[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14435-14441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE OVERSIGHT REFORM ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED

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

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1619, a bill 
     to provide for identification of misaligned currency, require 
     action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 4:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 
1619, the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act. First, I want to 
say this bill is the culmination of years of hard work and 
collaboration between Democrats and Republicans. I thank Senator 
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He and I have been partners in this 
endeavor for over 5 years. We have traveled to China together. We have 
worked long and hard to try to gain some fairness in the way China 
treats American industry, particularly in regards to currency.
  I thank Senator Sherrod Brown and Senator Debbie Stabenow. Both made 
very valuable additions to the proposal on the Senate floor today. In 
fact, Senator Brown is the lead sponsor of this legislation because of 
the strong and good work he has done. They both have worked long and 
hard, realizing the industries in their States are at such a 
competitive disadvantage.
  I thank my colleague, Jeff Sessions, as well, who has been one of our 
partners and leaders on this legislation over the last several months, 
and lead sponsors in addition: Bob Casey, Olympia Snowe, Jeff Sessions, 
Kay Hagan, and Richard Burr, as well as dozens of other cosponsors on 
this bill for their work on this issue for many years.
  I also want to particularly express my appreciation to Chairman Max 
Baucus and former ranking member of the Finance Committee Chuck 
Grassley for their leadership and work on currency manipulation. We 
believe our bill is WTO compliant, and it is in part because Senators 
Baucus and Grassley looked at our original bill and worked with us on 
suggestions as to how to change it to make it just as effective but 
within the rules of WTO.
  Today we have an opportunity to help put middle-class Americans back 
to work and, amazingly enough, in a bipartisan way. Today we stand 
together to defend American jobs against market-distorting, job-killing 
exchange rate policies that subsidize foreign manufacturers at the 
expense of American manufacturers. These currency policies artificially 
raise the price of U.S. exports and suppress the price of Chinese 
imports into the United States, undermining the economic health of 
American manufacturers and their ability to compete at home and around 
the globe.
  China is by far the biggest exploiter of predatory currency 
practices, but our bill does not target China or any one country. Our 
bill, rather, says there will be consequences for any country that 
engages in currency manipulation to gain an unfair advantage over 
American businesses.
  It has been 10 years since China joined the WTO. In those 10 years 
the Economic Policy Institute estimates that 2.8 million American jobs 
were lost or displaced in manufacturing or other trade-related 
industries as a result of increased trade with China and the Chinese 
Government's manipulation of its currency. My State of New York has 
suffered some of the biggest losses, with over 161,000 jobs lost or 
workers displaced since 2001. Accession to the WTO was supposed to 
bring China's policies in line with global trade rules meant to ensure 
free but fair trade. Instead, China has single-mindedly flouted those 
rules to spur its own economy and export-oriented growth at the expense 
of its trading partners, most of all the United States.
  Our economic relationship with China needs a fundamental change. It 
is not just in currency, although that is the No. 1 issue. On issue 
after issue, whether it is poaching intellectual property, unfairly and 
illegally subsidizing Chinese businesses, monopolizing rare earths, not 
allowing American companies to compete in China--on issue after issue 
China is mercantilist, plain and simple. They use the rules of free 
trade when it benefits them and spurn the rules of free trade when it 
benefits them. For years Americans have grimaced, shrugged their 
shoulders, but never done anything effective to in large measure stop 
the Chinese pursuit of unfair mercantilism.
  Six years ago I was in upstate New York and a steel manufacturer told 
me they could compete against Chinese steel just fine, even with labor 
costs being lower in China, except for the fact that China manipulated 
its currency and gave Chinese steel imports a 30- to 40-percent 
advantage. The owner of the company, providing 300 good-paying jobs, 
pleaded with me to do something. I happened to speak with Senator 
Graham, and he was finding the same situation with industries in his 
State of South Carolina.
  We began our crusade to get China to behave fairly. At first, people 
did not even accept the fact that currency manipulation was wrong and 
harmful to America. I remember at one point, within a short period of 
time, both the New York Times editorial page--a decidedly liberal 
editorial page--and the Wall Street Journal editorial page--a decidedly 
conservative editorial page--said China should not have to let its 
currency float, even though it is a tenet of free trade since Bretton 
Woods that said the way to correct large imbalances in trade is to let 
a currency readjust by floating.
  We spent years convincing America, convincing our colleagues that 
this manipulation of currency dramatically hurt America and was unfair 
and against all tenets of free trade. We have achieved that goal. Now 
the editorials may pick reasons they do not like our particular bill, 
but they say: Oh, yes, we have to deal with Chinese currency 
manipulation.
  But when we ask people who say: Don't do your bill, deal with it a 
different way, we say how? No one has another answer. It was true that 
our initial bill introduced 5 years ago was a blunt instrument to bring 
attention to the issue. It was our hope then not to pass the 
legislation--in fact, we allowed cooling off period after cooling off 
period in the legislation--but, rather, simply to get the Chinese to 
act. But about after 3 or 4 years, Senator Graham and I became 
convinced that China would not act. When there was real pressure they 
might move the currency a little bit, but then they would back off.
  The same proved true in other areas where China unfairly treats 
American industry, so we came to the conclusion that legislation was 
the only answer, no one having a preferred or even seemingly possibly 
effective alternative. So we worked, as I said, with Senator Baucus and 
Senator Grassley and came up with a proposal we believe meets WTO 
rules.
  Then, because Senator Stabenow had worked long and hard on this issue 
along with Senator Collins, we combined her proposal and our proposal. 
Hers was mainly focused on the Banking Committee, Commerce Department, 
ours on Treasury. Then a year or two ago, Senator Brown and Senator 
Snowe had an additional proposal, and we have combined all of these 
proposals into one workable bill that will finally get fairness for 
American companies.
  Over the past 6 years we have been sending a message to the Chinese 
Government about their exchange rate policies. Every Treasury Secretary 
since we began this crusade said: You know what. Let me just talk to 
the Chinese. I can bring reason to them.
  They did it with the best of intentions and the best of hopes, every 
Treasury Secretary--casting no aspersions on any of them because the 
fault was China's, not ours--and could not get progress at all.
  So it is down to this. If we want American companies to have a fair

[[Page 14436]]

chance of competing, this is the solution. Not everyone will agree with 
every jot and tittle in this bill, but I think the vast majority of my 
colleagues will agree with its thrust and the need to do more than we 
have been doing. For that reason I am hopeful that large numbers on 
both sides of the aisle will vote for this motion to proceed so we can 
begin debating this measure and listen to some amendments if people 
have ideas as to how to change it.
  Let me go over our bill. Our bill is intended to give the 
administration additional tools--this administration or any--to use if 
countries fail to take steps to eliminate currency misalignment. The 
bill would prohibit Federal procurement of products or services from a 
country that fails to adopt appropriate policies or to take 
identifiable action to eliminate currency misalignment.
  Our bill also uses U.S. trade law to counter the economic harm to 
U.S. manufacturers caused by currency manipulation. The artificially 
low value of the yuan--economists estimate it is anywhere from 20 to 40 
percent less than what it should be--amounts, as is well known now, to 
a subsidy on Chinese exports and a tariff on imports from the United 
States and other countries to China.
  Under existing trade laws, if the Commerce Department and the 
International Trade Commission find that subsidized imports are causing 
economic harm to American manufacturers and workers, the administration 
must impose duties on those imports to offset or countervail the 
benefit conferred on foreign producers and exporters by government 
subsidies. Commerce already has the authority under U.S. law to 
investigate whether currency undervaluation by a government provides a 
countervailable subsidy, although it has failed to do so despite 
repeated requests by industry after industry to investigate.
  Our bill specifies the applicable investigation initiation standard 
so Commerce can't just turn its back on these companies, and it will 
require Commerce to investigate whether currency undervaluation by a 
government provides a countervailable subsidy if the U.S. industry 
requests the investigation and provides the proper documentation.
  Our bill also clarifies that Commerce may not refuse to investigate a 
subsidy allegation based on the single fact that a subsidy is available 
in circumstances in addition to export.
  Our bill also uses the term ``currency misalignment,'' but it is not 
just a term. Administrations, both the Bush administration and the 
Obama administration, have, to the amazement of many Americans, refused 
to label China a currency manipulator. But manipulation is a subjective 
standard involving intent. What we do is refine that concept and go for 
misalignment. We believe misalignment is the appropriate standard. That 
is not subjective. It is not saying why the currency is misaligned or 
how or who did it. It is simply saying that it is. It is a narrower 
standard. It is a standard that is harder to wriggle out from under if 
anybody, any government official is intent on not enforcing the rules 
we think necessary to get the Chinese to act. So the bill is carefully 
thought out. The decimation of our middle class, our manufacturing 
sector, and the American economy as a whole is due in part to 
developing countries such as China employing currency manipulation and 
other aggressive mercantilist tactics to tilt the field in their favor. 
In the absence of action by the administration, we have a 
responsibility to protect the interests of American workers and 
companies.
  One of the questions that is raised is, Is our bill WTO compliant? We 
believe it is. We have worked hard to ensure this. The bill provides 
the President with flexibility to waive any consequences that might 
have an adverse impact on the U.S. economy. The bill also continues to 
allow the U.S. Government trade officials to do their job and make the 
decisions on the basis of facts argued before them. We have talked to 
many experts in the field. They too believe our bill is WTO compliant.
  What do the critics say? No one criticizes the idea that China has 
manipulated its currency. No one criticizes the thought, the actuality 
that China manipulates its currency. Almost everybody thinks not enough 
is being done. The main argument against our bill is not the bill 
itself, but critics of the bill worry that maybe this could start a 
trade war with China. Well, I have news for them: We are already in a 
trade war with China, and we are losing. China, by its mercantilist 
policies on currency above all but on rare earth and intellectual 
property, unsubsidization of homegrown industry, on exclusion of 
American exports where we might have advantage, is already engaged in a 
trade war, and the result is that millions of Americans do not have 
jobs who should. The result is that hundreds of billions of dollars 
flow out of America and into China. If we do not do anything about 
this, our country will be hurt badly, perhaps irreparably.
  Some argue, as did the Washington Post today, that it will not have 
much of an effect because the industry of China has to revalue its 
currency; these industries will go to places such as Bangladesh. They 
are making an argument that is 5 and 10 years old and stale. We are not 
arguing about labor-intensive industries such as clothing or shoes or 
toys. Those are going to Bangladesh already, with the cost of Chinese 
labor going up. China uses its currency manipulation against our top-
notch manufacturers. The large companies say nothing because most of 
them have plants in China, so they can get around it, but middle- and 
small-sized manufacturers are up against this wall and are desperate 
for our help.
  One manufacturer in upstate New York makes a very advanced product 
that deals with cleaning pollutants as they go through a power system. 
It is a top-notch product. This manufacturer, who employs a couple 
hundred people in upstate New York, said to me: China's stealing my 
stuff even though I have patents and other things on it. They are 
stealing the method by which we do this. He said: I could live with 
that if they just sold the stuff in China. We are not big enough to 
export all around the world. Instead, what they do is steal our 
intellectual property on this, and then they come back and sell it in 
America at a 30-percent discount because of currency manipulation. How 
am I going to compete with that?
  There is story after story just like that. When American companies 
are fighting for their survival and battling subsidized Chinese 
exports, including high-end exports, this is no longer an argument 
about labor-intensive industries alone.
  I, for one, am not prepared to raise the white flag on American 
manufacturing and on American jobs, and neither should anybody else. I 
know American manufacturing can compete successfully against Chinese 
competition at home, in China, and around the world but only if the 
playing field is level, and our bill helps to level that playing field.
  Critics of our bill say that while currency manipulation is an 
important issue, legislation to address it would ignore the many and 
growing challenges we face in China. The critics are wrong. We have no 
intention of ignoring the range of China's market-distorting practices, 
the ones I mentioned before. In fact, because China was emboldened on 
currency, which the whole world--Brazil, just a week or two ago, asked 
China to stop manipulating its currency. The European Union feels the 
same way we do. Nobody does anything, so China is emboldened to pursue 
mercantilist policies in other areas. Just recently, they have become 
involved in rare earths. They tell American manufacturers: If you want 
rare earths, you would be a lot better off sending your plant to China. 
It is just unheard of.
  Critics of our bill say it is unlikely to create any incentive for 
China to modify its exchange policies. The experience Senator Graham 
and I have had is that when China thinks something might be done, they 
begin to let their currency rise. Because nothing permanent is done, 
they go right back to their old habits as soon as the pressure

[[Page 14437]]

is off. This idea that if we pressure the Chinese, they won't do it 
makes no sense. If we pressure them, they do nothing, and if we don't 
pressure them, they do nothing. The only answer is concrete 
legislation.
  What would those who oppose this bill have us do? What is their 
suggestion? They do not really have one. Should we continue to sit back 
and watch while American jobs and American manufacturers and even large 
chunks of American wealth just drift away? Should we continue to, as 
one of my constituents put it, be not Uncle Sam but Uncle Sap? Well, 
there are too many of us in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle who 
will not sit back and continue to let mercantilist trade practices 
continue to decimate American manufacturing and American jobs--middle, 
low, and high--nor will my colleagues here in the Senate. Democrats and 
Republicans are united on this issue. We must take decisive action 
against China's currency manipulation and other economically injurious 
behavior. The fact that they manipulate their currency imbalances the 
whole world trading system. Many economists list it as one of the 
reasons we had the decline in global trade in the worldwide recession. 
We simply have no choice but to right the wrong China is committing.
  Any retaliation by China would be further evidence of their 
unwillingness to meet their obligations under the WTO and the global 
trade community. By the way, China has a lot more to lose with 
retaliation than we do. If there is one country that gains the most by 
exporting to the United States by international trade, it is China. 
They are very smart, and they are not going to cut their nose to spite 
their face.
  I wholeheartedly support the President's goal of doubling U.S. 
exports over the next 5 years, but that cannot be done if we do not 
take concrete action to address the protectionist practices of foreign 
governments that concede tariff reductions only to replace tariffs with 
massive currency manipulation, border taxes, and a variety of state 
subsidies. We will not do it unless we get to the root cause.
  China's currency manipulation would be unacceptable even in good 
economic times. At times of high unemployment, we can no longer stand 
for it. There is no bigger step to create American jobs that we can 
take than to confront China's currency manipulation. It is not a 
Democratic or Republican issue. Every one of us has manufacturers, 
companies that are struggling to compete at home and abroad with 
Chinese exports with a built-in price advantage. It is not China 
bashing. It is about fairness and defending American jobs.
  Many of us and most Americans are worried about how things will be in 
10, 20 years from now. Will America stay the leading economic power of 
the world? Will our children have a better life than we do? The No. 1 
thing we have to do is change things at home to make that better, there 
is no question about it. Very high on the list as well is making sure 
China no longer unfairly sucks millions of jobs and hundreds of 
billions of dollars of American wealth to its shores. What China does 
will make our job of keeping America strong, of having the next 
generation live a better life than this generation far more difficult 
unless we force them to change. They will not change on their own.
  Passage of this legislation will lead to real consequences for 
countries that unfairly manipulate their currency. We have waited a 
long time. We have declined to move the legislation at the request of 
two administrations. Patience--not of us but of the American people--
has worn out. I ask my colleagues to stand with us on S. 1619. Stand up 
for American manufacturing, for American jobs, for American wealth. 
Stand up so our children can have an even brighter future than we have.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I have enjoyed the remarks of my distinguished friend from 
New York.
  As we begin the debate today on the important issue of exchange rate 
misalignment, although it is an important debate, I seriously question 
its timing.
  Let's step back for a moment. At the end of last month, the Senate 
approved legislation renewing and expanding trade adjustment 
assistance. We need to be clear about what this program is--a big 
government spending program of dubious value but one that is important 
to President Obama's union allies. Not surprisingly, given the heft 
labor unions wield in the liberal political coalition, this spending 
program is President Obama's top trade priority, so much so that he was 
even willing to abandon our allies in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea 
unless he secured this additional spending. To get more government 
spending for big labor, the President was willing to hold up the three 
free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that 
everyone knows will grow this economy and create jobs.
  I was happy to chat with the Trade Representative a few minutes ago, 
and he told me he was going to send those three trade agreements up 
today, and they should be here between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. I am really 
happy about that because it is way beyond time to get them here.
  Americans need to remember this episode when they hear the President 
talk about his commitment to job creation. Put aside all the talk, and 
it is clear where the rubber hits the road. The President will 
prioritize government spending over private sector job growth.
  Still, because of the President's insistence on this spending 
program, the TAA bill is likely to pass the House and become law. So 
here is my question: Given that we just debated a trade bill that we 
knew would likely become law, why was this currency bill not considered 
in that context? I can only conclude either that the administration 
opposes the currency bill and therefore asked that it not become part 
of TAA or that the consideration of this bill is merely a political 
exercise with little expectation that it ever will become law. With 
millions of Americans out of work and the economy stagnant, the people 
of Utah and all American citizens deserve more than political 
grandstanding.
  Regarding the substance of the issue, the manipulation of currency 
values by major trading partners in order to gain unfair trade 
advantage represents a genuine threat to U.S. jobs and to rebalancing 
of the global financial and economic system. For many years and 
continuing into the present, that threat is a reality. There is 
virtually unanimous agreement among international analysts that there 
exists large-scale, prolonged, one-way intervention in exchange markets 
by some of our important trading partners in order to limit or preclude 
currency appreciation, primarily in China but also in some of the other 
economies as well. There also seems to be little question that China 
manipulates its currency in order to subsidize its exports.
  The bill before us seeks to address exchange rate misalignment 
specifically and global imbalances generally by sharpening the tools 
available to counter currency manipulation by a trading partner. Of 
course, any additional tools we can construct must be carefully crafted 
to align with all of our international trade agreements and global 
rules of trade.
  The issue of China's currency has been with us for far too many 
years.
  The issue of China's currency has been with us for far too many 
years. We have repeated discussions about how to address lack of 
appreciation of China's currency, followed by diplomatic bilateral 
discussions assurances of moves from China to allow appreciation some 
modest subsequent appreciation while the political heat is on, and 
little change thereafter once the heat subsides.
  This approach does not seem to be working. We have had large and 
persistent bilateral trade deficits with China, and those deficits 
continue. We have relied on China's massive excess savings to finance 
our growing debt, and we have worsened that reliance given the debt-
fueled spending spree of the current President. China's dollar-
denominated reserve holdings, which

[[Page 14438]]

have grown for many years, have ballooned from around $1.9 trillion 
when President Obama took office to over $3 trillion, according to some 
recent estimates--a 50-percent increase.
  But currency misalignment by China is not the only source of global 
financial and economic imbalances. If the President looked in the 
mirror, he would see his own responsibility for global economic 
uncertainty. Our budget deficits have far exceeded $1 trillion for the 
past 3 fiscal years. For 2011, the deficit is expected to be around 
$1.3 trillion, which is an unsustainable 8.5 percent of GDP and the 
third-largest deficit in the past 65 years, exceeded only by the 
deficits in 2009 and 2010. Deficits of this magnitude have not been 
seen since the years surrounding World War II, when virtually the 
entire economy was being directed by the Federal government. Given our 
budget deficits and the China currency issue, the important question 
is: What is being done?
  Let's look at what is being done with a bit of recent history for 
context. Back in 2008, then-candidate Obama wrote the following to 
textile organizations:

       The massive current account surpluses accumulated by China 
     are directly related to its manipulation of its currency's 
     value. The result is not good for the United States, not good 
     for the global economy, and likely to create problems in 
     China itself.

  He went went on to promise that, if elected, he would use all 
diplomatic means at his disposal to induce China to change its foreign 
exchange policies. He promised to beef up U.S. enforcement efforts 
against unfair trade practices.
  Also, back in 2009, during the Treasury Secretary's confirmation 
hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, now-Secretary Geithner 
stated that:

       President Obama--backed by the conclusions of a broad range 
     of economists--believes that China is manipulating its 
     currency.

  Those are strong words. Yet once in office, the President and 
Secretary Geithner failed to follow up on those words with action. The 
Administration promised to usher in an era of change but failed to 
change the way the U.S. deals with the China currency issue.
  The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 requires that the 
Treasury Secretary report on exchange rate policies of major U.S. 
trading partners. Under the act, Treasury must consider whether 
countries manipulate exchange rates for purposes of preventing balance 
of payments adjustments or gaining unfair trade advantage.
  The evidence clearly seems to show that China's currency policies 
amount to manipulation leading to an unfair advantage in international 
trade.
  Candidate Obama agreed during his campaign.
  Treasury Secretary Geithner agreed during his confirmation testimony.
  Yet, as Treasury Secretary and as President, the two have refused to 
act.
  Secretary Geithner has issued five foreign exchange reports, but has 
refused to label China as a country that manipulates its exchange rate 
for the purpose of gaining unfair competitive advantage in 
international trade. Let me repeat that, despite many bold claims about 
using all the tools at their disposal to counteract China's trade 
policies, the administration refuses to designate China's policies as 
being consistent with currency manipulation for trade advantage. The 
question that I and most of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
have is: Why?
  Clearly, the administration must recognize the consequences of 
China's manipulation for American workers and manufacturers and for the 
stability of the global financial and economic system. Why, then, is 
the administration protecting China by refusing to designate it as a 
currency manipulator?
  Under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, once a country is so 
designated, there are no draconian actions required. The immediate 
repercussions are merely stepped-up monitoring and greater vigilance in 
dialogue. Those don't seem to be things that would lead to currency or 
trade wars.
  So, why doesn't the administration act?
  After all, American jobs are at stake. American workers can compete 
with any workers in the world, but our workers should not have to 
compete against foreign firms that receive massive subsidies. If the 
President is as intent on focusing on job creation in America as his 
campaigning suggests, then why has he refused to take such a simple 
step as designating known, existing currency manipulation?
  There is a severe mismatch here between political rhetoric and 
action.
  My fear is that the administration's overreliance on overseas 
funding--in particular from China--to finance their exploding deficits 
is preventing the President and his officers from acting on behalf of 
the competitive, but struggling, American workforce.
  It is well past time for the administration to recognize the negative 
consequences of China's manipulation for American workers and 
manufacturers, and for global stability.
  Even though there has been only tepid support, even on the Democratic 
side of the aisle, for the President's much touted jobs plan, there is 
bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to take significant actions to 
address the massive jobs deficit this Nation is facing. We face a 
national crisis in having unemployment persisting at over 9 percent, 
with elevated numbers of the unemployed suffering from long-term bouts 
of joblessness and with many American workers having become so 
discouraged that they have simply dropped out of the labor force.
  According to statements by the majority leader of the Senate, a focus 
on jobs is precisely why we are considering the bill before us. 
According to one of those statements, the majority leader is reported 
as having said that ``I don't think there's anything more important for 
a jobs measure than China trade.''
  I am starting to think my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
like the gang that couldn't shoot straight. The majority leader thinks 
that addressing China trade is essential to job creation. But based on 
its failure to use existing tools available to designate China as a 
currency manipulator, the administration apparently disagrees or it 
would have long ago used its authority to make such a designation under 
the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act and then acted on the 
problem.
  The President's focus seems to be elsewhere. He seems to think that 
at least as important for jobs as the issue of China trade identified 
by the majority leader is his so-called American Jobs Act. 
Advertisements by the Democratic National Committee and campaign 
speeches by the President since he announced it in a joint session of 
Congress early last month tell us quite clearly that we should ``meet 
our responsibilities'' and consider that Act ``right away.''
  Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently believe that 
a political debate over China and its currency policies are more 
important for job creation than the President's American Jobs Act.
  If the President's act is, as advertised, so crucial for job creation 
in the face of our national unemployment crisis, why is Senate 
Democratic leadership delaying its consideration? Why not consider the 
legislation right away, as demanded by the President in his campaign 
speeches and Democratic National Committee advertisements?
  We are told by the President that Americans who are out of work 
cannot wait until the next election for us to act boldly for job 
creation. So why are we not considering his American Jobs Act, unless 
my Democrat friends disagree with the President that the act would be 
the most important job creator available to us today?
  I suspect they know that the $447 billion in new stimulus spending 
included in the President's jobs bill, and the accompanying proposals 
to impose $1.5 trillion in new taxes on a sluggish economy, is 
economically counterproductive and a sure-fire political loser.
  I must say that the President's Jobs Act looks like more of the same 
debt-fueled stimulus spending, cloaked under the guise of 
``investment,'' along

[[Page 14439]]

with higher taxes, cloaked under the label ``tax reform.''
  While I may disagree on the particulars of the President's proposal, 
I do not disagree with his premise that we face a national crisis in 
our labor markets and that we should be debating measures that will 
promote American job creation now, without delay.
  We are also told by the President that we must pass our pending trade 
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Jobs are at stake, 
he says. As with the political campaign rhetoric exhorting Congress to 
pass the President's American Jobs Act, which the majority leader has 
opted to shelve until some unspecified future date, the President 
delayed the action required to get these agreements passed for much too 
long.
  Pass the American Jobs Act, the President scolds.
  But we can't because the Democrat's majority leader has not brought 
the Act to the Senate floor. The currency bill, which is unlikely to 
lead to much, if any, job creation before the next election, has come 
first, perhaps to allow more time for campaign speeches and ads by the 
Democratic National Committee.
  Pass the free trade agreements, the President lectures. But they were 
delayed, as they sit idle on his desk.
  I am pleased, since the trade leader in the administration called me 
a few minutes ago to tell me they are on their way up here today.
  This currency bill is coming first. But what needs to come first is 
job creation, not electioneering and politics.
  Our jobs deficit is a full-blown national crisis. The unemployment 
rate has been persistently above 9 percent since April of this year. It 
has averaged 9.4 percent since the President took office. It has been 
above 9 percent in 26 out of the 31 months since the President took 
office, despite promises by administration economists that the massive 
debt-fueled stimulus, which will cost over $1 trillion when all costs 
are included, would keep unemployment contained below 8 percent. And 
the unemployment rate is even higher, at over 16 percent, once we 
include, for example, people who want to work but have become so 
discouraged that they no longer look for work.
  Nearly 14 million workers are unemployed, and the number grows when 
we include discouraged workers. The number of long-term unemployed 
workers has been at record highs. According to Census data released 
last month, those in their twenties and thirties are suffering from the 
highest unemployment rate since World War II. The enthusiasm of young 
citizens in 2008 long ago gave way to disappointment and disaffection.
  Our joblessness crisis is nothing short of a crisis for liberty. When 
American men and women do not have jobs and opportunity, their freedom 
to make lives for themselves is eroded. Yet we are to understand that 
in the face of this historic crisis, there is no more important issue 
regarding jobs than our bilateral trade with China.
  Again, I agree we need to address the issue of currency manipulation 
and our sustained and large trade deficits with China. However, let us 
be clear that dealing with issues related to China involves only one 
bilateral trade relationship. The trade and current account problems 
facing the United States, and the global financial, trade, and economic 
imbalances that everyone faces are not solved by addressing this one 
trading relationship. That is one reason I will be offering an 
amendment to this bill calling for multilateral and plurilateral 
negotiations to address currency misalignment. If we are going to 
succeed, we need to look at the big picture and work with our allies to 
counter China's current practices. I will discuss my amendment in more 
detail soon, but hope it will receive strong bipartisan support.
  Our trade imbalances are not with China alone. Rather, as part of the 
problem of saving too little, the United States has multilateral trades 
imbalances which require more action than focusing solely on one 
bilateral relationship.
  According to recent data from the U.S. International Trade 
Commission, the United States has trade deficits with nearly 100 
countries. The United States saves too little, and that problem will 
not be solved solely by passing the bill before us.
  Make no mistake, the legislation we are considering can provide 
useful tools for addressing concerns about China, if the administration 
actually uses the tools. But those tools alone are not sufficient. If 
we try to address our multilateral problems by putting pressure on 
China alone, without also attending to our lack of saving and our own 
role in generating trade deficits with nearly 100 other countries, the 
Chinese piece of the U.S. imbalance will migrate somewhere else. This 
bill is not a magic bullet to solve our problems or the problems 
arising from global imbalances. And it almost surely is not the highest 
priority piece of legislation if job creation is truly our focus.
  The United States, for its part, contributes to global imbalances by 
persistently saving too little. Following the financial crisis, which 
was precipitated partly by large runups in household indebtedness, 
American families have tightened their belts to save more and repair 
their own balance sheets. It is the U.S. Federal Government that has 
been missing in action to restore national savings, reduce our Federal 
debt, and promote global balance.
  Rather than repair the Federal balance sheet, the administration has 
chosen to run trillions of dollars of debt-fueled deficits and borrow 
ever-increasing sums from abroad, including China. And rather than 
facing the fact that the Federal Government has a spending problem, the 
President is advertising and campaigning on a new American Jobs Act 
stimulus and tax hike platform containing even more spending and short-
term debt accumulation.
  We are told that it will be in the interest of the American people to 
borrow more today in order to spend more on infrastructure, for 
example. The stimulus proponents say: Interest rates are low, so let's 
ramp up borrowing right now. That is the same approach the Senate took 
when it voted to extend and expand trade adjustment assistance. They 
ignore, however, that piling trillions more onto our national credit 
card issued by China and our other creditors moves us that much faster 
into the company of the eurozone countries who now face default and 
elevated interest costs.
  While Federal borrowing rates are low today, what happens when global 
markets tire of our profligacy and debt-financed spending and begin to 
demand higher interest compensation? As Spain and Italy have seen 
recently, low interest rates are not guaranteed and the interest rate 
environment that you face can pivot on a dime and escalate rapidly. 
Borrowing at low rates today sounds great, until you wake up tomorrow 
and are forced to refinance at more punitive rates. More debt-fueled 
government spending beyond our means is sure to drive us rapidly down 
the road to the stagnation and debt crisis we are seeing today in 
Europe.
  Of course, the President claims his new stimulus and tax hike 
proposals are all paid for, but the payments are largely promises of 
future austerity. Anyone who has paid attention knows that when the 
Federal Government promises to go on a spending diet later it never 
leads to fiscal weight loss because future Congresses are not bound by 
today's promises.
  It is interesting to hear the President's persistent calls for more 
debt-fueled infrastructure spending. Presumably, given his interest in 
job creation ``right now,'' the projects he has in mind will be more 
shovel-ready than the readiness of the previous stimulus projects, 
which turned into something the President found so funny that he joked 
about it. Of course, it is no joke to jobless Americans who are stuck 
with the stimulus debt bill.
  We heard in early September from the chairman of the President's 
Council on Jobs and Competitiveness that the council identified ``ten 
high-priority infrastructure projects based on their potential to put 
Americans to work right away--projects that have already been funded, 
but are being held up by regulations.''
  The jobs council says it will work with the administration to try to 
get

[[Page 14440]]

the projects moving. Let me repeat that: the projects ``are being held 
up by regulations.'' This comes from the chairman of the President's 
own jobs council.
  Yet when some on the other side of the aisle are reminded that 
regulations are holding back job creation, they recoil in disbelief. If 
there are 10 large-scale infrastructure spending projects ready to go 
and already fully funded and are only being held up by regulatory 
review lag, I urge the President to act ``right now'' to get those 
projects underway in the interest of job creation. Make one fewer 
campaign appearance and use that time to expedite regulatory review and 
get those projects going if, as should be the case, he believes job 
creation is more important than politics and wishes to act on that 
belief.
  We have also heard the President remarking on how, from a global 
competitiveness perspective, the United States should borrow more today 
and spend on what he generically calls ``infrastructure,'' which, as it 
turns out, can be anything from paving a road to doling out money to 
solar panel makers.
  The President cited in his infrastructure advocacy a set of global 
rankings on infrastructure from the World Economic Forum's Global 
Competitiveness Report. The President seemed to read the report and its 
ranking of the United States as 23rd out of 139 countries for 
transportation infrastructure competitiveness as a call for more 
spending on whatever it is he thinks of as infrastructure.
  It appears, however, that he did not read the report in its entirety. 
If he did, he would have noticed that the ranking is for only one of 
nine factors in the report's overall infrastructure assessment. More 
importantly, if he had read the report, he would have noticed the 
overriding area identified as the weakest one for the United States in 
terms of eroding our global competitiveness. To quote the report 
directly:

       A lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the 
     United States' greatest area of weakness (ranked 87th). Prior 
     to the crisis, the United States had been building up large 
     macroeconomic imbalances, with repeated fiscal deficits 
     leading to burgeoning levels of public indebtedness; this has 
     been exacerbated by significant stimulus spending. In this 
     context, it is clear that mapping out a clear exit strategy 
     will be an important step in reinforcing the country's 
     competitiveness going into the future.

  There you have it. The report the President data-mined to find a 
number to use to support more stimulus quite clearly says that 
declining U.S. global competitiveness has come from fiscal deficits, 
exacerbated by stimulus spending. It clearly says the solution is to 
exit from our unsustainable fiscal path. That means reining in the 
runaway debt-fueled spending, not more spending.
  Before turning to the legislative process on the bill before us, let 
me post a trail marker for our deliberations. The currency bill we are 
considering includes reliance on exchange rate models used by the 
International Monetary Fund. Those models allow for the macroeconomic 
effects on currency valuations of fundamental changes in policies of 
trade partner countries. For example, if the United States engages in 
fundamental tax reform that would lead to improved growth and reduced 
deficits and debt, the models considered in the legislation before us 
have the ability to capture those effects.
  The marker I wish to set here is a reminder that we should be 
similarly so inclined to use economic models that allow for 
macroeconomic effects of policy changes when we choose to make 
fundamental changes to tax and spending policies. We should be as 
willing to have our budget score keepers use economic models that allow 
for long-run growth and macroeconomic effects of fundamental tax and 
spending reform policies as we seem to be here in this legislation to 
use models that incorporate such effects when evaluating currency 
alignments. If it is good to use economic models that allow for an 
accounting of growth effects here, then it should be good elsewhere.
  I also need to address the process we will follow in our 
consideration of the currency bill before us. The bill has garnered 
bipartisan support. In the interest of promoting a truly bipartisan 
effort, which the American people would love to see, it is my hope 
there will be balance in amendments that are allowed to be considered. 
This bill has sound objectives, but it is not perfect. I believe 
amendments from both sides of the aisle can improve the final product. 
And, as I mentioned earlier, I have an amendment that I believe will 
improve this bill significantly and help us devise a long-term approach 
to dealing with currency misalignment. I hope there will be an 
opportunity for it, and others, to be considered. I hope they are not 
going to lock up the tree again, which is the standard practice around 
here by the majority. This bill is an important bill, and we ought to 
be able to amend it with important amendments.
  The overriding objective of the legislation--job creation--is shared 
by Republicans and Democrats alike. Therefore, it is my hope that 
amendments from my side of the aisle, designed to promote job growth 
today and in the future, will be duly considered, allowed, and duly 
debated.
  I look forward to consideration of the currency bill before us and a 
robust, bipartisan process, which includes consideration of amendments 
from both sides to promote job creation.
  As I have said, our Nation faces a crisis of unemployment and 
joblessness that is filled with pain today and threatens erosion of 
human capital and skills, which will negatively impact families and the 
overall economy for years and years to follow. Let us not have politics 
and special interests dictate what we consider to promote job creation 
and economic growth. American workers and families, many of them 
struggling and in pain, cannot wait until the next Presidential 
election is resolved for the Federal Government to act to promote job 
creation.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know our time expires shortly. Senator 
Hatch has concluded his remarks, so I wish to speak on two other 
subjects until Senator Leahy arrives.


                             SSI Extension

  Mr. President, I rise in support of a bill to be introduced along 
with Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Menendez, Franken, and Klobuchar, 
called the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act of 2011.
  This bill, which the Senate is considering passing today by unanimous 
consent, is truly unique because it accomplishes three incredibly 
important objectives at the same time.
  First, it ensures that approximately 5,600 disabled refugees will not 
lose critical life-sustaining benefits that are their only safety net, 
protecting them from homelessness, illness, and other effects of 
extreme poverty.
  Some of the disabled refugees this bill helps are people who have 
aided American troops overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan--and risked their 
lives for America's cause. Others are victims of torture or human 
trafficking, whose injuries are so severe that they are now unable to 
sustain themselves without these benefits. The bill continues the Bush 
administration policy of making sure this vulnerable group does not 
lose its benefits.
  But, unlike past bills, the second key fact about this bill is that 
it is fully paid for. It is paid for by imposing a $30 fee on 
individuals applying to enter the country through the diversity visa 
lottery program. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people apply to be 
one of the 50,000 individuals allowed to emigrate to the United States. 
The program has had great success. I have been very supportive of it. 
It has also enriched the American fabric with immigrants from countries 
that are not traditionally represented in the immigrant pool.
  But, unfortunately, because applying for a ``lottery ticket'' has 
been traditionally free, the program has recently

[[Page 14441]]

been compromised by third parties filing applications on behalf of 
unknowing foreign nationals, who then turn around and try to extort 
money from these foreign nationals if the ticket turns out to be a 
``winning ticket.'' That is wrong and unfair. The State Department has 
told us that by charging this $30 fee, we can eliminate this 
misconduct. So it is a win-win. We get some money to pay for these 
refugees who we all agree should be admitted here. As I said, many 
helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, at the same time, it does not 
cost us a nickel and eliminates a scam that involves a very worthy 
program, the diversity visas.
  Finally, the third great thing about this bill is, by setting the fee 
at $30, the CBO projects we will actually reduce our deficit by $24 
million. So it will help, in a small way, reduce the deficit. So the 
bill hits the trifecta: It helps a very small, targeted group of the 
most vulnerable and needy disabled individuals whom we traditionally 
have not abandoned, it virtually eliminates misconduct in the diversity 
visa program, and it reduces the Federal deficit. Because it is a win-
win-win for all sides, I ask that my colleagues in the House take up 
and pass this bill immediately.

  The benefits for these folks already expired on October 1. If we do 
not act soon, we will not be able to repair the irreparable harm that 
will be done to those most vulnerable individuals. I wish to thank my 
cosponsors and chairmen and ranking members of the relevant committees 
governing this bill: Senators Leahy, Grassley, Baucus, Hatch, Conrad, 
Sessions, and Cornyn. I would also like to thank Senator Coburn for 
working with me to have this bill pass and address his concerns to make 
the bill better.
  We have done something very good. I thank all my colleagues who have 
joined in the work on this bill.


                   Nomination of William F. Kuntz, II

  Mr. President, William F. Kuntz, II, is the nominee to the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. I wish to describe 
to my colleagues the extraordinary qualifications of Dr. Kuntz, the 
nominee to the bench of the Eastern District, whom hopefully we will 
confirm later today.

  Dr. Kuntz has exactly the skills, temperament, and experience to be a 
perfect addition to one of the busiest U.S. district courts in the 
country. Dr. Kuntz, currently a partner in the New York office of Baker 
Hostetler, is a native of Harlem. He grew up in what was then called 
the Polo Grounds projects and went to high school at Fordham Prep in 
the South Bronx.

  He earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, followed 
by a master's degree in history, a law degree, and a Ph.D. in American 
legal history, all from Harvard--I hope no one will hold that against 
him--and all within 11 years of arriving in Cambridge, from Harlem.

  What an amazing man. What an American dream story. I would venture 
that throughout this country, Dr. Kuntz has few peers, in terms of 
education and training. But he did not use his degrees to go on to 
teach and write, a valuable career path, to be sure, but possibly not 
one that would have put his skills as an advocate and his commitment to 
the people of New York to their highest and best use.

  Instead, Dr. Kuntz went on to log 33 years of litigation experience 
in some of New York City's finest law firms. Most impressive to me, he 
served for 23 years as commissioner on the City Civilian Complaint 
Review Board. This independent agency oversees the investigation of 
citizens' claims of misconduct by New York City police officers. By all 
accounts, Dr. Kuntz staked out an admirable middle ground, informed by 
hard investigative work and careful consideration of all the 5,000 
cases that came before the board every year.

  When my legal committee looked into his work there, he was praised by 
both the police side and those who brought cases before the board. In 
that kind of tempestuous situation, that is rare indeed. Dr. Kuntz's 
commitment to public service is long and impressive. He served in 
leadership positions on the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under 
Law, the Legal Aid Society, the New York Bar, and PLI, among others.

  I will note that Dr. Kuntz will be filling a judicial emergency 
vacancy in the Eastern District of New York, a court that adjudicates a 
large share of critical cases, such as terrorism and terrorism 
financing, organized crime and mortgage fraud.

  Dr. Kuntz is sorely needed and more than up for the task. I look 
forward to Dr. Kuntz's service on the bench. I congratulate him and his 
family.

  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________