days ago there was an article in the Washington Post--I think it 
was--that said that the United States Congress has a 14-percent 
approval rating, and the joke around here is, well, who in the world 
are those 14 percent who think we are doing a good job? But it is not a 
joke. This is serious. There is a reason our approval rating is in the 
basement. It is because instead of working on the things that actually 
would drive productivity in this country, would drive job creation in 
this country, would most importantly drive median family income up 
instead of down, we are fighting with each other.
  I want to go back to Colorado and have an answer for the people in my 
townhalls who could care less--could care less--whether I am a Democrat 
or I am a Republican and just want me to do my job. The ones who are 
doing their jobs want me to do my job. The ones who do not have jobs 
want me to do my job. They want all of us to do our jobs.
  I know there are people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle that 
if given the chance will work together to do

[[Page S6306]]

this. The last thing I will say is this, and then I will stop. The rest 
of the world is not waiting for us to get our act together. The rest of 
the world is not waiting for us to decide whether we are going to have 
another debate that leads to us blowing up the credit rating of the 
United States. They are not waiting for us to decide whether we want to 
sacrifice for the first time the full faith and credit of the United 
States of America. They are not waiting for us to decide whether we are 
going to invest in 21st-century manufacturing.
  My colleague from Ohio just showed up. He talked about that. They are 
not waiting for us to decide whether we are going to let them own the 
21st-century energy economy. They are going right ahead, and so our 
failure to act has consequences. I believe it is time for us to come 
together--even though we are in a political season, even though we have 
a Presidential campaign--and do our work on behalf of the American 
people and the people of my State of Colorado.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I just wanted 
to commend Senator Bennet for the outstanding work he is doing on the 
budget issue, and particularly cite the fact of the cooperation of the 
Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, which 
illustrates how important it is to try find some common ground. That is 
what I am going to be trying to do on the health care issue coming up. 
But I wanted to commend the Senator from Colorado for his good work.
  As the Senate focuses on the budget, and certainly the American 
people hear the discussion about health care and particularly what is 
going on in the supercommittee, I want to take a few minutes to talk 
about how there is an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way, 
particularly with older people, to show that it is possible for them to 
get more of the care they want, particularly care at home, for a price 
that is lower for taxpayers, reduced costs for the taxpaying public.
  This all came to light through an extremely important hearing that 
was held in the Senate Finance Committee on which I serve. Chairman 
Baucus took the time to look at the care of those who are some of the 
neediest and most vulnerable in our country. They are the older people 
who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.
  In the fancy jargon of American health care, they are called the dual 
eligibles. But I think anybody looking at the American health care 
system knows that these are some of those who are most vulnerable and 
most harmed when they fall between the cracks in the health care 
system. The fact is, the ball game as it relates to Medicare--I know 
the Presiding Officer of the Senate has spent a lot of time on those 
budget issues--is all about chronic disease. That is where the Medicare 
dollars go. It goes into the treatment of heart and stroke and 
diabetes. That is where the money really goes.
  Millions of those who suffer from these devastating illnesses are 
those folks I am speaking about, the dual-eligible people who are 
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Millions of them are eligible 
for alternative services, particularly services at home. But right now, 
a disproportionately large number of them get their care in the most 
expensive kind of setting, a place where they do not want to be--the 
hospital and the hospital emergency room.
  The fact is, all over the country--in the State of Ohio, in the State 
of Missouri--every single day these folks are going in ambulances to 
hospital emergency rooms. Often they end up having to go on a life 
flight, essentially in the air to these facilities. As of today, even 
though we have more than 9 million of these individuals who are on both 
Medicare and Medicaid, according to Dr. Don Berwick at the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, only about 100,000 of them are being 
taken care of at home.
  So, of course, the Congress worked on the health reform issue, and it 
was possible in that legislation to move to take a few thousand more, a 
few thousand more than the 100,000 that are now being taken.
  As Chairman Baucus highlighted just a few days ago, we ought to get 
serious about this and do a lot more because older people, if we come 
up with approaches that allow them to get cared for at home, will feel 
better about our health care system and better about the decisions that 
are being made here, and taxpayers are going to save money.
  Anybody who questions whether this is possible ought to look at the 
latest information that is coming from the Veterans' Administration. 
They have 250 locations--locations all around the country--for the 
program they use called the Home-Based Primary Care Program. The only 
difference between that VA program and essentially what is being done 
on the Medicare and Medicaid side is that the VA patients are even 
sicker than those who have been treated in the Medicare and Medicaid 
studies.
  The latest information shows that caring for older veterans in the 
home has reduced hospital stays by 62 percent, nursing home stays by 88 
percent, and cost by 24 percent. Let's just for a moment focus on that 
number--a cost savings of 24 percent--while the older veteran gets more 
of what they want, which is to be at home for the care they need rather 
than in these institutional settings, whether they are hospitals, 
hospital emergency rooms, what have you. We have new information, 
specific, concrete information.
  So that colleagues know, those who are specialists in this area at 
the University of Pennsylvania who have looked particularly at the 
model that was recently included in the affordable care act have said 
that if that model was fully implemented for caring for these 
individuals at home, it is their judgment that it would be possible to 
save in the vicinity of $30 billion a year.
  These are enormous sums of money, and to be able to make those 
savings while we say to older people in Missouri, in Oregon, and around 
the country: You are going to get more of what you want, which is care 
at home, at a price lower than the alternative--that looks like a 
pretty good opportunity.
  As the supercommittee goes forward with its work, there are some 
questions about whether they need additional legislative authority to 
do their work. If they do, I think certainly the supercommittee, in 
conjunction with both the full Senate and the House, ought to give it 
to them. My own sense is that they probably don't need additional 
legislative authority, but certainly there will be support in the 
Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senators Baucus and 
Hatch, both of whom have done very good work on this issue, to move 
legislatively, whether it is in the supercommittee or through the full 
Senate, legislation that would allow us to dramatically expand this 
program.
  I know the Senator from Minnesota cares a great deal about seniors 
and these issues. Just a little bit of history. As I sat in the Senate 
Finance Committee a few days ago listening to how we ought to have some 
more pilot projects and some demonstrations and some studies, I thought 
about the days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, about 
three decades ago. I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and 
all of that kind of thing. We were talking then in much the same way I 
heard the discussion going in the Senate Finance Committee--about 
demonstrations and pilots and the like. To a very good person at the 
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Melanie Bella, and in 
conversations later with Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch, I basically 
said: We have to change this because if we don't, my prediction is that 
10 years or so from now, they will be back in the Senate Finance 
Committee having pretty much the same discussion. They will be talking 
about a few pilot projects, demonstrations, and a few more studies, and 
by that time, the number of those who are eligible for both Medicare 
and Medicaid will be lot more than the 9 million who are eligible 
today. It will be many times that, and we will have wasted many 
billions of dollars more. So now is the time to do it.
  I would like to close simply by picking up on a point Senator Bennet 
made about trying to find common ground. This question of independence 
at home has strong bipartisan support. In the other body, the principal 
sponsor, Congressman Ed Markey, worked with

[[Page S6307]]

Chris Smith of New Jersey, Michael Burgess of Texas--two very strong 
conservatives--over the years, and in the Senate, I have been honored 
to have Senator Chambliss, Senator Burr, and a number of other 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle say that this makes sense both 
for older people and for taxpayers.
  In the next few days, Senators are going to hear from about 100 
health care groups around the country making the case for the 
Congress--starting with the supercommittee, going through our work in 
the Senate and the House--to get serious about dramatically expanding, 
massively expanding the number of older people who are cared for at 
home, where they want to be, which will result in savings to the 
taxpayers at the same time.
  This is something that should not be allowed to be delayed or put off 
any further. After decades of talking about how it makes sense and 
studying it and having some pilot projects and some demonstration 
projects, I think it is time when doctors come to the Senate 
President's office and patients come to the Senate President's office 
and say: I am very concerned about these cuts. I am convinced it is 
going to reduce access. The providers say: I am not going to be able to 
serve the same number of people. Older people, we know, are calling our 
office saying they are frightened about how it is going to affect them.
  It is time for us to be able to come together in the Senate in the 
kind of spirit Senator Bennet was talking about, Democrats and 
Republicans, to say: Look, here is something that works. We know it 
works; it was proven by Chairman Baucus's recent hearing. We now know, 
based on the VA's important new study with respect to how you can care 
for older people at home, that we have an opportunity to significantly 
expand care for older people at home and generate significant budget 
savings. It will be bipartisan. It is something that ought to be picked 
up by the supercommittee. It ought to be picked up by the full Senate 
and the full House, and we need to do it now.
  If we don't do this now and if it is put off again, after Chairman 
Baucus's important hearings to once again open the door to major 
reform, as sure as night follows the day, Congresses 5, 10 years from 
now will be debating the same thing. I don't think that is right.
  Holding down health care costs doesn't have to mean benefit cuts or 
cuts to reimbursements. We have a chance, with this Independence at 
Home Program, to secure for older people more of the care they need in 
the comfort of their own homes, and employers are actually rewarded 
with shared savings for delivering the kind of quality care they have 
always wanted to provide. These ideas, by the way, are voluntary. No 
older person, no senior citizen is required to participate in it.
  We are going to get around to every Senator's office the findings of 
this new VA study. It comes from 250 locations in each State and DC. 
There are cost savings of 24 percent, hospital stay reductions of 62 
percent, and nursing home stay reductions of 88 percent. These are 
documented savings for older people who are even sicker than those who 
would be served by programs outside the VA.
  This is the time. We have talked about it long enough. If the 
government needs additional legislative authority, it will be possible 
to give that through the supercommittee. I urge all of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to pick up on the 
strong bipartisan support that exists for independence-at-home 
services, particularly for those who are eligible for Medicare and 
Medicaid. They are the most vulnerable in our society. Those 
individuals and the programs they rely on, paid for by taxpayers, 
deserve better. We now have the opportunity to ensure they get it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``Independence 
at Home: Better Health Care at Lower Cost.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Independence at Home--Better Health Care at Lower Cost

       Holding down health costs doesn't have to mean benefit cuts 
     or cuts to reimbursement. With Independence at Home (IAH), 
     beneficiaries get more of what they need--in the comfort of 
     their own home--and providers receive shared savings as a 
     reward for delivering the kind of quality care they have 
     always wanted to provide. The beneficiary and provider get 
     more; the federal government pays less.
       The IAH program is designed to allow America's seniors to 
     remain as independent as possible and avoid unnecessary 
     hospitalizations, ER visits and nursing home admissions.
       Enrollment in an IAH program is completely voluntary, and 
     participating beneficiaries do not relinquish access to any 
     existing Medicare benefit or any practitioner or provider.
       Primary care is available to beneficiaries in their homes 
     through ``housecalls'' by teams of health care professionals 
     tailored to the beneficiaries' chronic conditions.
       The IAH program holds participating practitioners and 
     providers strictly accountable for (a) good outcomes, (b) 
     patient/caregiver satisfaction and (c) minimum savings to 
     Medicare of 5% annually.
       IAH is Voluntary--IAH allows practitioners and providers 
     voluntarily to enter into 3-year agreements with HHS under 
     which they are held strictly accountable for (a) minimum 
     savings to Medicare each year of 5%, (b) improved patient 
     outcomes, and (c) patient/caregiver satisfaction. Eligible 
     beneficiaries voluntarily enroll in IAH programs and may 
     disenroll at any time for any reason. There is no mandate and 
     beneficiaries are not ``assigned.''
       IAH Targets Cost Where They Are Highest--The Independence 
     at Home (IAH) program targets the 5%-25% of Medicare 
     beneficiaries with multiple chronic diseases like diabetes 
     and heart disease who account for 43% to 85% of Medicare 
     costs. IAH reduces Medicare's cost where they are the 
     highest, not by cutting reimbursement or coverage, but rather 
     by providing a new chronic care coordination service tailored 
     to the needs of Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic 
     diseases.
       IAH Lowers the Cost of Care--IAH reduces costs by allowing 
     beneficiaries to remain independent at home and avoid 
     hospitalization, ER visits and nursing home admissions.
       IAH Has Been Proven Effective--The Veterans Administration 
     (VA) has been providing Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) 
     programs since the early 1970s The VA's Home Based Primary 
     Care program operates in 250 locations in every state and 
     D.C. and has reduced hospital days by 62%, nursing home days 
     by 88%, and costs by 24%.
       IAH Can Be Implemented Immediately--More than 100 health 
     care organizations across the country are ready to implement 
     the IAH program immediately.
       IAH Has Bipartisan Support--The IAH demonstration received 
     unanimous bipartisan support when it was included in the 
     PPACA by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the 
     Senate Finance Committee.

  Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I was pleased that earlier today the 
Senate voted to move forward with the China currency legislation that 
has been worked on for so many years by Senators Schumer and Graham, 
and I am pleased to join with them. I supported similar legislation in 
2005. I will say a couple things as our Members evaluate what they will 
do on final passage.
  I believe in trade. I believe in good trade, and most trade is good 
trade. Countries do need to compete with the production in other 
countries. If you have a trade partner, normally both partners, through 
a relationship, benefit. In a treaty, trade, or business relationship, 
if one party to that relationship is being damaged by that 
relationship, then they have to confront the problem and fix it or 
withdraw from the relationship. That is just the way life is.
  I see that some of my free market friends--and I have a lot of them--
on trade issues are religious about it. It is a religion with them. 
They don't want to analyze whether the trading agreement advantages the 
United States or the other party; they just want to say: If it is a 
trade agreement, be for it. Anything that promotes trade is good, and 
peace will break out in the world.
  Well, that is not right, and that is not what I think conservatives 
believe. I am a conservative--a conservative who believes in reality. 
Conservatism is a cast of mind, not an ideology. It is an approach to 
complex issues. As my friend Bob Tyrrell at the American Spectator 
said, it is an approach to issues, a cast of mind.
  How do you approach this matter? We are getting hurt in this 
relationship. Every editorial I have seen--even those groups who are 
specifically advocating against this legislation contend and 
acknowledge that the United States is being disadvantaged by this 
currency manipulation. They all acknowledge that. When you acknowledge 
that, you acknowledge that we

[[Page S6308]]

are losing jobs and losing manufacturing in this country as a result, 
not of competition, but of unfair competition.
  Let's be in contact with reality. The People's Republic of China is 
state-dominated. Those companies are not free to do as they normally 
would in the United States. It is a state-dominated thing. Every agenda 
carried out by China--by their companies even--tends to be driven by 
expanding the national interest of China.
  That is the way they think and that is the way they operate. Their 
theory of trade is mercantilist. They believe in maximizing their 
exports, minimizing their imports, and accumulating wealth.
  Some of our friends here say: Oh, it is all right. The products that 
are sold at Walmart are from China and, all right, yes, we closed a 
factory in the United States. But don't worry, Mother can buy her 
sneakers or her children's clothes cheaper because it is imported. 
Don't worry about it. Manufacturing is not that important, they have 
told us.
  We have seen that in the writings around the Nation from some of our 
great economic minds. But I don't believe that is true. I do not 
believe this Nation can be a strong, vibrant force in the world without 
a manufacturing sector.
  I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Schulz, the CEO of ThyssenKrupp, a 
steel company in Germany. He just retired. He is 70 and a very 
impressive man. He was investing in my home State of Alabama, and he 
said publicly and to me privately, with great passion, you have to have 
a renaissance of manufacturing. He said: Germany was criticized for 
attempting to hold on to its manufacturing base in Europe, people 
saying they were not part of the modern economy--the service economy. 
But he said: We did more than most of the Europeans to maintain our 
manufacturing base, and we are now the healthiest economy in Europe.
  We have to have a manufacturing base. Wealth is sent abroad every 
time we purchase imported products. The deficit with China last year 
was $273 billion. This year it will be the largest in history--$300 
billion. There has never been a trading relationship result in deficits 
as large as those in the history of the world. China is the second 
largest economy in the world. China is growing rapidly. They have been 
doing this for a decade.
  Let me say I celebrate prosperity in China. I would like to see 
prosperity in all the nations of the world, and they will benefit the 
United States, not harm us, if China is prosperous. But if their 
prosperity is driven by disadvantaging the United States to their 
advantage, as the currency process does, then that is a different 
story. It is not a fair competition and it is not helpful to the United 
States.
  We are told this will not hurt us, that we can move to a service 
economy, that we don't have to have manufacturing, and the doctrine of 
comparative advantage is such that if a product can be manufactured 
cheaper in China, so be it. We will put the American businesses out of 
business. Let them close their doors.
  As a conservative, I am not comfortable with that and let me say why. 
First, this creates too rapid a dislocation in our economy, causing too 
much damage societally from rapid unemployment and closing of 
manufacturing in our country. Secondly, we now know with certainty that 
the manipulation of currency--the 30-percent or 25-percent difference--
is resulting in unfair competition with American businesses and causing 
the closing down of businesses.
  We have a chance to rebound, I am convinced, in manufacturing. 
China's salaries are going up. Salaries around the world are going up. 
China's utilities and energy costs are higher than ours. Their 
advantages are not so great as they were a few years ago, and we are 
becoming more sophisticated. Our businesses are lean and competitive 
now. I think we have a real chance to get back into the game but not if 
we have a 25- to 30-percent currency differential, where when we sell a 
product to China it costs 25 percent more than the competing Chinese 
production would, and when they sell to our country they have a 25-
percent advantage over our manufacturers. When margins are as close as 
they are in the world economy today, that is too large. Any unfairness 
is too large. So I would contend we have to act. Thirdly, there is 
damage being done to the middle class in our country, and a large part 
of it is arising out of unfair trade practices. We have to be aware 
that millions of Americans are hurting. Maybe the wife, maybe the 
husband has lost his or her job and is now unemployed, and families are 
struggling to get by. Wages are not going up. In fact, wages have 
trended down just a little bit. Unemployment is not going down. It is 
maybe going up now for the last several months. Inflation is on the 
scene.
  If the wages aren't going up, the number of people employed isn't 
going up, we get into a situation in which we can't see economic growth 
occur. There is not extra money to go to the store or market to buy 
things. As one businessman told me, one of the great marketing chains 
in the United States--Walmart: People don't have the money to come to 
the store to buy anything. If a person doesn't have a job, they don't 
have the money to buy anything.
  So this is a serious economic problem we are facing. I have come to 
the conclusion we can no longer borrow money to spend today to try to 
create a sugar high and jump-start our economy. That didn't work 
before. We don't have the money and the debt is already too great. We 
need to look for ways to create American jobs now without costing the 
U.S. Treasury or raising taxes on an already weak economy. This is one 
of those things we can do. Senators Schumer, Brown, Graham, and I 
agree, in a bipartisan way, this is a way to create jobs without 
harming our economy, without raising the debt of America. It is a 
bipartisan act to create greater employment by simply eliminating an 
unfairness that is hammering American manufacturers and American 
workers.
  Some say if we insist on this, China will be offended. First, China 
is a great nation. They have the second largest economy in the whole 
world. They are bellicose. They attack us aggressively. We don't hide 
under the table when they say something bad about the United States, do 
we? Neither are they going to hide under the table if the Senate, the 
Congress says they have to get their currency correct. Great nations 
don't wither and crawl away.
  I was looking at an article in Forbes magazine, written by Mr. Gordon 
Chang, who talked about this question posed by Chris Chocola, the 
president of the Club for Growth, who opposes this legislation. Mr. 
Chocola asked this: ``What do they say to arguments that starting a 
trade war with China would kill jobs, not create them?''
  In other words, Mr. Chocola is saying, if we start a trade war, we 
are going to lose jobs. First of all, Mr. Chocola's hands are not so 
clean in this issue. When he was in the House of Representatives a few 
years ago, he introduced a bill--the China Act--that would have imposed 
tariffs on China if it tried to manipulate its currency, according to 
his press release at the time. I guess he has changed his mind. We all 
have a right to change our minds. But I will just say I am not too 
impressed with that argument, and I would note that Mr. Chang, in his 
comments about it, made a very good point.

  Writing in Forbes, he says:

       Chocola is correct that a trade war with China would kill 
     jobs--but most of them would be in China.

  That is absolutely so. A trade war will not occur, in my opinion. But 
if we had a trade war, Mr. Chocola says it would hurt jobs in the 
United States. But Chang continues:

       How do we know this? Last year, the United States ran a 
     deficit in trade in goods with that country of $273.1 
     billion. In trade wars, it is the surplus countries--
     countries that depend on exports--that get hurt. Americans 
     know this because we were the powerhouse exporter in the 
     1930s when nations fought a tariff war.

  That was when the Depression hit and trade froze after tariffs and 
other actions and we were hurt the most because we were exporting 
goods. In this case, China would be hurt the most. Mr. Chang goes on to 
note how large China's economy is and its dependence on exports to the 
United States. He says:

       And this is a pretty good indication that Beijing, although 
     it will undoubtedly huff and puff and might engage in minor 
     retaliation, will not escalate the fight. China cannot afford 
     more unemployment.

  Mr. Chang quotes Premier Wen Jiabao as saying, if you change this

[[Page S6309]]

currency, ``countless Chinese workers become unemployed.''
  What does that say? The Premier of China is saying, if we have a fair 
currency rate, the Chinese would lose jobs. Somebody is going to gain 
those jobs--maybe it will be in Dayton or maybe it will be in 
Birmingham or Mobile.
  As Mr. Chang says, and this puts it on the line:

       If China manipulates its currency to gain a trade 
     advantage, then Premier Wen is seeking to put American 
     workers on the bread line.

  Not Chinese workers on the bread line. Quoting the article further:

       So Donald Trump hit the mark when he tweeted last week that 
     ``China is stealing our jobs.''

  I am not here trying to condemn China. I am here saying we have 
failed to aggressively defend our legitimate national interests, and we 
need to do that. I believe this legislation puts us on that path.
  I believe in trade. I expect to support the Colombian trade bill as 
it comes forward. I think it serves our national interest. The 
Panamanian trade bill serves our national interest and will help us be 
more profitable. I believe the trade agreement we have negotiated with 
South Korea is also in our national interest and will help us. But this 
deal needs to be fixed. It is time to stop it. It has gone on too long.
  It is great to see my colleague, Senator Brown. I know he will be 
ready to talk as we move forward to final passage, but let me 
congratulate Senator Brown and Senator Schumer and others who have 
worked on the bill. I believe it is a reasonable piece of legislation, 
and it provides exits if something dangerous were to occur. It gives 
discretion to the President to delay, even stop, actions that might 
occur under this process if it is damaging to the United States, and it 
gives Congress a chance to be involved in that process.
  This is the right way to do it. If someone has some better ideas, 
maybe we can improve the bill. But fundamentally, I think it is a good 
piece of legislation that will do the job, and I am proud to be a part 
of this bipartisan effort that has moved this legislation that will 
help create American jobs without expanding our debt.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise to speak at this watershed moment 
in the U.S.-China relationship. This is a relationship that will affect 
our children's future. And how we manage this relationship now will 
help determine the long-term strength of our Nation.
  Warren Buffett has an answer for anyone who questions America's 
future.
  As he said earlier this year:

       The prophets of doom have overlooked the all-important 
     factor that is certain: Human potential is far from 
     exhausted, and the American system for unleashing that 
     potential--a system that has worked wonders for over two 
     centuries despite frequent interruptions for recessions and 
     even a Civil War--remains alive and effective . . . Now, as 
     in 1776, 1861, 1932 and 1941, America's best days lie ahead.

  I agree.
  America has the world's best universities, a tradition of brilliant 
entrepreneurship, and the drive and ingenuity of our people.
  We gave the world the light bulb, the airplane, the Polio vaccine, 
the personal computer, and the Internet. We have been the world's 
engine of innovation for more than a century.
  But we cannot rest on our laurels. We can and must rise to the 
challenge of China. This is a challenge I recognized long ago. That is 
why I led the effort to grant permanent normal trade relations to 
China, so we could begin to get China to play by the rules.
  That is also why I have traveled to China eight different times, to 
stress to their leaders the importance of playing by those rules.
  China has grown explosively during that time period. It is now the 
second-largest economy in the world. And it continues to expand.
  China's growth presents real opportunities for American entrepreneurs 
and workers. Over the last decade, our exports to China have increased 
by close to 500 percent. That is eight times faster than the growth of 
our exports to the rest of the world. China is now the third-largest 
market in the world for U.S. exports. And it is the number one market 
for U.S. agricultural exports.
  But we should not blind ourselves to the very real challenges that 
China also poses to American entrepreneurs and workers. Too often, 
China seeks an unfair advantage in international trade, including by 
manipulating the value of its currency.
  In my most recent trip to China last November, I met with Vice 
President Xi Jinping and other top leaders. We discussed a broad range 
of issues.
  On currency, my message was clear: China needed to allow its currency 
to appreciate more quickly to market levels. If not, the U.S. Congress 
likely would take up--and pass--currency legislation.
  Since my trip, China has only allowed its currency to appreciate by 3 
percent. The Chinese government continues to intervene to keep its 
currency significantly below its real market value. That is why I 
intend to support this bill.
  I did not come to this decision lightly. I have never favored 
unilateral approaches. But the time has come to take action.
  And the United States needs a thoughtful China policy that takes 
action on other fronts as well. The currency issue is only one of many 
problems facing American companies in China.
  The problem of intellectual property theft in China is enormous. To 
cite but one example, an astounding 80 percent of the software 
installed on Chinese computers is pirated. That represents an enormous 
lost opportunity for U.S. software companies, who lead the world in 
innovation.
  And China bars many of our exports from entering its market at all. 
China shuts out American beef exports entirely. And it imposes barriers 
that effectively prevent the entry of U.S. companies into its banking, 
insurance, and telecommunications sectors.
  So while this bill addresses an important piece of the puzzle, it is 
not enough for China to appreciate its currency. China can and must 
take action to address these other problems as well.
  Ultimately, though, America's future as a great economic power will 
not be dictated by what China does. It will be dictated by what we do. 
It is about us.
  It is about the principles that made America great. It is about our 
freedom, our justice, our democracy, and the will, creativity, and 
endurance of our people. And it is about what we must do to get our own 
house in order so that we can continue to compete and win on the global 
stage.
  We must focus on policies and initiatives that encourage American 
entrepreneurship.
  We must nurture and protect American innovation, both at home and 
abroad. That is why I introduced a bill to strengthen the research and 
development tax credit and make it permanent.
  We also must reform our Tax Code to unleash new investment and make 
college more accessible. That is why I have been holding a series of 
Finance Committee hearings to pave the way for tax reform.
  And we must work together to open export markets around the world. 
That's why I strongly support the pending free trade agreements with 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
  We took an important step last month to pave the way for these trade 
agreements when we renewed trade adjustment assistance with a strong 
bipartisan vote. It is now time to approve the trade agreements 
themselves so that American entrepreneurs, workers, farmers, and 
ranchers can unlock the potential of these key export markets.
  So as we debate this bill, let us not forget that the currency issue 
is only one of many challenges in our relationship with China. Let us 
also be mindful of our larger challenges both at home and abroad. And 
let us continue to nurture American entrepreneurship here at home so 
that we remain the world's engine of innovation.
  As long as we do so, we can be sure that, as always, America's best 
days lie ahead.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 14 million Americans are currently 
unemployed. The American people are resilient, strong and hard-working. 
If they are given a fair shot, they will succeed. Unfortunately, as the 
world keeps getting flatter, as our global economy grows, Americans are 
not always given a fair shot.

[[Page S6310]]

  Last year the United States had a $273 billion trade deficit with 
China. That means the U.S. imports more goods from China than China 
imports from the U.S.--$273 billion more. This is because Chinese goods 
are cheaper. Why? Because China undervalues it currency.
  Madam President, 2.8 million jobs have been lost to China since 2001. 
1.9 million of them are manufacturing jobs. And 117,000 jobs were in 
Illinois. Congress needs to help restore the strength of domestic 
manufacturing and bring jobs back to the United States.
  In 2001 China joined the WTO and agreed to play by the rules. China 
agreed to be on a level playing field with other countries, to employ 
fair trade practices. That means no export subsidies and no product 
dumping. China agreed to those terms, but it hasn't always acted in 
accordance with them.
  China is breaking the rule undervaluing its currency. China 
undervalues it currency by anywhere from 15 percent to 50 percent--
depending on the methodology used. When the Yuan--China's currency--is 
low compares to the dollar, Chinese products are cheap while U.S. 
products are expensive. So Americans buy cheap goods made in China, but 
the Chinese do not buy goods made in America, made more expensive by 
their currency manipulation. How is that fair to U.S. and American 
workers?
  According to a recent report, if China revalued its currency, we 
would see U.S. GDP increase by $287.7 billion, creation of 2.25 million 
U.S. jobs, and a lowering of the U.S. budget deficit by $71.4 billion.
  We don't shy away from competition in America. We play fair because 
we know that we can compete with any other country in a fair fight. 
This bill marks an important step toward job creation and restoring the 
strength of America's economy in a globalized world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I appreciate very much Senator 
Sessions' comments, and even more I appreciate his work on this 
legislation. He was one of a couple of real key players in this 
legislation passing because he did such a good job of explaining to 
colleagues why this is a plus for American manufacturing and a plus for 
job growth in our country.
  I think about his comments, and the major opposition to this bill has 
been an accusation or a contention from opponents--whether from some 
Members of the Senate or the House or some newspapers or economists--
who say this would result in a trade war.
  Fundamentally, as Senator Sessions' comments indicate, the Chinese 
are not going to initiate a trade war against their largest customer. 
We buy one-third of Chinese exports. Of all the hundreds of billions of 
dollars of exports they do around the world, one-third comes to the 
United States of America.
  Pretend you are in business for yourself and you have a customer who 
buys one-third of your products, and they do something to make you mad. 
Are you going to declare war on them? No. You are going to sit down and 
figure out how to make it work.
  We can never predict the future on darned near anything with 
certainty, whether it is the Minnesota Twins finishing in last place 
this year, Madam President--which I never would have predicted because 
they were a good team in previous years--or whether it is trade law or 
the economy. But we knew that as soon as we passed this, two things 
would happen.
  One is that the Chinese--in this case it was the People's Bank of 
China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I think, and the Ministry of 
Commerce--would immediately squawk: Trade war, trade war, trade war. 
Unfortunately, some others in this body and the newspapers mimicked 
that, but it wasn't going to result in that.
  The other thing we could pretty certainly predict based on history is 
that the Chinese, after this strong vote--which we got, thanks in large 
part to Senator Sessions--of 62 votes earlier today, are probably going 
to let their currency appreciate a little bit because they know we are 
calling their bluff. But for sure it doesn't make sense for them to 
initiate trade wars. They may fight on some individual issues. They may 
fight on some products that were made in Ohio or Alabama and fight back 
one issue at a time, and we will go to the WTO, the World Trade 
Organization, and have at it in a legal way, and we will win most of 
them because they are gaming the system. We might lose one of our 
manufacturers, but we know in the end it will work out.
  That is why Senator Sessions is dead right that this is right and 
that it is going to create jobs in our country. We have seen the trade 
deficit increase, and increase almost three times what it was when this 
started 10 years ago. We are going to be in a much better place--not 
tomorrow or the next day, but next year, if we can get this through the 
House of Representatives--I am not assuming we will get this passed 
today; I think we will here--if we get it to the House of 
Representatives, overwhelming support, 60 Republican cosponsors, 150 
Democratic cosponsors, something like that--they will want to move the 
bill in the House.
  The President and the Republican leadership in the House aren't quite 
where Senator Sessions and I are, but public pressure will get to them, 
and we expect this bill to get to the President's desk. I think he will 
sign it in the end, and I think it is good for Alabama, good for Ohio, 
and good for the other 48 States.
  American manufacturing is what built this country. You really only 
create wealth through mining, agriculture, and manufacturing. The 
Presiding Officer's home State of Minnesota has done all of those very 
well over the years--mining where she grew up, and agriculture, which 
is huge and which is why she is on the Agriculture Committee, as I am. 
And manufacturing; Minnesota has done a lot of manufacturing.
  In my home State of Ohio, we are third in the country in 
manufacturing output, behind only Texas, twice our size, and 
California, three times our size. So we know how to produce. We just 
want a level playing field to do it.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The Daily Digest clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask that I be able to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               CLASS Act

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
one of the dirty little secrets around here, and that is the ticking 
time bomb that is right under our noses and that, until recently, had 
been virtually ignored until some recent activity in Congress and at 
the Department of Health and Human Services brought the program into 
the spotlight. That time bomb is the CLASS Act.
  It is a long-term care entitlement program created by the health care 
reform law. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal described the inclusion 
of the CLASS program in the health care law as the definition of 
insanity.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
article from the Wall Street Journal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 4, 2011]

                       The Definition of Insanity

       Why no one wants to repeal a program that everyone knows is 
     a fraud.
       The Obama health-care plan passed 18 months ago, and its 
     cynicism still manages to astonish. Witness the spectacle 
     surrounding one of its flagship new entitlements, which is 
     eliciting some remarkable concessions from its drafters.
       The Health and Human Services Department recently shut down 
     a government insurance program for long-term care, known by 
     the acronym Class. HHS also released a statement claiming 
     that reports that HHS is shutting down Class are ``not 
     accurate.'' All HHS did was suspend Class policy planning, 
     told Senate Democrats to zero out Class funding for 2012, 
     reassigned Class's career staffers to other projects and 
     pink-slipped the program's chief actuary. Other than that, 
     it's full-speed ahead.

[[Page S6311]]

       HHS is denying what everyone knows to be true because 
     everyone also knows that the Class entitlement was not merely 
     created to crowd out private insurance for home health aides 
     and the like. Class was added to the bill because it was 
     among the budget gimmicks that Democrats needed to create the 
     illusion that trillions of dollars of new spending would 
     somehow reduce the deficit.
       Benefits in the Class program, which was supposed to start 
     up next year, are rigged by an unusual five-year vesting 
     period. So the people who sign up begin paying premiums 
     immediately--money that Democrats planned to spend 
     immediately on other things, as if the back-loaded payments 
     to Class beneficiaries would never come due. The $86 billion 
     or so that would have built up between 2012 and 2021 with the 
     five-year lead is supposed to help finance the rest of 
     ObamaCare. The Class program would go broke sometime in the 
     next decade, but that would be somebody else's problem.
       Opponents warned about this during the reform debate, and 
     people on HHS's lower rungs were telling their political 
     superiors the same thing as early as mid-2009, according to 
     emails that a joint House-Senate Republican investigation 
     uncovered.
       In one 2009 note, chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster--a 
     martyr to fiscal honesty in the health-care debate--wrote 
     that ``Thirty-six years of actuarial experience lead me to 
     believe that this program would collapse in short order and 
     require significant Federal subsidies to continue.'' He 
     suggested that Class would end in an ``insurance death 
     spiral'' because the coverage would only be attractive to 
     sicker people who will need costly services. It could only be 
     solvent if 230 million Americans enrolled, which is more than 
     the current U.S. workforce.
       An HHS Office of Health Reform official, Meena Seshamani, 
     rejected Mr. Foster's critique because ``per CBO it is 
     actuarially sound.'' But of course CBO only scores what is 
     presented to it, no matter how unrealistic. Despite this 
     false reassurance, later even one HHS political appointee 
     took up Mr. Foster's alarms, writing that Class ``seems like 
     a recipe for disaster to me.''
       In February of this year, Health and Human Services 
     Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally admitted the obvious, 
     testifying at a Congressional hearing that, gee whiz, Class 
     is ``totally unsustainable'' as written. By then Class had 
     become a political target of vulnerable Senate Democrats 
     looking to shore up their fiscal bona fides, despite voting 
     for it when they voted for ObamaCare.
       Bowing to this political need, Mrs. Sebelius has repeatedly 
     promised to use her administrative discretion to massage 
     Class's finances until it is solvent. But given that the 
     office doing that work has now been disbanded, this evidently 
     proved impossible, as the critics claimed all along.
       All of this would seem to make repealing Class an easy vote 
     for Congress, but, this being Washington, it isn't. Since the 
     CBO says Class's front-loaded collections cut the deficit to 
     the tune of that $86 billion, HHS has to pretend that the 
     program is still alive to preserve these phantom savings.
       Some Republicans are also nervous about repealing Class 
     because, under CBO's perverse scoring, they'll be adding $86 
     billion to the deficit. Others would prefer not to repeal any 
     of ObamaCare until they repeal all of it, on grounds that 
     some of it might survive if the worst parts go first.
       So an unaffordable entitlement that will be a perpetual 
     drain on taxpayers may continue to exist because of a make-
     believe budget gimmick that everyone now admits is bogus. 
     Congress can't reduce real future liabilities because it 
     would mean reducing fake current savings.
       This is literally insane. It's rare to get a political 
     opening to dismantle any entitlement, much less one as large 
     as Class. House Republicans ought to vote to repeal it as 
     soon as possible as an act of fiscal hygiene, forcing Senate 
     Democrats to vote on it and President Obama to confront (even 
     if he won't acknowledge) the fraud he signed into law.

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the editorial highlights a point that I 
have been making since I first offered an amendment to strip the CLASS 
program from the health care reform bill back in December of 2009. The 
inclusion of the CLASS program is perhaps one of the most brazen budget 
tricks used by the majority in the health care reform bill. As the Wall 
Street Journal says:

       CLASS was added to the bill because it was among the budget 
     gimmicks that Democrats needed to create the illusion that 
     trillions of dollars of new spending would somehow reduce the 
     deficit.

  Due to the 5-year vesting period required by the CLASS program, 
premiums will be coming in long before benefits must be paid. That pot 
of money somehow is simultaneously used to reduce the deficit and pay 
for other programs within the health care reform law.
  When it is clear to Americans that the money is not there to pay 
benefits to beneficiaries, this administration will be long gone, and 
taxpayers are going to be left holding the bag. It is, at best, 
disingenuous the way the Democrats have promised individuals who 
participate in the CLASS programs that their premiums paid into the 
CLASS system will be available to pay out future benefits.
  When I asked Secretary Sebelius about this program earlier this year 
in a Senate Finance Committee hearing, she called the program ``totally 
unsustainable.''
  But HHS continued to push forward toward implementation, asserting 
that they have the authority to make changes in the program.
  Given the inherent questions in the fiscal sustainability of the 
CLASS Act, I cochaired a bicameral group of Senators and 
Representatives, along with Representative Rehberg and Representative 
Upton from the House of Representatives, that investigated the behind-
the-scenes story of the CLASS Act. We released the findings of our 
investigation last month in a report entitled ``CLASS' Untold Story: 
Taxpayers, Employers, and States on the Hook for Flawed Entitlement 
Program.'' I commend it to my colleagues. This report can be found by 
visiting my Web site, http://thune.senate.gov.
 We found astonishing statements from within the Department of Health 
and Human Services that show the lengths to which the administration 
Democrats knew this program was on a crash course but proceeded anyway, 
statements such as, this program is ``a recipe for disaster'' with 
``terminal problems.''
  The e-mails also show that the independent Chief Actuary for CMS 
sounded the first warning in May of 2009. The Chief Actuary is a 
nonpartisan official who estimates the long-term financial effects of 
current law and proposed legislation. In May 2009, he wrote to other 
HHS officials, some of whom were working directly with Senate 
Democrats, saying, ``At first glance this proposal doesn't look 
workable.'' The Chief Actuary said a back-of-the-envelope analysis 
showed that the program would have to enroll more than 230 million 
people--more than the number of working adults in the United States--to 
be financially feasible.
  A few months later, the Chief Actuary was more assertive in his 
comments. In July of 2009, after reviewing the latest information from 
Senate Democrats, he wrote HHS officials:

       Thirty-six years of actuarial experience lead me to believe 
     that this program would collapse in short order and require 
     significant Federal subsidies to continue.

  Unfortunately, Democrats here in the Senate needed the political win 
more than they needed to hear the truth, so they pushed forward and 
included the CLASS Act based off of illusory savings coming in the form 
of incoming premiums from the paychecks of hard-working Americans--
incidentally, some of whom may never consent to program participation.
  Late last month, there was another interesting development that 
occurred. The Actuary tasked with designing the CLASS Program announced 
he was leaving his position at Health and Human Services and that the 
CLASS office was closing. HHS denied closing the CLASS office and said 
they are still evaluating this program, but in a blog post on 
healthcare.gov, HHS announced they will be releasing a report on CLASS 
sometime this month. I believe this report will indicate that this 
program does not have the fiscal muster to move forward, but it is 
possible that HHS may try to hide that information.
  If this Congress is truly concerned about long-term deficits, this 
program should be at the top of the list of programs to repeal. This 
program may not cost taxpayers money in the short term as the premiums 
are coming in, but eventually it will require an ongoing bailout from 
taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars.
  I filed an amendment to the current legislation that is before us to 
repeal the CLASS Act. It probably will not get a vote today, but I hope 
that sometime in the days ahead the Senate will weigh in and exercise 
some common sense and do what we should have done a long time ago; that 
is, strike and eliminate this program so we do not have to deal with 
this massive timebomb that is ticking out there, waiting for future 
generations of Americans who are going to be stuck with the huge 
deficits that will occur when the inevitable happens. It is pretty 
clear that it is only a matter of time, as I submitted from the 
statements that were made by the Actuary at HHS

[[Page S6312]]

and statements made by the Congressional Budget Office at the time.
  There are all kinds of anecdotal evidence out there and all kinds of 
empirical evidence out there that suggests this is a program which is 
headed for fiscal disaster. It should not have been included as a pay-
for in the health reform bill. That is why it was included, because it 
showed some short-term revenues. But the long-term costs, like many of 
the programs we funded here in the past, have a long tail on them, and 
the American taxpayer is going to be stuck on the hook for a long time 
into the future.
  I hope we will have the good sense here in the Senate to repeal this 
program before it becomes the fiscal nightmare and fiscal disaster I 
think everybody has predicted it would be.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the 
Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Act of 2011. Before I get into the 
bill, I want to say this is not an easy vote for me. It is a difficult 
vote because, beginning in 1979, I developed a relationship as mayor of 
San Francisco with China. Over these 30-plus years, I have seen China 
make the greatest changes of virtually any large country in the world. 
I know China has wanted to reach out, and the United States has reached 
out. On the Pacific Coast we have developed a century of trade which 
long ago overtook the Atlantic Coast. This trade between Asia and this 
country is, indeed, large and prized.
  During that time, I have had occasion to have meetings with the 
former President of China, the former Premier of China, and the latest 
Foreign Minister on the subject of currency. I have urged each to let 
the renminbi float freely.
  In every conversation, they have indicated that Beijing is aware of 
the situation and the need to allow the renminbi to respond to market 
forces, and there has been some progress. From July 2005 to July of 
2008, the renminbi appreciated by 21 percent against the dollar, and 
since 2010 it has risen by an additional 7 percent. Unfortunately, 
action on this matter has not been sufficient, and China continues to 
resist a free-floating currency.
  My last conversation with a major government official took place last 
Friday evening in San Francisco. On Saturday, I pulled out my 
binoculars. Our home is situated on a hill, and it overlooks San 
Francisco Bay. I watched the big cargo ships pulling out of the Port of 
Oakland going through the Golden Gate. I watched five of them, and I 
saw they were half loaded. Half-loaded cargo ships leaving the ports of 
America, going to Asia and particularly China, have become more and 
more a part of daily routine. Most are loaded with scrap paper, but 
equal trade is missing. We import huge amounts of goods from China, and 
the same amount--with the exception of some high-valued goods--does not 
go back to China.
  I believe if we are going to have this great trading basin on the 
Pacific Ocean, everybody has to play by the same rules. In my view, 
this bill is not about putting sanctions on China. It is not about 
imposing retaliatory tariffs. It is about sending a clear message to 
Beijing that we are serious about the need to let the renminbi respond 
fully to market forces.
  Let me point out that China is not specifically mentioned in this 
bill. The aim is to address misaligned exchange rates whenever we find 
them. This does not talk about manipulation of rates.
  The bill has three fundamental purposes. First, it requires Treasury 
to report to Congress which currencies are fundamentally misaligned--
not manipulated, but misaligned--including those currencies that 
require priority action.
  Secondly, the legislation provides a mechanism for the Commerce 
Department at the request of a U.S. industry to investigate whether an 
undervalued currency constitutes a subsidy subject to retaliatory 
tariffs.
  Finally, the bill triggers certain penalties. If a priority country 
fails to realign its currency immediately upon designation, additional 
consequences take effect after 90 and 360 days subject to a 
Presidential waiver.
  What does this all mean? What it means is that for the first time we 
are going to monitor exchange rates and determine whether any currency 
is misaligned. If that currency, in fact, is misaligned, then the bill 
triggers a period of time to remedy that misalignment. If it is not 
remedied within 3 months, it provides additional action. Again, all of 
this is subject to a Presidential waiver.
  In effect, what you have is the Senate of the United States speaking 
out and saying enough is enough. The time has come to let the renminbi 
float freely, just as the dollar floats freely, and we take the upside 
along with the downside. If that is the case, then you have an equal 
and fair trading community. If it is not the case, you have a downward 
sloping trading community.
  The penalties include a prohibition on OPIC, the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, loans; increasing antidumping duties on imports 
from countries with undervalued currencies; a prohibition on Federal 
procurement; opposition to any new financing from multilateral banks.
  There is little doubt that the renminbi is undervalued. The Chinese 
leadership understands it, the Chinese people understand it, and the 
American people understand it.
  In April 2011, in a study by William Cline and John Williamson at the 
Peterson Institute for International Economics, it was argued that the 
renminbi is undervalued by approximately 28.5 percent. Other studies 
provide different estimates, but the conclusion that the renminbi is 
undervalued is constant in virtually every study that has been done. 
This gives Chinese goods a steep advantage over U.S. goods. It results 
in a loss of U.S. jobs, and it results in my putting on my binoculars 
and watching huge cargo ships leave the large port of Oakland going 
under the Golden Gate Bridge only half full. When it is half full, it 
is usually waste paper.
  You can only take so much of this. In my own way, I have been 
importuning the Chinese for over a decade. They are always polite, they 
always say, yes, they understand, but they also say, China has to take 
steps as China can take steps. Well, the United States is now at a 
pivotal point. In the great State of California, our unemployment rate 
is over 12 percent, and the half-empty cargo ships have to be filled up 
if we are going to have a fair trading community. As I look at it, 
letting the renminbi float free is what is necessary to do this.
  In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in September of 
2010, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner argued this:

       The undervalued renminbi helps China's export sector and 
     means imports are more expensive in China than they otherwise 
     would be . . . It encourages outsourcing of production and 
     jobs from the United States. And it makes it more difficult 
     for goods and services produced by American workers to 
     compete with Chinese-made goods and services in China, the 
     United States, and third countries.

  Every economic report agrees with our Treasury Secretary's 
conclusion. History indicates that is correct. Just using one's eyes 
indicates that is happening. Indeed, cheaper Chinese goods lead to 
bigger trade deficits with the United States, and that leads to fewer 
U.S. jobs.
  Here's another report by economist Robert Scott of the Economic 
Policy Institute, and he found that between 2001 and 2010, the trade 
deficit with China cost the United States 2.8 million jobs, of which 
1.9 million were in manufacturing. Nothing makes up for it. We have 
gained in education jobs, health care jobs, but they are minuscule in 
comparison with the loss of manufacturing jobs.
  The report also argues that this trade deficit has been compounded by 
China's decision to keep the renminbi artificially low, essentially 
subsidizing Chinese exports at the expense of their American 
competitors. Regardless of whether the number of job losses is as high 
as the Economic Policy Institute

[[Page S6313]]

estimates, or as I have just said, at a time when we have got this 
national unemployment rate at almost 10 percent and 12 percent in 
California, we have to use every tool at our disposal to put Americans 
back to work. That means, quite simply stated, that the Senate can no 
longer afford to ignore the devastation of the manufacturing sector in 
this country.
  A July 2009 article from the Harvard Business Review by Gary Pisano 
and Willy Shih argues that the decline in manufacturing will negatively 
impact our status as a leader in innovation. I agree that in order for 
the United States to address these ills and promote economic growth, we 
have got to reclaim our leadership in research, development, and high-
tech manufacturing. In order to do so, we have to address the 
undervaluation of the renminbi. A market-based exchange rate between 
the renminbi and the dollar is not going to solve all of our problems, 
and nobody should believe it will, but it will create a level playing 
field. Trading communities cannot long exist on an unlevel trading 
field.
  So this is very important for America at this time.
  In a sense--and I don't like to say this, but in a sense--the 
legislation is a ``shot across the bow.'' It gives the Treasury 
Department and the Commerce Department clear authority to take actions 
against undervalued currencies wherever they may occur, and 
particularly for high priority currencies. But it is also important 
that this bill is not merely about imposing penalties. It is very well 
drafted, in my view, and I read it cover to cover. It mandates 
consultations with priority countries, the International Monetary Fund, 
and key trading partners. In other words, it continues to place an 
emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy.
  The bill provides another tool for U.S. companies that have been 
affected by cheaper Chinese imports due to an undervalued renminbi. It 
makes it clear that Congress has the authority to investigate whether 
an undervalued currency is a subsidy subject to countervailing duties, 
and it provides two well-known methodologies to determine the value of 
the benefit conferred on exports by an undervalued currency.
  Let me be clear. This bill does not mandate any countervailing 
tariffs due to an undervalued currency. It simply restates that 
Commerce has the authority to investigate whether such duties are 
appropriate if a domestic company provides the proper documentation.
  Over the past 30 years, in visit after visit, I have seen how 
dialogue and cooperation have solidified ties between the United States 
and China, and Sino-American cooperation is very important. I watched 
the process becoming the foundation for what I believe is our most 
important bilateral relationship. Indeed, in my view, this relationship 
can positively impact the security and economic well-being of both 
countries. As such, when addressing disputes that may arise between 
Washington and Beijing, I believe it is in the interests of both 
nations to use diplomacy and negotiation to find commonsense solutions.
  Yet, on this matter, I believe the time has come. We are past the 
polite talks where people say ``I realize, I know, I understand,'' and 
not much happens. In the last 10 years, it looked as if China were 
going to take action, and then China has retrenched on that action. So 
I believe we must send a clear signal to China that it has to move 
faster to a market-based exchange rate.
  I know China doesn't like this. I know it has serious concerns about 
the bill. I understand that many U.S. companies and national 
organizations that do business in China are concerned about the impact 
this bill will have on our bilateral economic relationship. But I also 
know over the 20-year period I have been following the currencies of 
both countries, the improvement is small, and the impact on the United 
States has been great.
  So as a friend of China and a strong supporter of United States-China 
ties, I hope this vote will demonstrate our deep concern. I hope it 
will give the administration the leverage it needs to encourage Beijing 
to work with us and our partners in the international community to 
bring the renminbi into alignment with market forces. I do not say this 
in a hostile way. I say it in friendship and with hope that there is a 
future where trading between China and the United States can be on 
equal terms.
  I also wish to salute the authors of this legislation because I think 
they have done a very good job. Senator Brown, who is on the floor, 
Senator Schumer, Senator Graham, and others have put forward, I think, 
a carefully worded bill which carries with it the real opportunity for 
change between the trading relationships of our two great countries. So 
I thank them, and I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:45 
tonight, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to motions to suspend 
rule XXII with respect to the following amendments: McConnell No. 735, 
dealing with the jobs act; Coburn No. 670, dealing with foreign aid; 
Paul No. 678, Federal funding audit; Barrasso No. 672, cement; Hatch 
No. 680, currency alternative; Cornyn No. 677, fighter planes to 
Taiwan; and DeMint No. 689, right to work; that upon disposition of the 
motions to suspend, the pending amendments be withdrawn; that there be 
no other amendments, points of order or motions in order other than 
budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that the 
bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of 
the bill; finally, that the time until 6:45 be equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I wish to make sure I understand the amendment lineup. 
The majority leader has substituted, I would say to my friend, or has 
added a Paul amendment, and it is my understanding Senator Paul is 
willing to stand down on that for the time being and offer it on some 
other occasion. The Senator has added in place of that----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could respond to that. On the list we 
have, there were other amendments for Vitter, Brown, and Johanns. It is 
my understanding we have accepted a vote on all those, except those 
three. So that is a pretty good batting average.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, I am still trying to get this 
correct. Let me just ask my friend, the majority leader, did his list 
include Coburn No. 670 on foreign aid?
  Mr. REID. It included Coburn No. 670 on foreign aid, yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It included Barrasso 672 on cement regs?
  Mr. REID. Yes, it did.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It included Hatch 680 On China?
  Mr. REID. The minority leader is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It included DeMint No. 689 on right to work?
  Mr. REID. That is true. So I will go over this once again, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It included McConnell No. 735 on stimulus?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Cornyn 677 on Taiwan?
  Mr. REID. Yes; that is right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So the majority leader has substituted from the list I 
gave him a Paul amendment--the number of which I don't have----
  Mr. REID. 678.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Instead of the Johanns amendment on farm dust.
  Mr. REID. Yes. Mr. President, as I have said, the list we were given 
on the motions to waive that have been filed, we did not include on our 
list Vitter, Brown or Johanns.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to try to modify the 
majority leader's list, not to expand the number because we agree on 
seven. But the list I submitted to the majority leader included the 
Johanns amendment No. 692 on farm dust, instead of

[[Page S6314]]

the Paul amendment, the number of which I do not have.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I can't. We have tried, and I can't get 
consent from my side on that. So I can't do it.
  But I have offered seven. The one Paul is taken off, and I am glad to 
hear that, but we will be glad to do his. We have offered seven, but it 
is not the seven the minority leader wants.
  Mr. McCONNELL. All I would say to my friend, the majority leader, is 
that we would sort of like to be able to pick our amendments and not 
have him pick them. We have worked hard to narrow down to a list of 
seven. Senator Paul graciously decided he would step aside for the 
moment, and we had included the Johanns amendment on farm dust.
  I would remind everyone the minority has not been able to offer any 
amendments prior to cloture, and now we are left with motions to 
suspend, at a 67-vote threshold, and all we are asking for is the right 
to pick our own amendments.
  I appreciate the majority leader agreeing to seven. That is the 
number we had finally settled on. But I do think it would be fair to 
let the minority pick its amendments. We had hundreds of amendments 
that people would have liked to have had. We worked very hard to get it 
to a list of seven. I don't think it is unreasonable, not having any 
amendments prior to cloture, to at least be able to prioritize our 
seven.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, two things: First of all, the Hatch 
amendment, that has always been offerable. We would have voted on that, 
and everyone within the sound of my voice should know that.
  We agreed to that--that he should be able to offer that amendment. We 
also talked about other amendments that could have been offered. We did 
not stop the amendments from being offered. My friend the Republican 
leader filled up the slot that was available, and he didn't want to 
take it down. We were willing, even though they were up there, to move 
other amendments. He didn't want to do that, for reasons I don't 
understand, but that is the way it was.
  We have agreed to seven nongermane, nonrelevant amendments, and I 
think that is fair. I have worked a good share of this afternoon trying 
to clear some of these other amendments. We have gotten permission from 
the Democratic Senators to have votes on these matters I have listed. I 
cannot get consent on the Johanns amendment. I cannot get consent on 
the Brown amendment. I cannot get consent on the Vitter amendment. I 
can't do that. I have tried. I can't get it done. So these are the ones 
I can get.
  On the Paul amendment, in my last conversation with the Republican 
leader he told me that Paul wasn't offered, and I appreciate that. But 
that is where we are. We could have six votes. We could complete this 
very quickly. I don't like this process, but I am going to go along 
with it. But that is my consent agreement. I can't do any more.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I might say to my friend, I may be confused from a 
parliamentary point of view, but, technically, I would ask the 
Parliamentarian, through the Chair, if it requires consent to offer 
motions to suspend at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. There is a unanimous consent pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Republican leader would restate the 
question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. At the end of cloture, would it require consent to 
offer motions to suspend?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Once an amendment slot is available, the 
motion to suspend is in order.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just say, again, all we are asking is the 
opportunity to prioritize the seven that the minority would like to 
offer.
  At the end of cloture, as I just heard the Parliamentarian say, we 
would be entitled to offer it anyway. We are trying to cooperate and 
get these motions lined up in a way that would give everybody an 
opportunity to vote shortly.
  I just would say to my friend the majority leader, it doesn't seem to 
me unreasonable for the minority to be able to pick the minority's 
amendments. It was challenging enough for us to filter our way through 
the hundreds that my Members would have liked to have offered to get 
down to seven. It was particularly challenging since they were not 
allowed to offer any amendments prior to cloture on the bill, which 
would be the normal process around here.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there an objection to my consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent is pending. Is there 
objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on Tuesday, 79 Senators moved to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, the China currency 
manipulation legislation. After the Senate decided it wanted to 
consider this bill, I spoke with the Republican leader about how the 
Senate could agree to consider a reasonable number of relevant 
amendments. The Republican leader responded with a patently nongermane 
amendment. That action pretty much froze the amendment process.
  Notwithstanding that impasse, earlier today 62 Senators moved to 
invoke cloture on this bill. Manifestly, this is a measure that a 
supermajority of Senators wish to pass.
  Now, since the Senate amended rule XXII in 1979, cloture has been a 
process to bring Senate consideration to a close. The fundamental 
nature of cloture is to make consideration of the pending measure 
finite.
  The terms of rule XXII provide that the question is this, and I 
quote:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be 
     brought to a close.

  Indeed, late this morning, the Republican leader stated, and I also 
quote what my friend the Republican leader said:

       If 60 Senators are in favor of bringing a matter to a 
     conclusion, it will be brought to conclusion. That's just 
     what happened a few minutes ago.

  So I repeat, that is what the Republican leader said.
  Now, notwithstanding the clear nature of the cloture rule to provide 
for finite consideration of a measure, a practice has begun in this 
Congress that has undermined the cloture rule. The practice has risen 
of Senators filing multiple motions to suspend the rules for the 
consideration of further amendments.
  So on this measure, the Republican Senators have filed nine motions 
to suspend the rules to consider further amendments. But the same logic 
that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 
such amendments. The logical extension of allowing for the 
consideration of further amendments, notwithstanding cloture, leads to 
a consideration of a potentially unending series of amendments. The 
logical extension of this practice is to lead to a potentially endless 
vote-arama at the end of cloture.
  This potential for filibuster by amendment is exactly the 
circumstance that the Senate sought to end by its 1979 amendments. 
Plainly, Mr. President, this practice has gotten out of hand.
  I see on the Senate floor the junior Senator from the State of 
Oregon. He and a number of other Senators worked very hard at the 
beginning of this Congress to kind of change what was going on around 
here, to make things move more quickly, to make things move more 
fairly. There was a lot of talk about we are going to try to move 
things along, we are not going to hold up motions to proceed, and all 
that. But that hasn't worked too well.
  I say to my friend through the Chair, the Senator from Oregon, this 
is another example of how the rules have been abused this Congress. 
This didn't happen--it happened rarely last Congress, but this is 
standard procedure now, again, in an effort to avoid the rules.
  This practice has gotten way out of hand. So notwithstanding this 
abuse, this morning I once again offered to work together with the 
Republican leader to come to a reasonable number of motions to suspend. 
The Republican leader and I discussed--we had a list of nine or ten 
motions to suspend on which he sought votes. I note that

[[Page S6315]]

would be more amendments than the motions already filed by Senators, 
but in good faith I counteroffered that I would be willing to schedule 
votes on seven of these Republican motions to suspend.
  That was reasonable, I thought. The Republican leader rejected that 
offer. That is what has led us to where we are now. Unless the Senate 
votes to change its precedents today, we will be faced with a 
potentially endless series of motions to suspend the rules after the 
Senate has voted overwhelmingly to bring consideration to a close, and 
that is a result that a functioning democracy cannot tolerate.
  I, Mr. President, withdraw my amendment No. 695.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


  Motion to Suspend Rule XXII, Paragraph No. 2, Including Germaneness 
 Requirements, For The Purpose of Proposing and Considering Amendment 
                                No. 670

  Mr. REID. I call up the motion to suspend rule XXII, including 
germaneness requirements, filed yesterday by Senator Coburn for the 
purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 670.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Coburn, moves 
     to suspend rule XXII, paragraph No. 2, including germaneness 
     requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering 
     amendment No. 670.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the motion to 
suspend is a dilatory motion under rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not sustained.
  Mr. REID. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and request the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I may make a brief observation. Listening carefully 
to the majority leader, he is suggesting the specter of filibustering 
by amendment when, in fact, we had already agreed to seven.
  Having agreed to seven, it strikes me as very difficult to argue that 
we are establishing some precedent for filibustering by amendment 
because he and I had agreed to seven. The only place this ran aground 
was the majority leader trying to pick all seven of the minority's 
amendments.
  So what we have is that no amendments have been considered other than 
those of a technical nature offered by the majority leader in order to 
fill up the tree. That was prior to cloture. So what is about to happen 
is that the majority is trying to set a new precedent on how the Senate 
operates.
  For the record, my preference would have been to consider amendments 
on both sides under a regular process, which we could have done earlier 
this week. Instead, we have been locked out, and in a few moments the 
rules of the Senate will be effectively changed to lock out the 
minority party even more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Is there a sufficient second?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Boxer
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
51. The decision of the Chair does not stand as the judgment of the 
Senate. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know there are some hurt feelings here, 
perhaps on both sides, because this hasn't been easy for me, either, 
but let's not dwell on that. But I want the record to reflect that the 
fact that we have to do things sometimes that are difficult doesn't 
mean Senator McConnell and I have any problems with each other. I want 
to make sure the record is clear in that regard.
  We will discuss later how we are going to move forward on other 
things. But here is my suggestion, unless someone has some objection. 
The time for cloture running out on this is sometime tomorrow 
afternoon. I don't know the exact time. I think it would be to 
everyone's interest that we would vote on this on Tuesday when we come 
back. We have a judge we could vote on who is already settled. We could 
vote on final passage on this, and then we will vote on the jobs bill 
that is up.
  Then what we are going to do is that night we will work to have an 
agreement that is arranged, because we don't have the time worked out 
on this, as to how much time. Under the rule, there is 60 hours. We are 
not going to use 60 hours on these three trade agreements. But everyone 
should understand we are going to finish the trade agreements on 
Wednesday. If that means people want to spend 20 hours debating one of 
them, they may have to spend all night Tuesday doing that, because we 
have some things here that we have made commitments to do.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. What I hear the majority leader saying is we are going 
to vote on the trade agreements on Wednesday. Is that what my friend is 
saying?
  Mr. REID. That is what I said.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That means the President of South Korea will have the 
opportunity to address the joint session on Thursday, having, 
hopefully, seen the United States approve these long-awaited trade 
agreements.
  Mr. REID. So unless someone has some objection, we will leave here 
for the evening and the staff will work out a proper unanimous consent 
agreement that I will announce at some subsequent time after conferring 
with the Republican leader.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, has a unanimous consent request been 
propounded, or was the majority leader simply stating that we would 
proceed to vote on Tuesday unless there was objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. What I said is that--my friend from Mississippi is right. 
Unless someone has an objection, we will set things up to vote Tuesday 
evening; otherwise, we would have to vote tomorrow afternoon.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, if I could reserve the right to object, 
and I may or may not object but----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no unanimous consent at this time.
  Mr. WICKER. I wish to be recognized to speak then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader still has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S6316]]

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to vitiate the quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued the call of the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. If the 
Senator wishes to speak, I don't want to prevent him from speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a quorum call.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I move to vitiate the quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a quorum call.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I move to vitiate the quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued the call of the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  As I understand the rules, each Senator is entitled to 1 hour to 
speak postcloture if they care to. It is my understanding that Senators 
Corker, Wicker, and Vitter wish to speak postcloture. It would be 
better for everyone here--and if they want to speak for an hour, that 
is fine; I have no place to go--but if we could all have an idea as to 
how long Senator Corker, Senator Wicker, and Senator Vitter wish to 
speak, it may help us better manage what is going on here.
  So if I could direct this question through the Chair to my friend, 
the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me.
  I really do not want to speak. Here is what I want to happen. I think 
Members on both sides of the aisle believe this institution has 
degraded into a place that is no longer a place of any deliberation at 
all. I would like for you and the minority leader to explain to us so 
that we have one story here in public as to what has happened this week 
to lead us to the place that we are. That is all I am asking. That is 
all I want to know. Explain how the greatest deliberative body, on a 
bill that many would say was a messaging bill in the first place, ended 
up having no amendments, and we are in this place that we are right 
now. I would just like to understand that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to my friend from 
Tennessee and others who wish to listen, we moved to this legislation, 
the China currency, with a heavy vote. We had 79 Senators who wished to 
proceed to that. Once we were on the bill, I partially filled the tree.
  Why did I do that? I have found over the last Congress and 9 months 
that when I try to have an open amendment process, it is a road to 
nowhere. It just has not worked. We have not been able to effectuate a 
single bill being passed that way. Regardless of whether that is right 
or wrong, that is what I did.
  Senator McConnell wanted to offer an amendment on the President's 
jobs bill. That, in effect, tied us down because he was unwilling to 
let us move to any other amendments. I was willing to move to other 
amendments. Specifically, everyone who was involved in this process 
thought that Senator Hatch was entitled to an amendment because his was 
clearly germane and relevant. But without going into ``he said, he 
said,'' the fact is no amendments were offered, even though I was happy 
to have some amendments offered.
  Now, what has happened over the last 9 months is that--and even this 
went on last year, where we learned about this--when cloture was 
invoked, Senators--it was led by Senator DeMint, and then Senator 
Coburn picked up on this quickly--as soon as cloture was invoked, 
motions to suspend the rules were filed.
  Now, as I have said today, that was done in this instance. I know my 
Republican friends say: The reason we did that is because we could not 
offer amendments on the underlying bill. I disagree with that. I think 
people could have offered amendments. But we were at the point where we 
were. We had 9 or 10 motions to suspend the rules. I worked all day, 
much of the time later this afternoon with Senator McConnell, trying to 
come up with a list of those motions to suspend. I had to get the 
approval of my caucus to move to all those amendments. I could not do 
it. I could not. I, in effect, made a number of my Senators very 
unhappy by moving to amendments that are extremely difficult.
  The only amendment I am aware of that is germane to what we are 
working on is Senator Hatch's amendment. The rest of them are not 
germane. They may be good amendments, great message amendments, causing 
a lot of pain over here, but I agreed to do seven of the nine. Senator 
McConnell said he needed at least one more. I could not get one more.
  So what procedurally took place is this: I believe, as I indicated in 
my opening statement, that rule XXII dealing with cloture says that 
when cloture is invoked, it is finite--it is finite; it ends debate on 
that issue unless there are amendments that have been filed that can be 
dealt with during the 30 hours. There were not any in this instance.
  So I have been here quite a while, and one of the most unpleasant 
things I have had to deal with over the years has been the vote-arama 
when we do the budget thing. We have had 60, 70, 80, 120 amendments 
filed. Under this procedure that has recently been adopted, by the 
minority in this instance, there is no limit to how many amendments 
could be filed. Today there were 9 or 10.
  This has to come to an end. This is not a way to legislate. That is 
why the motion to overrule the ruling of the Chair--that is why I made 
that. I think this is something that was discussed in great detail at 
the beginning of this Congress. I have a number of Senators on my side 
who believe very strongly, as my friend from Tennessee has just 
described, that the Senate has become a place where it is very 
difficult to debate anything. So Senator Merkley and Senator Udall, 
joined by others, wanted to change the rules.
  At that time, we believed, and the Parliamentarian and all the law 
that we were familiar with said, a simple majority could change the 
rules dramatically as to how it relates to filibuster and all other 
things. I felt that certain changes were important and maybe we should 
ease into this. That is why we are not reading the amendments now, as 
we used to be forced to do on occasion, and we had a gentleman's 
agreement motions to proceed would be not opposed generally, and I 
would not fill the tree all the time.
  As a result of that, Senators Merkley and Udall, much to their 
consternation because I did not join with a majority of my caucus, 
opposed what they did because I was hopeful that we could get back to 
doing some legislating that we had done in the past.
  Now, I feel very comfortable that what we are doing and what we did 
today is the right thing to do. My staff, this morning, when I talked 
about doing this--the first thing they said to me: Well, what if you 
are in the minority?
  Let me tell everybody within the sound of my voice, if I were in the 
minority, I would not do this. I think it is dilatory and wrong, just 
as I have said when we were in the now famous debate dealing with the 
judges issue that we had, the nuclear option. I said if I were in a 
position to exert what I felt was the nuclear option on judges, I would 
not do it. And I would not. I think we have to do a better job of 
legislating under the rules.

[[Page S6317]]

  So even though perhaps Senator Merkley and Senator Udall were 
disappointed in my advocacy to not massively change these rules, I went 
along hoping things would work out better. What just took place is an 
effort to try to expedite what goes on around here. Am I 100 percent 
sure that I am right? No. But I feel pretty comfortable with what we 
have done. There has to be some end to these dilatory tactics to stop 
things. Cloture means end; it is over with.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor still.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to also give my version, if I may, to the 
distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. REID. I yield to my friend, the Republican leader, to respond to 
any questions that the Senator from Tennessee may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Let me, for the benefit of our colleagues, 
explain what, in fact, happened. It is not complicated.
  It was pretty clear, whether you liked this bill or did not, it was 
going to pass. You could tell that by cloture on the motion to proceed 
with a very large majority. So I do not think my good friend the 
majority leader had to worry about whether his bill was ultimately 
going to pass. The question was whether there were going to be any 
amendments at any point to the bill. And my conference made a 
decision--actually against my best advice--to go on and invoke cloture 
on the bill after we had no amendments. The reason we had no amendments 
is because the majority leader used a device we have all become too 
familiar with called filling the tree, thereby allowing no amendments 
he does not approve. And he said that we are open for amendments, but 
what he means is this: We are open for any amendment I approve. So he 
filled the tree and, prior to cloture on the bill, controlled whether 
any amendments would be allowed and chose not to allow any, as a 
practical matter. So against my best advice, my conference decided to 
invoke cloture on the bill. So we were moving to approving the bill 
with no expression whatsoever.

  So we have in the postcloture environment the motion to suspend, 
which has not been abused by this minority--not been abused by this 
minority. The majority leader, in effect, has overruled the Chair with 
a simple majority vote and established the precedent that even one 
single motion to suspend--even one--is dilatory, changing the rules of 
the Senate. And if you look back at his bill, what we have had, in 
effect, is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after 
cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all.
  I do not know why anybody should act as though they were offended by 
nongermane amendments. This is the Senate. We do not have any rules of 
germaneness. No, we do not. Any subject on any bill can be offered as 
an amendment. We all know that.
  The fundamental problem here is that the majority never likes to take 
votes. That is the core problem. And I can remember, when I was the 
whip in the majority, saying to my members over and over again, when 
they were whining about casting votes they did not want to vote, that 
the price of being in the majority is that you have to take bad votes 
because in the Senate, the minority is entitled to be heard--not 
entitled to win but entitled to be heard. So that is the core problem.
  I would say to my friend the majority leader--and this is nothing 
personal about him; I like him, and we deal with each other every day--
we are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House: no amendments 
before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, and the minority 
is out of business. And it is particularly bad on a bill that has the 
support of over 60 Members, as this one did. If you are not among those 
60, you are out of luck.
  Now, look, this is a bad mistake. The way you get business done in 
the Senate is to be prepared to take bad votes. At some point, if 60 
Members of the Senate want a bill to pass, it will pass. If 60 Members 
of the Senate do not want a bill to pass, it will not pass. It is more 
time consuming. I assume that is why a lot of people ran for the Senate 
instead of the House--because they wanted to be able to express 
themselves. This is a free-wheeling body, and everybody is better off 
when we operate that way. Everybody is, whether you are in the majority 
or the minority, because today's minority may be tomorrow's majority, 
and the country is better off to have at least one place where there is 
extended debate and where you have to reach a supermajority to do 
things.
  So I would say to my good friend the majority leader that I 
understand his frustration. But you were going to win on this bill. You 
did not need to jam us. You should not jam us on any bill, but on this 
bill you were going to win. Now, some of us think we were wasting our 
time because, as the Senator from Tennessee said, this was not going to 
become law anyway, and we are sitting around here when we ought to be 
passing trade bills.
  The President has asked us to vote on his jobs bill. I wanted to give 
him an opportunity to have his vote the other day. You guys did not 
even want to vote on what the President was asking us to vote on 
without any changes. But you can prevent that, and you did.
  Look, let's not change this place. America does not need less debate, 
it needs more debate. And when 60 Members of the Senate decide to pass 
something, it will pass.
  I think we made a big mistake tonight. As soon as we all kind of cool 
off and think about it over the weekend, I hope we will undo what we 
did tonight because it is not in the best interests of this institution 
or the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate should function like the Senate. 
I acknowledge that. But we have major pieces of legislation that have 
been brought down as a result of not being able to have finality of 
that legislation, unending amendments that are not germane or relevant. 
The small business innovation bill that had passed in past years 
easily, we had the Economic Development Administration bill that passed 
easily in the past, job-creating bills on which we had an open 
amendment process--they were simply stopped.
  There are rules of germaneness in the Senate. There are rules of 
germaneness in the Senate. Let's think about these amendments that I 
agreed to. There are others I did not agree to, but there are 
amendments that I agreed we should have a vote on, not that I wanted to 
have a vote on them because they had nothing to do with the underlying 
bill--nothing. There are rules of germaneness that that should be the 
case. DeMint amendment, right to work; Cornyn amendment, fighter planes 
to Taiwan--we already had a vote on that, but we agreed to have another 
one; Hatch amendment--that one is relevant and it is germane; Barrasso 
amendment, cement--not so; Paul, Federal funding; Coburn, foreign aid; 
McConnell, jobs act.
  Part of cloture is enforcing germaneness. That is what it is all 
about. We are happy to do germane amendments. But the fact is, the 
Republican leader himself decided not to have amendments on this bill. 
I agreed to amendments on the bill prior to cloture. Everybody probably 
does not know that; they should because that is the way it is.
  So we have to make the Senate a better place, and I think a better 
place is to do what was done tonight, to get rid of these dilatory 
amendments. I mean, we would be happy if poor Senator Bingaman could 
get some bills out of the Energy Committee. We could do something on 
cement. If we could get some bills out of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, we could maybe look at foreign aid.
  These things are dilatory and only unnecessary, in an effort to 
divert from what we are really trying to do here; that is, legislate.
  So the issue is this: I believe what we did at the beginning of this 
Congress was the right thing to do, but as the weeks and months have 
rolled on, wasting months of our time on a CR that was done--on a 
series of CRs--1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks--to fund the government until 
October, a few days ago--what a waste of time. We have

[[Page S6318]]

spent months--months--on raising the debt ceiling, making it nearly if 
not impossible to legislate on other matters. And when we get a chance 
to legislate, we should not be held up by these dilatory matters.
  I am willing to legislate. I have taken a lot of hard votes in my 
career, and I would have been willing to vote on these. But there has 
to be an end to this.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me make sure we understand. There are not any 
rules of germaneness precloture in the Senate. There are not any. Any 
amendment can be offered on any subject. And that has been one of the 
great frustrations of every majority down through the years. We all 
know that. So my friend the majority leader, in order to prevent the 
votes on unpleasant amendments, fills up the tree and decides himself 
that he is going to confine the amendments to those that are either 
germane--relevant--or, put another way, of his choosing, whatever you 
want to allow.
  My friend keeps talking about wasting time. Well, wasting time to him 
might not be wasting time to us. We might not think that offering an 
amendment on something we think is important for the country is a waste 
of the Senate's time.
  So who gets to decide who is wasting time around here? None of us. 
None of us have that authority to decide who is wasting time. But the 
way you make things happen is you get 60 votes at some point, and you 
move a matter to conclusion, and the best way to do that is to have an 
open amendment process. That is the way this place used to operate.
  I have been here a while. I know this is not the way it has always 
happened. This is not the way we always operated. And we did get things 
accomplished, not by trying to strangle everybody and shut everybody up 
but by allowing the process to work. And when the Senate gets tired of 
the process, 60 people shut it down, and you move to conclusion. That 
is how you move something ahead, not by preventing the voices.
  I mean, we have sat around here 2 days in quorum calls. Have you all 
noticed that? We could have been voting on amendments. Sitting around 
in quorum calls--talk about a waste of time.
  Mr. REID. I am going to respond to this. I don't know the exact 
number now, but almost 30 judges are waiting to be approved, people who 
are waiting to change their lives, doing their patriotic duty, public 
service. I can't file cloture on all of those. There are 29 of them.
  We have been stymied here in this Congress in getting things done--
holding up nominations for judges, holding up nominations--some people 
have been on the Executive Calendar for a long, long time. It is 
unfair. That is what is going on around here.
  So we can do all of the make-believe that my friend the Republican 
leader is talking about, about what great things should happen around 
here. Well, I will tell you a few things that should happen: We should 
be able to move matters through here that have been happening since the 
beginning of this country--nominations, for example. We can't do that 
because my friend the Republican leader, as candid as he was, said his 
No. 1 goal is to defeat President Obama. That is what has been going on 
for 9 months here, and this issue relating to these dilatory tactics on 
these motions to suspend the rules is just part of that game that is 
being played. Let's get back--I agree. I agree. Let's get back to 
legislating as we did before the mantra around here was ``Defeat 
Obama.''
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I pose this question, and as I look around 
this floor, with the exception of Senator Inouye, my dear friend from 
Hawaii, nobody has served in this body longer than I have--on the 
current membership--nobody. I keep hearing this talk about 60 votes. 
Most votes you win by 51 votes, and this constant mantra of 60 votes, 
60 votes--this is some new invention, I tell my friends, based on my 
sense of history.
  So my question to the majority leader, whether we were here with a 
Democratic majority or a Republican majority, does he remember a time 
when judges who were confirmed unanimously--every single Republican, 
every single Democrat voting for them out of committee--would then sit 
on the calendar for 3, 4, 5, sometimes 6 months because there was not 
an agreement to vote on them without a 60-vote supermajority? I cannot 
remember it at any time in 37 years. I do not know if the majority 
leader can recall such a time.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Vermont has been here longer than I have, 
but he is absolutely right.
  I would also add this: that the Republican leader said--and I think 
this says it all--today, as an extemporaneous remark from his position 
here where he is now standing, and I quote:

       If 60 Senators are in favor of bringing a matter to 
     conclusion, it will be brought to a conclusion.

  That is what happened a few minutes ago, and that is what cloture is 
all about. That is what cloture is all about.
  I believe in cloture. As I have indicated several times earlier, I 
was not in favor of changing the rules relating to cloture as some of 
my colleagues did. But I think this is a step forward. It will make 
this process work a lot better.
  I want to yield for a question to my friend from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding. I 
will not take long.
  I have been in the Senate 4 years now, and I think my colleagues know 
I do not come down to the floor and spout a lot of hot air. But I have 
to be heard tonight.
  I will agree with my friend the majority leader on one thing: This is 
no way to legislate. He said those words a few moments ago, and I 
agree.
  We have become accustomed to a procedure, and I have disagreed with 
that procedure, but it has been the regular order during the time I 
have been here; that is, the usual practice is a bill is brought to the 
floor, and the majority leader immediately offers every amendment that 
can possibly be offered in a parliamentary way, thus filling the 
amendment tree and preventing other Senators from offering amendments.
  Then cloture is filed and we don't have an opportunity to have a full 
hearing. I am told this has not always been the practice, but we have 
been accustomed to that practice.
  What happened tonight is far different from that. I think that is why 
my friend from Tennessee propounded the question to the majority 
leader. We had a bill--and it may be a messaging bill, but if it were 
passed, it would be a significant piece of legislation. I think both 
sides acknowledge that. No amendments were allowed precloture and no 
amendments have been allowed postcloture. The majority leader, this 
very day, after the cloture vote assured the Senate that we would be 
operating under an open process. He said those words. Not only that--
and perhaps the majority leader, when I finish in a moment or two, 
could correct me--I believe I heard the majority leader say we would be 
allowed to offer motions to suspend the rules on a number of 
amendments, and debate would be allowed.
  What occurred was that Senator Coburn offered his motion to suspend 
the rule on his amendment. We assumed we would be able to do this on at 
least a few amendments. But the very first amendment that was offered, 
the majority leader suggested to the Chair, and made the point of order 
to the Chair, that it was dilatory--one amendment. That was deemed 
dilatory by the majority leader, and the Parliamentarian correctly 
instructed the Chair to overrule that suggestion by the majority 
leader, upholding the precedent of the Senate. And one by one, 
Democratic Members of this body had to march down and vote to overrule 
the Parliamentarian of this Senate for the very purpose of shutting 
down the chance to offer one single amendment, when the majority leader 
well knew he had the votes to win. But our rules have, I thought, been 
designed--and I think our society is designed this way--around the 
concept that the minority has an opportunity to be protected; the 
minority has an

[[Page S6319]]

opportunity to be heard in this body, of all bodies.
  What we have done tonight--unless we can remove that--is we have 
changed the rules of the Senate on a messaging bill, on a matter that 
the majority leader had the votes on. That is my objection. That is why 
I am so disturbed about the overreaction and heavyhandedness of this 
move.
  This is not a matter of supporting the leader on one bill that he 
wants to get us out of town on. This is precedent. Unless we can change 
it, we have forever changed the right of the majority to be heard 
postcloture. I am saddened about that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, amendments could have been 
offered precloture. My friend said he thought we were going to be able 
to offer some amendments postcloture with their motions to suspend the 
rules. That is what I said would happen, and I agreed to that--seven 
amendments. People are saying, you choose the amendments. I didn't 
choose the amendments. They came up with these amendments. These are 
the ones they gave me. I was supposed to select which ones, and that is 
what I did. I could not get agreement on some of these amendments. I 
have explained that previously.
  Also, everyone should recognize that motions to suspend the rules are 
still available; they are just not available postcloture. Rule XXII 
provides:

       Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought 
     to a close?

  That is what it says. That rule has been in existence for a long 
time. I am sorry my friend is disappointed, but I think the playbook he 
is reading from is not accurate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi is 
accurate. Until the vote we had just a few moments ago, motions to 
suspend postcloture were appropriate. No longer are they appropriate 
because, as my friend from Mississippi pointed out, we have in effect 
changed the rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for taking the time to 
explain from his perspective what has happened. I guess what I want to 
understand is, when amendments are offered, why don't we just go ahead 
and vote on them? If it is standard procedure----
  Mr. REID. Can the Senator start over? I was preoccupied.
  Mr. CORKER. First of all, I thank the leader for taking the time to 
explain from his perspective. Here is what I don't understand. We had a 
cloture motion to proceed on Monday. It is Thursday night. We have had 
no votes on anything other than a cloture vote. I guess what I would 
love to understand is, why don't we just immediately begin voting on 
amendments? We could have been done with this bill yesterday. Instead, 
everybody cools their heels, waits around, while some negotiation takes 
place--sort of a self-appointed rules committee. And at the end, 
something like this happens.
  I wish to understand from the leader's perspective why we don't just 
vote on amendments? We could have been done yesterday.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will try to respond to my friend. People 
around here are talking as if this is something that never has happened 
before. This has happened--I don't remember all the times since I have 
been in the Senate that the Chair--as brilliant as our Parliamentarian 
is, and the Chair does its best to distinguish what the Parliamentarian 
wants, but he is not always sustained. I have been involved in a number 
of those examples. So it isn't as if this never happened before.
  We did it with the understanding that what is going on here is 
dilatory, and that is what the majority felt.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in the form of a question to the majority 
leader and also the Republican leader--we are all frustrated. The 
Senator from Tennessee and I talked about that frustration at the 
beginning of the session, and it hasn't worked terribly well to try to 
straighten this out. You are frustrated, and we can talk about the 
specifics here.
  The one point I make is that the majority leader, isn't it true, 
offered on the floor yesterday to allow amendments on this bill? And 
the only amendment that was sent to us was the amendment to have a vote 
on the President's budget, is that correct?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  Mr. SCHUMER. But it was not widely known on this side. The majority 
leader had offered amendments on this bill. The question I ask is 
this--and I will make a statement and lead up to a question. You are 
frustrated because you feel the tree is filled all the time and you 
cannot make amendments. But we are frustrated because the 60-vote 
rule--which has always been used here--is now used routinely, which 
never has been done before. Judges--district court judges--I have been 
here in the Senate 13 years, and I was in the House 18 years and 
followed the Senate and cared about judges. It never happened before. 
Routine appointees--assistant secretaries of this, deputy secretaries 
of that--60 votes. And on bill after bill after bill, the procedure of 
this place works that somebody has to object. That is why you file 
cloture; otherwise, we could proceed.
  In the past, the motion to proceed was not routinely blocked. And 
almost every single bill--important bills, obviously--and nobody thinks 
the health care bill should have passed by 51 votes. But on minor 
bills--we had a filibuster on technical corrections to the 
Transportation bill, where 287 was written down by mistake instead of 
387. It was filibustered--60 votes. So our defense is to fill the tree.
  But what we ought to try to do here--and, as I said, the Senator from 
Tennessee and I futilely tried earlier this year to maybe calm things 
down--is to maybe use this flashpoint to try to come together and work 
that out again. Maybe the minority would not routinely filibuster 
everything--appointments, judges, minor bills--and can save it for the 
major bills. In return--and I agree with the minority leader that the 
deal around this place is the majority sets the agenda and the minority 
gets to offer amendments. That has been the rule since I got here and 
one of the reasons--he is correct, I say to my friend from Kentucky--
why I left the House to run for the Senate.

  But it has gotten to the extreme. While my colleagues on the other 
side would say it got to the extreme because we always fill the tree, 
we would say it got to the extreme because you filibuster everything 
and require 60 votes on everything--we only have 53, we know that--
including judges, appointments, and minor bills. If we are going to 
bring this place back to order, if we are going to bring this place 
back to a place where we can legislate, both sides have to back off, 
and we are going to have to figure out how to do that, which we haven't 
done adequately yet.
  One other point before I ask my question. The Senator from West 
Virginia had a few of us on his boat this week. A number of the 
freshmen Senators from the other side of the aisle were on the boat, as 
I was. We began to talk, and they were asking, why is this place so 
mixed up? I explained that some of the greatest joys I have had in the 
Senate and the House were conference committees, and offering 
amendments, and things such as that. We all said, together, why can't 
we get back to that?
  Let me say that it is not simply filling the tree and preventing 
amendments that caused this problem. It is routinely requiring 60 votes 
before the Senate can get a drink of water.
  My question to the majority leader is this: Would he be willing--we 
need a little bit of a cooling-off period--to sit down with the 
minority leader and others in an effort to try to figure out how we can 
get back to somewhat more of a regular order in regard to what I said?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say this to my friend and others 
listening. I want everybody to understand a little bit of the 
frustration I have. We all went through the battle on the FEMA bill. 
Everyone remembers that. People in the dark bowels of this building 
someplace typed that bill up. They made a mistake and had a comma in 
the wrong place--a comma. I asked consent, because that was a technical 
correction, to get that corrected. There were press releases out 
already from my Republican friends: We are not going to agree to any 
consents on anything. You talk about frustration--there is plenty of it 
to go around.

[[Page S6320]]

  I want to try to end this on a high note. I love this institution. I 
have devoted most of my life here in this building--not only as a long-
time Member of the House and Senate, but I lived here while going to 
law school. I worked in this building. I was a cop here. I love this 
building and this institution. I don't want to do anything to denigrate 
the institution. Maybe there is blame to go around, and I think there 
probably is. But frustration builds upon frustration and, as a result 
of that, we have situations such as this.
  So here is my suggestion. I think just as we had a cooling off 
period, as we indicated that we would on that FEMA CR--we had a cooling 
off period, and the Republican leader and I agreed that would be the 
right thing to do, and we then came back and worked something out. We 
did it very quickly. It wasn't to everybody's satisfaction. I had 
people upset and he had people upset, but we did that. So it would be 
my suggestion to do as I originally suggested. I think we should go 
ahead and do final passage on this matter on Tuesday night. Do the 
judge first, then vote on the jobs bill. Then we will deal with the 
trade stuff.
  I am happy to not only sit down with the Republican leader, but I am 
sure we can all cinch up our belts and, as they say in the Old and New 
Testament, gird up our loins and try to do a better job of how we try 
to get along. I have talked to the Republican leader only briefly about 
this, but I had a discussion with my leadership today, and one of the 
things I was going to announce--and so here it is--one of the things I 
want to do is have a joint caucus. I want to have one with Democratic 
Senators and Republican Senators. At that time we can all talk about 
some of the frustrations we all have.
  I wanted to do that the first week we got back after the last recess. 
All my people don't know about this, and certainly I haven't finalized 
this with the Republican leader, but I think that would be a good step 
forward; that Senator McConnell and I could be there in front of 
everybody together, questions could be asked, statements could be made, 
and we could see if that would let a little air out of the tires.
  I will be happy--next time we get cloture on an event sometime in the 
future--to sit down and find out what, if anything, we should do 
postcloture on matters relating to people who are frustrated.
  So that is my statement, Mr. President. I am not asking consent on 
anything, but I would hope we could all leave, and Senator McConnell 
and I would direct the staff to come up with something, an arrangement 
comparable to what I just suggested.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will have no more votes, and I have 
confirmed that with the Republican leader.

                          ____________________