[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15084-15087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CHINA'S CURRENCY POLICY

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
his remarks. In a few minutes, we are going to vote on a bill that 
could actually change the course of how we trade with China. For a 
decade, getting worse every year, China has taken advantage of America 
in every way. Currency is at the top of the list, but it has been the 
theft of intellectual property, it has been the subsidy of indigenous 
Chinese businesses, it has been monopolizing things such as rare earth, 
and it has been excluding American products from China when those 
products would have a competitive advantage. For the first time, this 
body, in a bipartisan way, has the ability to say enough is enough. 
Uncle Sam is no longer Uncle Sap. We are going to create fair trade 
with China.
  This relates to our future because it no longer is competition over 
shoes or clothing or furniture--labor-intensive businesses. It is 
competition over the most high-end things we do. Our companies can win 
and create jobs here in America if China plays by the rules and plays 
fairly. But everyone who has been up close and seen the way the Chinese 
operate know that will not happen by persuasion, by multilateral talks, 
by wishing it were so or even by the healing of time. It will only 
happen if America stands up for itself--for fairness, for equal 
treatment. For the first time, we have the opportunity to get that to 
happen.
  Some say this is a symbolic bill. It is not. If we pass this bill by 
a bipartisan majority, I will tell everybody what will happen. The 
House will vote on something--hopefully strong--and we will have a 
conference committee with something going to the President's desk. Long 
before that occurs--long before that occurs--the Chinese will begin to 
step back from their unfair trade policies. So we can indeed win the 
trade argument with China.
  Some say it will create a trade war. We are already in a trade war, 
and we are losing. We are getting our clocks cleaned. But we can stop 
it, and this is the opportunity.
  Mr. President, every one of us has spoken to companies that make 
high-end products throughout our States, and that China competes 
unfairly and takes jobs and wealth away from America, we know that. No 
one disputes that. No one disputes that they manipulate currency. No 
one disputes that they take jobs and wealth unfairly from America. The 
issue is what to do about it.
  Some say talk to the Chinese. We have done that for 7 years. Some say 
have multilateral agreements. We have tried that; China just doesn't 
listen. The only way to get China to change its policies is by 
requiring them to do so by putting in place a system that says: If you 
don't, the consequences will be worse for you than if you do. That is 
how China operates. Unfortunately, my belief is the new leadership in 
China, without any reformers on the executive committee of the 
Politburo, will get worse, not better, unless we, together, Democrats 
and Republicans, say to China: Enough is enough.
  American workers have said enough is enough. American businesses have 
said enough is enough. When is the Congress, when is this government

[[Page 15085]]

going to say enough is enough instead of just twiddling our thumbs and 
hoping and praying China might change out of the goodness of their 
hearts? Well, the time is now. This is a unique opportunity not simply 
to have a symbolic vote. Believe me, this is not at all political to 
me. Senator Graham and I have tried to keep this a bipartisan issue 
religiously for 7 years. To me, this is something that relates to the 
very future of our country, like educating our kids, like creating jobs 
so that the next generation has a better opportunity than this, like 
the greatness of America itself.
  We are in a tough world. We know that. But America always wins in a 
tough world. We compete and we survive. The only way we won't is if the 
deck continues to stay stacked against us. My colleagues, even up the 
playing field. This legislation will start us on the road to doing that 
so that our children and our grandchildren will have a better future 
than they will if we continue the present policies and let China take 
industry after industry unfairly away from us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             SENATOR COBURN

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I just learned that my friend, Senator Tom 
Coburn, has undergone surgery to treat prostate cancer. The junior 
Senator from Oklahoma is expected to make a full recovery. His cancer 
was in the early stages, and he should be back to work in a few weeks. 
Senator Coburn has battled cancer twice before, and he has beaten the 
disease twice before. Those of us who know Tom Coburn know with 
certainty that this fighter will beat it again.
  My thoughts are with Senator Coburn and his family, and I wish him a 
complete and speedy recovery. I understand how difficult a cancer 
diagnosis can be on the patient as well as the family. The entire 
Senate community is pulling for Senator Coburn, his wife Carolyn, and 
their three children and five grandchildren.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to take a few moments before we have a 
vote this afternoon to discuss a serious concern I have about the 
original stimulus package, and I want the Senate to consider my remarks 
and my research as we consider the President's latest modified so-
called jobs bill--in actuality, stimulus bill No. 2. I want to ensure 
the taxpayers' money is spent responsibly on programs that create 
viable, long-term jobs, not lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. The 
marching orders for the stimulus funding under the Obama administration 
have been ``spend now, chase later.'' But when governments spend money 
quickly, it leads to massive waste, fraud, and abuse.
  President Obama promised us he would use ``the new tools that the 
Recovery Act gives us to watch the taxpayers' money with more vigor and 
transparency than ever'' before. He also said that ``if a Federal 
agency proposes a project that will waste that money,'' he would ``put 
a stop to it.'' It is past time for the President to live up to his 
words because we all know, up to now, that certainly hasn't been the 
case. I will give several examples.
  A year ago, I asked the Department of Labor to explain why $500 
million in green job training grants had been spent when the Department 
had just asked the public to help them define just what a green job is. 
Now, over a year later, the Department of Labor's inspector general 
issued an audit report showing that the President's promises are much 
different from reality. The reality is that only 8,000 program 
participants found employment--only 10 percent of the promised results. 
The reality is that $300 million still remains unspent in the program. 
The reality is that this money won't be spent or produce the jobs 
before the grants expire. But instead of learning from this failure and 
using this money for more effective job training, the administration 
continues to push good money after bad into so-called green jobs, which 
I don't think has actually even yet been defined to this very day.
  The administration left much of stimulus 1 oversight to the inspector 
general offices of the respective departments but has largely 
disregarded their findings and recommendations. I strongly support 
efforts of our inspectors general and am extremely frustrated that the 
administration ignores rather than enforces the recommendations of the 
various inspectors general.
  Thanks to the audit work performed by these IGs, I have also 
questioned the administration's ability to track stimulus funding after 
it was distributed to the first recipients. For instance, the 
Department of Education provided $1.7 billion to the State of New York 
even though the inspector general reported that the State has ``serious 
internal deficiencies'' that would make tracking the money extremely 
difficult.
  The Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General 
released a series of reports that questioned why additional funding was 
given to troubled housing authorities with significant financial and 
management problems. HUD Secretary Donovan stated that these housing 
authorities needed that money to improve their inventory and make 
needed upgrades.
  The weatherization program has also been fraught with waste. The 
inspector general found that in many cases contractors never did the 
work, and some work was so shoddy that it endangered the health and 
safety of the owners.
  I continue to raise strong concerns about the Department of Energy's 
failure to monitor State and territory programs.
  I am not aware that the administration has ever demanded any of the 
taxpayers' money back, even for the blatant cases of waste, fraud, and 
abuse.
  The administration also spent $84 million of the stimulus funding to 
establish the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to guard 
against wasteful spending. The Recovery Accountability and Transparency 
Board can hold hearings and compel testimony about stimulus fund waste. 
I have referred two cases to this board, but so far it has refused to 
use this authority. In the first case, HUD's Office of Inspector 
General questioned nearly $32 million of stimulus money spent by the 
Philadelphia Housing Authority to rehabilitate scattered-site housing. 
According to the inspector general's report, most of the work was never 
done and the housing authority couldn't provide detailed invoices to 
show what the contractors were charging the government for.
  I also referred the $535 million loan guarantee from the Department 
of Energy to Solyndra because I understand the board may have detected 
possible problems with guarantees.
  So President Obama made lots of promises about transparency and 
accountability when he asked Congress to pass the first stimulus bill. 
Before we consider giving him another over $400 billion, the President 
needs to turn his promises into reality or it is the American taxpayers 
who will lose once again, even beyond the examples I have already 
given.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to this latest 
modified tax-and-spend proposal that even the Washington Post has 
called ``political.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Mexico.


                              SENATE RULES

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about 
changing our Senate rules by a simple majority vote. That is what we 
did last week.
  Mr. President, as you know, the new classes that came in in your year 
and the year after have worked on these rule change issues, and the 
last 2 years, I have been working to find a way for the Senate to break 
through the gridlock and to function on behalf of the American people, 
to focus, as we are doing with this bill, on jobs for the American 
people.
  Last week, the Senate took the step of changing our rules with a 
simple majority vote. This was done in accordance with the 
Constitution, article I, section 5. The Senate has done this on many 
occasions in the past, and, like those previous rule changes, the 
action taken last week was not intended to destroy the uniqueness of 
the Senate

[[Page 15086]]

but, instead, to restore the regular order of the body.
  I applaud the majority leader for getting us back on track. The 
Senate should be focused on the jobs agenda of the American people, and 
Majority Leader Reid has put us on the right path. He may be forced to 
do this again, but it is important that he stay focused on that agenda 
and all of us stay focused on the jobs agenda of the American people.
  At the beginning of this Congress, I, along with Senators Harkin and 
Merkley, tried to do that. Ultimately, our success was limited. We 
didn't achieve the broad reforms we wanted . . . but we did initiate a 
debate that highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules, 
and resulted in a ``gentleman's agreement'' between Majority Leader 
Reid and Minority Leader McConnell.
  There was some hope that the agreement would encourage both sides of 
the aisle to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in 
today's Senate. Unfortunately however, that agreement rapidly 
deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship 
quickly returned.
  What unfolded last Thursday in this chamber is yet another example of 
what this body has become. The Senate had invoked cloture on the 
Chinese currency bill, thus limiting further debate on the measure to 
30 hours. It was at this point Republicans moved to offer a potentially 
unlimited number of nongermane amendments to the bill.
  Each of these amendments would have required a suspension of the 
Senate rules, meaning the approval of 67 Senators rather than 60, in 
order to consider them. This was not an effort to improve the bill but 
simply a procedural strategy to score political points and force votes 
on unrelated legislation. Majority Leader Reid raised a point of order 
that motions to suspend the rules post-cloture were dilatory, which was 
rejected by the Chair. A majority of Senators then voted to overturn 
the decision of the Chair, thus changing the precedent and limiting how 
amendments can be considered once cloture is invoked.
  As expected, many of my Republican colleagues called last week's 
action by the majority a power grab and ``tyranny of the majority.'' 
They decried the lack of respect for minority rights. I agree: We must 
respect the minority in the Senate. But respect must go both ways. When 
the minority uses their rights to offer germane amendments, or to 
extend legitimate debate, we should always respect such efforts. But 
that is not what we have seen. Instead, the minority often uses its 
rights to score political points and obstruct almost all Senate action. 
Instead of offering amendments to improve legislation, we see 
amendments that have the sole purpose of becoming talking points in 
next year's election.
  It is hard to argue that the majority is not respecting the 
traditions of the Senate, when the minority is paralyzing this body 
purely for political gain.
  During the debate over rules reform we had in January, many of my 
colleagues argued that the only way to change the Senate rules was with 
a two-thirds supermajority. As we saw last week, that's simply not 
true. Some call what occurred last week the ``constitutional option,'' 
while others call it the ``nuclear option.'' I think the best name for 
it might be the ``majority option.''
  As I studied this issue in great depth, one thing became very clear--
Senator Robert Byrd may have said it best during a debate on the floor 
in 1975 when he said, ``at any time that 51 Members of the Senate are 
determined to change the rule . . . and if the leadership of the Senate 
joins them . . . that rule will be changed.''
  We keep hearing that any use of this option to change the rules is an 
abuse of power by the majority. However, a 2005 Policy Committee memo 
provides some excellent points to rebut this argument. And just to be 
clear, these citations are from a Republican Policy Committee memo.
  Let me read part of the Republican memo:

       This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S. 
     Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always 
     had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power 
     to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote. 
     Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option 
     in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents 
     changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress. 
     And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules 
     after the constitutional option had been threatened, 
     beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in 
     1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a 
     longstanding feature of Senate practice.
       The Senate, therefore, has long accepted the legitimacy of 
     the constitutional option. Through precedent, the option has 
     been exercised and Senate procedures have been changed. At 
     other times it has been merely threatened, and Senators 
     negotiated textual rules changes through the regular order. 
     But regardless of the outcome, the constitutional option has 
     played an ongoing and important role.

  The memo goes on to address some ``Common Misunderstandings of the 
Constitutional Option.''
  One misunderstanding addressed a claim we heard last week that, ``The 
essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the 
constitutional option is exercised.''
  The memo rebuts this by stating:

       When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the 
     constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and 
     precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did 
     little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed, 
     many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger 
     today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full 
     consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with 
     which it is presented.

  Changing the rules with a simple majority is not about exercising 
power but it is about restoring balance. There is a fine line between 
respecting minority rights and yielding to minority rule. When we cross 
that line, as I believe we have many times in recent years, the body is 
within its rights to restore the balance.
  This is not tyranny by the majority, but merely holding the minority 
accountable when it abuses the rules to the point of complete 
dysfunction. Neither party should stoop to that level.
  Many of my colleagues argue that the Senate's supermajority 
requirements are what make it unique from the House of Representatives, 
and other legislative body around the world. I disagree. If you talk to 
the veteran Senators, many of them will tell you that the need for 60 
votes to pass anything is a recent phenomenon. Senator Harkin discussed 
this in great detail during our debate in January and I highly 
recommend reading his statement.
  Senator Leahy raised the issue on the floor last week when he said;

       I keep hearing this talk about 60 votes. Most votes you win 
     by 51 votes, and this constant mantra of 60 votes, this is 
     some new invention.

  I think this gets at the heart of the problem. We are a unique 
legislative body but not because of our rulebook. Complete gridlock and 
dysfunction can't be what our Founders intended. Rather than a body 
bound by mutual respect that moves by consent and allows majority votes 
on almost all matters, we have become a supermajoritarian institution 
that often doesn't move at all.
  With the tremendously difficult economic circumstances facing this 
country, the American people cannot afford a broken Senate. They are 
frustrated. And they have every right to be. This is not how to govern, 
and they deserve better. Both sides need to take a step back and 
understand that what we do on the Senate floor should not be about 
setting up the next Presidential election or winning the majority next 
November but about helping the country today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Executive Summary of The Constitutional Option.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      The Senate's Power To Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote


                           Executive Summary

       The filibusters of judicial nominations that arose during 
     the 108th Congress have created an institutional crisis for 
     the Senate.
       Until 2003, Democrats and Republicans had worked together 
     to guarantee that nominations considered on the Senate floor 
     received up-or-down votes.

[[Page 15087]]

       The filibustering Senators are trying to create a new 
     Senate precedent--a 60-vote requirement for the confirmation 
     of judges--contrary to the simple-majority standard presumed 
     in the Constitution.
       If the Senate allows these filibusters to continue, it will 
     be acquiescing in Democrats' unilateral change to Senate 
     practices and procedures.
       The Senate has the power to remedy this situation through 
     the ``constitutional option''--the exercise of a Senate 
     majority's constitutional power to define Senate practices 
     and procedures.
       The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, 
     this constitutional option. The majority's authority is 
     grounded in the Constitution, Supreme Court case law, and the 
     Senate's past practices.
       For example, Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the 
     constitutional option in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to 
     establish precedents that changed Senate procedures during 
     the middle of a Congress.
       An exercise of the constitutional option under the current 
     circumstances would be an act of restoration--a return to the 
     historic and constitutional confirmation standard of simple-
     majority support for all judicial nominations.
       Employing the constitutional option here would not affect 
     the legislative filibuster because virtually every Senator 
     supports its preservation. In contrast, only a minority of 
     Senators believes in blocking judicial nominations by 
     filibuster.
       The Senate would, therefore, be well within its rights to 
     exercise the constitutional option in order to restore up-or-
     down votes for judicial nominations on the Senate floor.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________