i regret that i would have to spend any time on this subject and take away from the confirmation of the pending nominees. but there are important points that need to be addressed to protect our process and to protect our own individual members. the senate confirmed judge chen last may, 52-46. needless to say he was not a consensus nominee. among the concerns about the nominations was in judge chen's judicial philosophy, his willingness to adopt the empathy standard and, his views shaped by his along association with the aclu. remarks made by him -- valid.

>> a article entitled "chen roasted republicans roasted. "that makes this look more like a political rally than a judicial event. chief judge ware quipped, "it makes me wonder if judge chen should be running for political office." that is what many of us thought was more appropriate for judge chen rather than his appointment to a federal judgeship. the news article describes remarks bimade by judge chen which i can only describe as mocking one of our members, senator sessions of alabama. this is distasteful. it was only after a personal appeal by senator feinstein to senator sessions that the vote on judge chen went forward.

senator sessions greed that vote and pressed other members to let the vote proceed. if the press accounts are accurate, i believe judge chen owes an apology to senator sessions. judge chen went on to again to embrace his aclu background stating "having the aclu in your d.n.a. is not a disease, it is an honor." as i have said before, judge chen's advocacy on behalf of the aclu is not disqualifying by itself. but i have to wonder about the impartiality of judge chen. more importantly, what are -- what are potential litigants appearing before judge chen to think if the aclu is an opposing litigant is there any way to think judge chen can be fair and impartial? i would think mandatory recusal would be required in any aclu case coming before him.

federal judges must abide by the code of conduct for u.s. judges. i will withhold judgment on whether or not judge chen violated those canons but in my opinion he clearly went too farks particularly with regard to the requirement to uphold the integrity of the judiciary to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and lastly to refrain from political activity. i hope judge chen realizes the important responsibility he has and acts accordingly in the future. i also hope this is a less to other nominees as they treat this process with respect even after confirmation and appointment. i have been working throughout this congress to confirm consensus nominees. i continue to remind my colleagues of the progress that we have made. with the hearing in the judiciary committee scheduled for tomorrow, 85% of president obama's judicial nominees will

have received a hearing. at this point in president bush's presidency, only 77% had been afforded a hearing. not only have we processed a higher percentage of nominees, but we've done it in a shorter time. president obama's circuit nominees have only had to wait on average 66 days for a hearing. president bush's circuit court nominees were forced to wait 247 days. in fact, we will be hearing from a fourth circuit nominee tomorrow after only 26 days before our committee. none of president bush's circuit court nominees were afforded a hearing that quickly. president bush's fourth circuit nominees were particularly treated in a harsh manner. my friends on the other side of the aisle allowed four qualified and consensus nominees to languish at a time when the fourth circuit was one-quarter vacant.

president obama's district court nominees have also received better treatment. on average, they have waited only 79 days for a hearing. president bush's district court nominees waited 247 days. these nominees are also being reported out of committee at a quicker pace as well. on average, president obama's circuit and district court nominees have been reported more than 66 days faster than president bush's. all in all, we've taken positive action on 85% of president obama's judicial nominees this congress, even though i'm proud of this progress, i must note i will continue to focus on quality confirmed over quantity confirmed. shortly we will be voting on henry floyd who is nominated to the appeals court for the fourth circuit. this is presiden president obamh nominee to be confirmed in this circuit. president bush's nominee to the

fourth circuit from south carolina, steve matthews, did not receive the same treatment. in fact, he went 484 days without so much as a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote. not only was he blocked -- not only that but he was blocked from being considered. i would note the seat to which he was nominated was subsequently filled by a nominee from north carolina rather than south carolina where the vacancy arose. another vacancy we will be voting on tonight is the district of arizona seat held by late-judge roe. before his tragic and untimely death on january the 8th, 2011. the entire judicial committee felt this great loss, after judge rolls murder, i implored them to fill the seat as quickly as possible. it was deemed to be a judicial emergency instantly because of his death. however, it took over five

months for the administration to nominate judge jennifer zipps to the seat even though she was sitting magistrate judge. since the president took his time in submitting a nomination, i felt it appropriate to work with the chairman to move this nomination through in an expeditious manner. nominated in late-june of this year, judge zipps received her hearing a mere 34 days later. judge zipps was reported to the floor shortly after we returned from the august recess. and i'm happy to have continued this fast pace and are confirming her for a lifetime position today. in addition to judge floyd and judge zipps, we will confirm nannette brown to be united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana, nancy terresen to the united states district judge for the district of maine, william

francis kuntz to be district judge for the eastern district of new york, marina marmolejo to be descrilgt judge for the southern district of texas. i'm pleased to support each of these nominees and i thank them for their public service and congratulate them for their prior accomplishments and confirmation today. and i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be entered in the record at this point because it talks about the qualifications of each of these judicial nominees. the presiding officer: without objection, the statements will be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. graham: mr. president i'd ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: lieblgd to rise and talk on two topics, the nomination of henry flaid to the fourth circuit court of appeals and the motion to proceed on china currency. thank you. first, judge henry floyd has been nominated to serve on the fourth circuit court of appeals in richmond, virginia. he has a lot of bipartisan support from south carolina.

he was nominated by judge bush -- president bush tosh a district court judge. he served as a state court judge before that. he has got a distinguished record as a state and federal jurist. he is an outstanding choice by the president to serve on the first circuit court of appeals. i've known him for many years, have practiced law with him, appeared before him as a state judge and has v. followed his career. he is unanimously rated well-qualified to proceed to the fourth circuit. he is an outstanding -- he has an outstanding legal background, great temperament and is one of the most qualified district court judges in south carolina and will serve the people of the fourth judicial circuit well on the court of appeals. he has the kind of intellect and common sense that i think most people in this part of the country would appreciate having on the circuit court. so i want to thank the obama administration and urge my colleagues to vote for this

well-qualified, fine man to go to the first circumstance court of appeals, and he has a lot of bipartisan support at home. everyone that knows judge snrie- judge floyd is a big fan, right, left, center. the issue after this vote is whether or not the senate should proceed to debate legislation that i've offered -- authored with senator schumer and others dealing with the currency exchange practices of the communist dictatorship of china. i've been involved in this now for almost seven years. we've done a sense of the senate resolution back in 2004, i believe it was, urging the chinese to change their currency policy. what does this mean to the average american? the exchange rate today is 6.3 6.38yuan to the dollar. when you look at the dollar to the uro, i don't know what it is trading today but it goes up and

down every day. china's economy is growing at 9.1%. they are the second-largest economy in the world, moving like gang busters. does it really matter for them to suppress the value of their currency? yes, it does. and any objective observer looking at history of the way the chinese government deals with their monetary policy would conclude that they keep the yuan below its true value to create a discount on products made in china. look tha it this way. if you are competing with china in the world marketplace, it is one thing to have cheap labor to compete against, it is another thing to have the government of china directly supporting their industries in a way we don't heemplet but when you add intellectual property theft, do you business in china, the next thing you know a chinese company across the street is producing the very product you went to china to produce, so the chinese government needs to follow the rule of law and live with the norms of the international business practices and when it comes to currency manipulation,

it is just impossible to believe that the dollar-to-yuan ratio exists without the government manipulating the value of the yuan. people estimate that it's 25% to 40% below its true value. that means if you are competing with china the same product made in china, there is a discount on the chinese product based on the value of their money. the trade deficit with china has exploded. last year it was $273 billion, where $160.4 billion in july of this year. cheap exports coming out of china is a source of cash for the chinese government and the chinese industry. you can't convert the currency in china. in the united states you can take your money and convert it to any currency you would like. if a chinese manufacturer sells

a product in the united states and not get paid in dollars, they have to convert it to the yuan. they have very restrictive monetary policies, and the ban of trading on the yuan is 0.5% a day. the dollar can fluctuate based on all kinds of economic forces: our debt, our trade deficit, what's going on here at home. but the chinese government restricts the value, the fluctuation of the currency in a way that costs us jobs. it's estimate that had over two million -- it's estimate that had over two million jobs have been lost over the last decade because of currency ma manipulation alone. over 41,000 jobs have been lost in south carolina alone because companies can't compete with china. so this legislation would allow the treasury department to create new criteria to monitor the currency practices of the chinese government. and if it is found to be misaligned or ma tpheuplted --

manipulated the treasury department can pwreup counterveiling -- pwreup counterveiling duty action against china. we've done this before when the chinese dumped steel into our market. if a country is violating the international business standards, we have under the w.t.o. the ability to fight back. what this legislation would do is it would elevate currency manipulation. it's one thing to dump a product like steel or tires into the american economy, creating an unfair advantage for the chinese manufacturing community. we have tools to deal with that. but we haven't embraced pushing back against currency. china should be a great place to do business, but it's not. it should be more balanced than it is. i want to do business with china. i just don't want trade deficits of $273 billion that are artificially created. if they do something better than us, they should win in the

marketplace. that's just the way business works. but if the government intervenes and creates an advantage for a chinese government, that's not winning in the marketplace. this would not matter if it were a country like the dominican republic or some small country where they have to keep the currency in check, because you don't want wild swings of your surgeon is i. but -- of your currency. but when you're a major economic power like china, like the united states, like european countries, you can't play that game. so i hope my colleagues will vote to allow this debate to go forward, because this is about american jobs at the end of the day. so with that, i yield back and notice the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. all pending nominations other than the nomination of henry floyd are confirmed, and the question is on the floyd nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the ayes are 96, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon

the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume its legislative session. the senate will come to order. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 hereby move to bring to a close the berate debate on a motion to proceed on calendar 183, s. 1619 a bill to provide for identification of misaligned currency, action to correct, and signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to 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. vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 79,s yeas are 19. three-fifths of the senators having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama -- mississippi, i'm sorry. mr. wicker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i rise this evening to call attention to the disturbing developments in sudan and the newly created nation of south sudan. i fear the ongoing violence there risks undermining the progress that has been made for lasting peace after decades of civil war and bloodshed. it has been indeed a historic year for the people of south sudan. almost three months ago on july 9, south sudan was formally recognized as a sovereign nation, becoming africa's 54th

state. an overwhelming 98.8% of south sudanese voters chose independence from the central government of sudan in the referendum held this january. for the millions of people whose lifetimes have known only war, the hope of a better future was finally on the horizon. like many, i was cautiously encouraged by the news that south sudanese decided to take the path toward democracy and toward justice. like many, i realized that this path would be a difficult one as conflict persists in darfur and other areas around the border such as abea, blue nile and southern cortifan. unfortunately, recent reports of violence confirm the tenuous relationship between north and south that exists in the wake of independence.

escalating unrest points to the abandonment of peaceful negotiations by the north and a return to a -- to military intimidation and fighting. tragically, civilians have been caught in the crossfire. according to a post from cnn in late july, hospitals in the neuba mountains are overflowing with civilians who have been hurt in attacks by the northern army. this is how the report describes the scene. in one hospital room, a nurse tried to clean the blown-apart face of a young boy. in another, a 12-year-old girl suffered from advanced tetanus after her arm was cut off by shrapnel. doctors said she had little chance of surviving. mr. president, this violence affecting innocent children is unacceptable. attacks against civilians are among a number of violations that have been cited by the

united nations against sudanese president omar al-bashear's government which denies the allegations and insists it is only fighting rebels loyal to south sudan. in a report this summer, united nations suggests attacks by the sudanese armed forces in the state of cortifan have amounted to human rights violations and war crimes. most of the violence there is affecting the neuba people, a mostly christian minority aligned with south sudan but left on the opposite side of the border. thousands have been forced to flee to caves for refuge in the neuba mountains. even more worrisome is that the violence is spreading. in may, the sudanese armed forces invaded the disputed area of abea and displaced an estimated 100,000, among them

nearly 4,000 children. just last month, the sudanese parliament authorized military action in nearby blue nile. we should not forget the legacy of president bashir's dictatorial regime as these atrocities continue to mount. mr. bashir has already been indicted by the international criminal court for crimes against humanity and war crimes over the conflict in darfur, and the united states continues to impose sanctions on the northern government. the full extent of the violence in the border areas between sudan and south sudan is hard to determine because u.n. agencies and humanitarian groups have been denied access, but this is no excuse for ignoring the warning signs of a dangerous predicament. all too often, we recognize crises after far too many lives have been lost. what we do know about the current situation is ominous.

the african center for justice and peace studies says supporters of the sudan people's liberation army north are being arbitrarily arrested on the basis of their perceived political affiliation and subjected to extrajudicial killings. refugees have described execution-style murders. flcials calls for the northern government to cease its aerial bombings have been blatantly ignored. the unoffice for the coordination of humanitarian affairs, ocha, reports that more than 100,000 people are thought to be displaced by the fighting in blue nile alone. the u.n. estimates for south cortifan topped 200,000 displaced persons. just last month, an article in "the new york times" reported that a satellite imagery project

monitoring parts of sudan had captured images of mass graves. we have always known that south sudan would face serious challenges this year and in the coming years as a free, independent nation. what we cannot allow is its democratic future to hang in the balance as old scores are reignited and innocent lives are lost. let us not forget the horrors of the civil war that ensued for 22 years before president george w. bush engineered the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. during that civil war, more than two million died, more than four million were displaced and 600,000 fled the country as refugees. more than two million dead, mr. president. i urge my colleagues not to lose focus on the hundreds of

thousands of people who have been unfairly hurt by this violence. they have already endured far too much suffering. i join the united states state department in calling -- in its call for the hostilities to stop and for responsible dialogue to resume. the longer the violence continues, the harder it will be to move forward toward lasting peace. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ed

with in repeatedly calling for a vote not this crucial

legislation as well as the senator from new york, senator schumer and the senator from south carolina, senator graham, for also being with us and working with this legislation in partnership to address all of the facets of this issue that have been long overdue in consideration by the united states congress. this day has been far too long, coming for the millions of american workers who are out of work or whose wages have been decimated as a result of our inability to compete with unfairly subsidized chinese imports. since congress first began requiring the treasury to analyze the exchange rate policies of foreign countries in 1988, china has been cited as a currency manipulator five times, all occurring between 1992 and 1994. since then, despite china's continuation and in many ways

intensification of these practices, our government under both democratic and republican administrations have failed to cite china even once for its policy of fixing its currency to the dollar. and this is also despite congress' repeated efforts to make currency manipulation a top priority in our nation's trade agenda. in fact, in april of 2005, i joined my senate colleagues in decisively supporting an amendment calling on china to reform its currency practices and this action is largely viewed as helping to prompt china to allow its currency to gradually appreciate between 2005 and 2008. in july, 2007, i also joined with the majority of my colleagues on the senate finance committee in favorably reporting out the currency exchange rate oversight reform act of 2007 by a vote of 20-1. 2007. that was four years ago. we had six years ago and yet we

still had not had any concrete, substantive action on this fundamental issue. none of these bills were brought up for a vote by the full senate. from 2008 to mid 2010, china again froze its exchange rate constant in an effort to maintain its production edge during the financial crisis. it was only last june that china showed signs that it might allow the rnb to gradually appreciate. but according to the congressional research service it has gained only 6% or 7% of the dollar over the last year. faced with these delegate antly inequitable trade distortions i have witnessed maine's manufacturers and their employees going to great lengths to improve their competitiveness. in fact, according to the manufacturers association of maine, workers in our state have increased output per employee by 66% over a period of

eight years, from 60,000 in 2001 to 89,000 in 2009. yet the dramatic job losses we have witnessed in the american manufacturing sector over the last decade tell a very different story, mr. president. according to recent reports, between 2001 when china joined the world trade organization, and 2010, 4.1 million manufacturing jobs were lost in this country. and 1.9 million of those jobs or 47%, can be directly linked to our growing trade deficit with china. in maine this withering of our manufacturing base has contributed to wage and salary employment levels falling precipitously through december, 2010 with job losses of 26,900 or a 4.4% drop. overall employment numbers in my state have returned to the 1999

levels, mr. president. 1999 levels. erasing any economic gains of the previous ten years. u.s. manufacturing employees including thousands who live in small towns throughout my state are recognized as the most productive workers in the world. these are the types of jobs that should be thriving in a global economy. but they cannot if foreign producers like those in china are playing with a pro proverbil stacked deck. for this reason i rise today to urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the currency exchange rate oversight reform act, legislation i have authored with the senator from ohio to enforce the rules and address a para-minute contributing factor in the decimation of our nation's once-unparalleled manufacturing base, currency exchange rate manipulation. for over a decade, china has

manipulated its exchange rate. by pegging the chinese rnb to the dollar. as a result china's currency is estimated to be undervalued by anywhere are from 12% to 50% according to the congressional research service. in fact, despite the chinese government's announcement last year, they would begin allowing its currency to gradually appreciate, the treasury department's exchange rate report released on may 27 noted that the real exchange rate remains substantially undervalued, end quote. some i of my colleagues will argue no closings and layoffs in states like maine have little to do with the value of chinese currency and legislation to hold countries like china accountable when they intervene in currency markets will not create jobs or grow our economy. for that matter, proponents of china's entry into the world

trade organization ten years ago also claimed that liberalizing trade with china would improve our trade deficit. at the time of its entry into the w.t.o. in december of 2001, china agreed to provide greater transparency when it comes to trade policies, to enforce intellectual property rights and to end discriminatory and unpredictable rules impeding market access for american products. in fact, as the agreement to allow china into the world trade organization was being negotiated in 2000, president clinton argued it would create in his words, a win-win result for both countries, end quote. however, as president john adams once said, facts are stubborn things. so let's examine some of the evidence. for one, in january i met with microsoft's c.e.o. steve balmer for a few hours before he attended a private meeting at the white house.

he told me in fiscal year 2010 over 30 million exrmplet's, personal computers, were sold in china that run illegal copies of windows. and rather tellingly, mr. balmer noted while china is their second largest personal computer market in the world, it is 70th in terms of microsoft revenue per personal computer. if one of the largest and most integrated companies in the world is being hamstrung by china's piersy and -- piracy and infringement of intellectual property rights how can we expect smaller u.s. companies to stand a chance when it comes to entering the chinese market? in addition to its failure to police intellectual property rights infringement, unlike most other countries where exchange rates are determined by market forces, the chinese government does not allow the rnb to fluctuate and pegs it

tightly to the u.s. dollar at a rate that makes it significantly unvalued versus the dollar. as a result, chinese exports to the united states are artificially made less expensive as we well know and the cost of u.s. exports to china and the rest of the world are made more expensive by a similar or equivalent amount. according to a new report featured last week in "the wall street journal," one significant consequence of china's trade practices is over the last two decades it has surged as an exporter at a breakneck pace while the growth of u.s. spending on imports from china has climbed steadily. as indicated by this chart to my right, according to the report, imports from china as a share of the total u.s. spending has climbed from below 1% throughout much of the 1990's to over 5% today.

and there's no question of the trajectory that is reflected in this chart, mr. president, seeing president as a share of total u.s. spending and what has occurred dramatically, a dramatic rise without abatement, without any intervention whatsoever, we have seen a steady major rise in terms of the amount of imports and the amount of spending by americans on chinese imports. due in large part to china's currency manipulation and other distorting practices, manufacturers in maine and places like maine have not been able to exet against -- compete against the surge in artificially cheap chinese imports. as americans spend more on chinese products as illustrated in this chart, these imports displace goods marked made in the u.s.a. consequencely, --

consequently, china's currency manipulation has contributed to the trade deficit, which ballooned from $83 billion when cheen joined the world trade organization in 2001 to $273 billion in 2010. those numbers are worth repeating, mr. president. speaking about $83 billion was our trade deficit in 2001, and now in 2010 it has skyrocketed to $273 billion. this ever-expanding, explosive trade deficit, unprecedented of course in our history, which grew 20% between 2009 and 2010, destroys existing jobs, prevents new job creation, and as economists of the economic policy institute have indicated, increases the global race to the bottom, in their

words, when it comes to middle-class wages. for example, the economic policy institute recently released a report noting that as plants have closed, workers displaced by trade in the manufacturing sector have had particular difficulty in securing comparable employment in average -- and average wages of those who found new jobs fell by 11% to 13%. as you see again, that is reflected and demonstrated on this chart, most graphically, is that the economic policy institute's report discovered that since china's entry into the world trade organization in 2001 and through 2010 when you see -- have seen that explosive growth in the trade deficit from the $83 billion to the $273 billion between 2001 and 2010, the increase in the

u.s.-china trade deficit eliminated or displaced 2.8 million american jobs or 310,000 jobs per year. so as you can see ill traited in this chart virtually every state in america has been affected by the trade deficits with china that has displaced thousands and thousands of jobs and in less than a decade, 2.8 million american jobs. in my state of maine this means the trade deficit has displaced nearly 10,000 workers or nearly 2% of state employment. and as the chart depicts, the pain of job losses is not unique to one individual state or region of the country. workers in all 50 states from california to south carolina, michigan to texas, have been harmed when they are unable to compete against artificially cheap chinese imports.

while these charts and reports may paint a picture of doom and gloom there is recourse available to american workers injured by unfair trade. under the u.s. accountability duty law, tariffs can be imposed on goods with government subsidies if it can harmed a u.s. company. but while they have attempted to bring as an export subsidy under our trade laws, in each instance the department of commerce has refused to investigate. for example, it's a little-known fact that the u.s. pulp and paper industry employs 900,000 workers, roughly the equivalent number employed by the u.s. auto industry, making it an indispensable pillar in rural communities in maine and across the country.

last year several u.s. paper manufacturers with mills in maine brought forward allegations that china was violating our trade rules by illegally subsidizing their product in the u.s. markets. just one year ago, in september of 2010, i testified before the international trade commission and made the case, and we were ultimately successful in these points that foreign coated paper manufacturers in china and indonesia were illegally selling their products in the u.s. as an unfairly subsidized and underriced rate. amazingly the commerce department refused to investigate whether china's practices constitute an illegal and therefore unavailable export subsidy. simply put, this failure to take action is unacceptable. in response, in november of last year the senator from ohio, senator brown, and i sent a letter to the senate's leadership asking that a vote be scheduled on legislation

directing the commerce department to investigate allegations that currency undervaluation provides a subsidy at the expense of american jobs. when the senate failed to take action, senator brown and i filed a bill as an amendment to the tax extender package in december of 2010. in january 2011 during china president hu's visit to the u.s. we sent a letter to secretary geithner underscoring the need for trade remedy laws affected by china's currency practices with a lifeline to compete. finally a response for our government's failure to investigate these unfair trade practices on february 10 of this year, senator brown and i introduced our legislation, the currency reform for fair trade act. simply put, the department of commerce failed to use its authority to respond to currency

manipulation by investigating these allegations brought by u.s. industry and placing counterveiling duties on foreign imports benefitting from unfair trade practices. the purpose of our bill is to make clear that commerce has the ability to investigate regardless of whether the subsidies provided to all foreign businesses tkpwhaeufpb country are -- given in countrye exported to shows -- to those violating them before we can reach point of being able to make that determination on imposing that counterveiling subsidy determining those companies, which companies in china are actually doing the exporting. so it is important to eliminate that distinction because that

has been a barrier. and in fact, it certainly prevented the department of commerce, in their words, from being able to impose any kind of subsidy or to investigate the case before they could impose a counterveiling duty. so this way we eliminate the distinction irrespective of whether or not a business is exporting within china their goods. the question is we don't want to have to wait for the department of commerce to make that determination in those industries that do export and once they do export they have already done the damage. so it's clearly important to be able to have the department of commerce in a position at the outset, being able to initiate this investigation on those companies that actually export goods to the united states from china at an unfair price. notably, our bill does not legislate deem a currency

evaluation satisfy the requirement of finding a count available subsidy. it just requires commerce to determine on a case-by-case basis whether currency undervaluation is giving foreign companies an unfair competitive advantage over their counterparts in our country. since introducing our legislation in february we added 11 bipartisan, 7 senate cosponsors, and in the house companion to our legislation, over 200 cosponsors. furthermore, on september 23 i was proud to join as lead original cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation before us today that combines the key elements of our bill with critical provisions of the legislation authored by the senator from new york, senator schumer, and the senator from south carolina, senator graham that i also supported as an initiative when it came before the senate finance committee in 2007. the merged bill utilizes u.s. trade law to counter the

economic damage and harm to u.s. manufacturers caused by currency manipulation and it authorizes new consequences for countries that fail to adopt appropriate policies to eliminate unfair currency undervaluation. most critically, it will also provide businesses that are damaged by china's trade practices with the tools to respond on behalf of american workers and assures that our government will heed the request of a wide range of u.s. industries such as paper manufacturers in maine to investigate whether currency undervaluation by a government provides a subsidy and one in which we can initiate an action by imposing counterveiling duties. finally, mr. president, while some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that challenging china's unfair trade practices could lead that government to retaliate against u.s. goods and jeopardize our economic recovery, the fact is

the potential benefit of currency reform is enormous when it comes to fighting unemployment and boosting the american economy because as of today china essentially rigs the game to undercut true market competition and undermine u.s. businesses. for example, a study released in june by the economic policy institute discovered that addressing chinese currency manipulation and enforcing fair trade provisions when it comes to these violations would support the creation of more than two million u.s. jobs, increase the gross domestic product by as much as $285 billion and reduce the deficit by more than $70 billion a year. failing to act now is not an option. the international monetary fund announced china will surpass the united states economically in

2016, a mere five years from now. if this turns out to be true, it will be due in large part to our current policies which are fueling our decline and china's rise. we input -- import more than we export, running huge trade deficits, consume more than we produce and outsource thousands of jobs. if one manufacturer is compelled to close because we fail to combat subsidized imports, that is one less manufacturer able to export and help grow our economy. frankly, mr. president, if there was ever a moment to empower a workforce when it comes to competing in a global economy, is there any doubt given our dire economic state, that time is now? maine to the midwest, china's currency manipulation has been among the greatest impediments to our manufacturing sector. unfortunately our government when it comes to this issue has become the silence of our factories. it is time to take action to rebuild our economic foundations, and this legislation will ensure our

government has the tools to respond on behalf of american companies and workers by imposing counterveiling duties on exports subsidized by currency manipulation, undervaluation. it is absolutely vital that we take this action this year, right now, mr. president. because as i indicated at the beginning of my remarks, if you start to begin to look at the historical picture of the consideration of this legislation, it is clear that it has been underestimated. it's been overlooked in terms of the value that it brings to our country, to the value it brings to the manufacturing segment of our economy, to the value it brings to our workers. i'm deeply concerned because it always seems like it's an either-or proposition when we talk about trade-related issues, that we have to do nothing because otherwise we will invite

a trade war. but we have to really determine, i believe, when we look at the trade practices of our trading partners and also the laws by which they are required to uphold. and in this case for china it is through the world trade organization, they made a commitment at the onset when they joined that organization. they have refused to uphold it when it comes to leveling the playing field and create the ekweu lib pwrupl -- equilibrium to let the currency flow as required and stipulated under that agreement when they became a member of that organization. they have failed time and again to monitor these agreements and to monitor the actions of their own companies with respect to this practice. and it has decimated so many industries across the country, as i indicated with this chart,

in virtually every state in america has had damage, has been damaged as a result of the loss of jobs because we have failed to uphold the standards of fair trade. so it isn't about encouraging a trade war. far from it. i think it creates not only a level playing field, but it creates an equitable circumstance for our trading partners. and that it's important for those countries like china, if they're prepared to live up to the agreements to which they have subscribed in the world trade organization, then they're required to live by it. and that means that they have to establish the standards where they cannot manipulate their currency as they have been doing for more than two decades. it's been a problem. it's been a persistent problem. and, unfortunately, on either side of the aisle, whether it's democratic or republican administrations, and the

presidency or here in congress have failed to take a concrete concerted action that could have made a profound difference long before now that we have reached this poeufpblt it could -- point. it could have been averted. time and again we haven't been able to have treasury secretaries to designate china as a currency manipulator that i think then would have prompted much more significant action on the part of any administration. so that issue has been addressed in this legislation to change the threshold, to redesign, to target the legislation more precisely so that it will give the tools to the administration and specifically to the treasury secretary to be able to designate china as a currency manipulator that then kicks in certain safeguards and actions. the same is true for the department of commerce, that they will be able to initiate at the outset an investigation to determine whether or not devaluing the currency on the

part of china has contributed to unfair trading practices and obviously affecting our goods and workers and companies here in the united states adversely. that's important to give the tools to our agencies to make sure they can fulfill their obligations. i know there are times in which they have not, even when they have had the tools and they have been empowered to use those tools, they have not done so. much to the detriment of our industries, and much to the detriment of these jobs and these manufacturing companies all across america that have either closed their doors or they have sharply curtailed their businesses or their level of employment. and i know that firsthand for my state, and it has really, i think, brought tremendous consequences to rural maine and to rural america as a result. because that's what has been the basis of our economy, has been

the manufacturing segment of our industry that has been so critical to good-paying jobs that ultimately has been damaged and harmed as a result of this currency manipulation issue that has been persistent on the part of the chinese and one that we now have to address through this legislation. so, mr. president, i appreciate this opportunity to address the senate on this critical issue. and as we go forward in the days ahead in debating this legislation, i look forward to working with my colleagues, the senator from ohio, who has done yoemen's work on this issue and has brought this issue to the highest levels in terms of his attention and importance to this country and most assuredly. and i'm looking forward to working with him and our other colleagues to make sure that we can fulfill our commitment to passing this legislation. it's not only about debating it. it's not only just voting on it.

it's becoming law. and i think we should bring this to its logical conclusion and send it to the president for his signature because the time has come, as i said, and it's long overdue. we have failed the workers and industries of this country who are trying to compete, who can make goods. we're not going to forsake our manufacturing sector because we have the ability to make the best goods with the most productive workers in the world. and we should be able to continue to do that. the only way we can fulfill that obligation that we have to them is through this legislation because there is no other recourse at this moment in time. so i now yield the floor, mr. president. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i, first of all, thank the senator from snowe for her leadership on this currency legislation. it's time has come. she's been a real leader on this for months and months and months and phaopbgtsd years for that -- and months and years for that

matter. i so appreciate her work. i think pure and simple, this is the most important bipartisan jobs bill that the senate's passed since i've been a member of the senate in my four and a half years. senator snowe has been here a good bit longer time and has been a member of the finance committee that understands how china gamed the system. ms. -- senator snowe and i combined with senator schumer and senator graham in their legislation, also senator stabenow, a democrat from michigan, senator sessions, a republican from alabama, both senators from north carolina, senator burr, a republican, and nor hagan, a democrat, joined by senator casey and the other maine senator, senator casey from pennsylvania, democrat, and the other maine senator, republican, senator collins. that just shows the bipartisan support here. we had this legislation today, senate bill 1619, pass this body 79-19.

the cloture was 79-19, which is a strong message to the house and to our colleagues that this legislation as we debate this week is so important, it's deserving of basically a week of the senate's time to discuss and debate what china trade's all about. we know what china trade is all about. we know, as senator snowe said, the trade deficit with china, has ballooned in the ten years since china has been part of the world trade organization. think of it this way, mr. president. we -- every day, we buy $750 million more from china than we sell to china, every single day, sunday, monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, every day of every week, every year. so for the past year, $750 million, we buy from china more than we sell to china. you just can't keep doing that, mr. president. you can't keep doing that and

hold the industrial base that the people of oregon, the people of maine, the people of ohio care about. and look at it this way for a moment, mr. president. i don't want to inundate my colleagues with figures and numbers and dollars and job numbers and all that, but president bush the first set a billion dollars in trade surplus or trade deficit, a billion dollars translates into 13,000 jobs. he said that 15 years ago. that number -- no president has exactly said anything -- has quantified that since. but think about that, thousands of jobs for every billion dollars in trade deficit or surplus. well, with china alone, we have almost -- we have three quarters of a billion dollars trade deficit every single day. our trade deficit with the whole world is $600 billion, $600 billion, $1.5 billion a day, more than that. we buy $600 billion more than we sell to the world every year. how can a country, no matter how wealthy -- and this is a rich country still, even though

millions of people have been unemployed, have lost manufacturing jobs in my state and other states across the country, how can we continue as a prosperous nation if manufacturing is outsourced? these jobs go somewhere else. never before, i don't believe, mr. president, ever that i can think of in world history, and i have said this before and nobody has challenged it, have we seen a business plan of american companies moving to china, manufacturing there and then selling back to the united states. a company like procter and gamble, on the other hand, they move production to china but they sell from their chinese operations, they sell to china and east asia, probably taiwan and maybe japan and malaysia. they have their production in the areas they sell to. that makes perfect sense. that's good for those countries, good for those workers, good for the united states, good for cincinnati where procter and gamble is located, but these companies who have it as their business plan to shut down

production here, move to china and then sell those products that they make in shanghai and beijing instead of in akron, in canton, and toledo sell those products back to consumers in oregon, ohio and maine. and that -- that's why this legislation is so important. a new study said that we have lost 2.8 million jobs in the last decade to china because of currency manipulation. 1.9 million of those jobs are manufactured. you know what's happened in places, mr. president, like portland and the senator from maine knows what's happened in her portland and what that has meant to lost jobs in this country. and the understanding the reason that happens is because china games the system, because china doesn't play fair. pure and simple, say it straight, because china cheats, china has been able to -- because china cheats, they have given, for all intents and purposes, 20%, 35% subsidy to their product. because they cheat on currency,

putting aside how they subsidize their paper industry, for instance, with water and capital and energy and land, just on currency alone, when they sell something into the united states, they have a 25% to 30% cost advantage. i know companies i have talked to in ohio and mansfield and springfield and zanesville and chilicothe, companies that will say my cost of raw materials is higher than the cost of the product when it comes from china. why? because china cheats. and one of the ways they cheat is they undervalue their currency so that they have a 25% discount on their products sold into the united states. we can't compete with that, no matter that our workers are efficient, no matter that our companies are efficient, no matter that we cut costs in so many ways with the more advanced technologies and advanced manufacturing we do. so, mr. president, that's why this was such an important step

in passing overwhelmingly sending to the floor for debate today 79-19 this bipartisan jobs bill called the currency exchange rate oversight reform act of 2011. today earlier, i was in cleveland and i did a meeting with two -- two owners of a company in brunswick, ohio. it's more or less a cleveland suburb from automation tool and die. it's a family company that has been in operation since 1974. the owners, two sons, randy and bill bennett, spoke today about their company. they have 55, i believe they said, employees who are a major part of american manufacturing. they are the kind of companies that when it's such a disadvantage on currency, it puts them in a less than competitive position sometimes. they are still doing okay, but they know how hard it is, how hard the business climate is when they are at that

disadvantage. so when they are making products, they can't -- because china has gamed the system and an american company might move to china to do production, they can't up and move. they are a family company of 55 employees. they can't move to china to service the company that's moved to china because of the competitive disadvantage. so we know how that's worked, mr. president. we know why this legislation that senator snowe has worked on, the two bills we put together, senator snowe and my bill with senator schumer and graham, and as i said, we have had good, strong bipartisan -- good, strong bipartisan sponsorship on this bipartisan trade -- this bipartisan jobs bill. we have also had a very good vote today that was 79-19 to move this forward. the economic policy institute issued a new report showing that addressing chinese currency manipulation could support the creation of 2.75 million american jobs, mostly in manufacturing, mostly the kind of jobs that will create other

jobs because of the wealth that senator snowe talked about, the wealth that manufacturing creates. and as senator snowe pointed out, when the opponents to this -- too often, we have seen administrations of both parties oppose bills like this. when opponents say this is protectionism, i don't quite know what's wrong with protecting our families and protecting our neighborhoods and protecting our country, but ceding that, they say this is protectionism. this in fact is a reaction to chinese protectionism. china, the people's republic of china, the communist party of china has not really believed in the rule of law when it comes to trade, and this is an emphatic, strong insistence by the united states senate that we do believe in the rule of law for international trade, that we do think all actors should behave, we do think that everybody in the trading system should work on a level playing field. today was one of the biggest -- the biggest step i have seen the united states senate take since i came here in 2007. we're going to have a long

debate this week. everybody is going to get their chance. some members of the senate still not quite sure -- that wanted us to debate this are still not quite sure exactly where we go with this. i think it's pretty clear that the united states senate today reflects what the people of this great country believe. that we make things -- my state is the third largest manufacturing state in america. only texas and california, states of twice and three times our size in population, make more than we do. we know how to make things, we know how to make big things. we need to continue to produce things. we know that manufacturing creates wealth. this is a huge victory. only a first step but a huge first step in the victory for american manufacturing to help us reindustrialize our country. mr. president, i -- i thank my colleagues for the 79-19 vote. i thank senator snowe especially for her terrific work on both sides of the aisle in getting this bill moving forward. it's going to matter for workers

in toledo and dayton and cleveland and columbus, and for that i'm grateful. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination. number 359, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to consider -- reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourns until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, october 4, 2011, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business with one hour -- for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half, the republicans controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1619, the currency exchange rate oversight reform act poet cloture. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 for weekly caucus meetings. finally at 2:30, all postcloture time on the motion to proceed to s. 1619 be yielded back, the motion to proceed be agreed to and following the reporting of the bill the majority leader be

recognized. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: mr. president, we will begin consideration of s.b. 1619 during tuesday's session. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

next a look at some of the action on the senate floor from earlier today dealing with a debit card fees. senator byrd and criticized

credit card companies and banks for charging a monthly fee on debt cards. they are the response to the federal reserve limiting how much credit card companies and banks can charge businesses card. this is 15 minutes.: >> the senator from illinois.ne. >> mr. president, consent to objectn. speak as if in morning business. want t >> without objection.te o >> want to take those who areout following this debate on a tript through the world of plastic. of m talking about the world ofe, credit cards. spefi in this case specifically abouts devotee cards. because something happened over the weekend whichw has changed but world drastically and it's important for consumers, retailers and unt voters acroanss america toap understand what happened.at yctober 1st on saturday, thecomn rules on how much credit card company and bank issues a debit card can collect every time you.

use the debit card changed. thre they call it a swipe a fee. you go through the machine and pay for a transaction.call that back in the old days i cana recall some people would writef out a check.it's this is the new form of checks.u it's a debit card and when you e swipe it through the machine tht money comes out of your checking account to the retailer where you did the business.more it's very convenient. over half the transactions most retailers now are done with either credit or debit cards. cr what the consumer doesn't know is that there's a charge each it's called the swipe fee or the interchange fee and what is it?y it is established the basically duopoly or monopoly credit card companies visa and mastercard they run the whole show anditrut

they've been under antitrust investigation in the past and i sure they will be in the futureu here's what the rules are. if you run a restaurant let's say a g grocery store in chicago like a close friend of mine, family-owned grocery store and use a i have to take plastic to do business then visa and mstercard say you have to pay d each time a customer swipes the card. how much do they pay? car it's a secret. basically consumers don't know,. individual retailers to individual retailers have little or no bargaining power as you rs can imagine with visa and have mastercard and big banks so we passed along over a year or two ago on the mend but i offered oo the wall street reform act whice said to the federal reserve board to investigate this. find out how much it actually ai company to process thewe transaction with the debit cardg they came back after a long

study and they said if it uses a pin number, which some do, it's about 4 cents. if you cyanate it's about sevenn to 12 cents. the averagege charge of the credit card company and bank for each sweep fee is 44 cents.st o the dramatically larger than thc cost of thetion transaction to e bank or credit card company. remember the old days when we ct process checks it would cost pennies no matter what the face amount was but today every retailer faces the 44-cent average swipe feet every time cn somebody uses a debit card. you can understand as much there is no competition. leave the banks and credit card companies tell us take-it-or-leave-it you don't like it, don't use plastic. sec. nobody knows except the

retailer, the bank and credit card company. the hidden fees and it is a busn killer for a lot of small businesses. i was in rock island illinois and the manager of the rock island country market said we said, have a special deal, senator. people can come in the neighborhood in rock island illinois and in the morning a a cup of coffee and a doughnut fos 99 cents. a pretty good deal in this day and age. compared to what we pay so i want to get in this store. a you know what they turn around and go to the cash register and. use plastic.reaking en i wasn't breaking even at 99 cents now i'm paying 44 centsank because people have used plastic. thld that world changed october 1st last saturday. into ehe new e law went into effecteh when the federal reservem that c established the selig, the maximum that can be charged fors a debit card swipe fee that's issued by the largest banks in america and the maximum now

comes down to about 24 cents.we is this a big deal? becse it certainly is because each nos in the economy swipe fees account for about ten orr $12 billion. ten or $12 billion of additionas charges to consumers and profitability by businesses. so you can imagine ten or y12 billion even after it's beeb discounted by the federal reserve to about half that amount, $46 billion of the banks in anan uproar.uess it' mr. chairman, mr. president, i , guess it is a great honor now the "the wall street journal" fy published a story on friday and the hit one of their people thed thatng this new bank fee beingbt charged by bank of america on debit cards is the durbin feet. the same thing was set by "the chicago tribune" on saturday. let me say at th be outset i amo

honored to be associated with the effort to reduce cost to be retailers and consumers across g america. what we are doing is fair to tre to strike a balance in an industry that has shown little or no balance. of one of the worst offenders is bank of america the largest bank in the united states. did you see what they did onebit friday? debit credit bank of america was into the subject to a 5-dollar monthly fee because of this reform. white said in the media and i will say it here bank of america customers vote with your feet, get the heck out of the bank. find yourself a bank or credit e union that would salvage $5 a debit card youyo can use every r single day. can here is an outrage.merica has d last week they announced they customers a $5 monthly fee fromg the years of the debit card thae went overboard. went

they are overcharging their customers' needs and for the ne debit cthard reform but it's nothing new in the history of bank of america. of amica consumers across erica and customers at bank of america are rightfully of rage. it's hard oto believe they wout infer a fee on the customers who are trying to access their own money on deposit at bank of for y americath feior years has been e encouraging customers to use mu debit cards as much as possiblec it's particularly hard toca. believe a track record like bank of america.econ after helping to drag our economy off of the edge in 2008, bank of america was happy to bailout for their stupidity, their greed and mistakes and itt was just as happy to take that . money in hand out $3.3 billion in employee bonuses in the samee year 2008.bank of ame

don't forget the track record of big america when it comes to handling mortgages they pick of this country country wide theyaw were going bad now the bank ofse america when it comes to the process in the same mortgages is equally is appointing when it's not refusing to answer the phone bank of america's foreclosing on american families right andand . left. least t this time they give america would be open about thes new charge to its loyal customers. in contrast to the over draftees', research fees, swipe fees and other hidden fees theyo charge this time bank of americn is being up front about sticking to its own customers andit allow allows customers as i've said to vote with their feet not everyone treats their customers like bank of america and consumers to decide whether bani of america's values reflectbanko their own. bank of america is the largests.

bank by assets in the united is states. s now it is crawling and poverty. it is forced to hit their debite card holders with this new monthly fee because congress's passed the swipe see reform.nk f i don't buy it.ks in here's the reality. o bank of america and in generalsh are making billions of dollars still with the new reform and the law for credit and debit card swipe fees. estim theyat are estimated $50 billion $5r year moneymaker for thendus. banking industry 50 billion. bank of america alone makes each billions through the swipe feesa each year. didn't bank of america didn't earninst, those by competition. instead bank of america receives mastercard this duopoly that mas runs a credit card business in america basically fixed the prices and retailers and consumers have no voice in the i process. this is why the fi is fromwipe competition. now the bank of america is out

in the open with this overchargn of their own customers it's time the federal reserve found acrose the bank on average 7 cents to conduct a debit transaction, signature transaction and iteria costs less for bankamerica with the economies of scale but they found the bank of america was getting an average of 44 cents you can't make that type of 600% profit-margin nearly 600% in a e transparent and competitive market in taihe free and fairtht market these profits would be competed down to a reasonable c, card companies, these things like we did america will retai continue to wane, consumers and retailers and of course now thas bank of america's customers will lose toth read today of writtena letter to the ceo bigot americaa , ian moynihan and i told him ae that not it wasn't just me alonn but others have done calculatioo

on the 5-dollar monthly fee and tu know what we find out?fee wg when they thought that the sweep fee was coy to be limited 12 cents bank of america said wello that will cost $2 billion a out year. sa, turns out the nfederal reserve said it will be 24 cents. so why our estimates the new reform of the swipe see me costn bigot america $1 billion a yearu in revenue. a month guess what if you do the of calculation of the $5 a month on f card holders and bank of america did go back twice as much as thj projected loss on the new lawcha corydon. if they want to cover the hidden fees in the past that is unfair to consumers and to their aot o customers and to do it in this g eteconomy with a lot of big of america customers across america

one colin mr. moynihan to do is to justify this based on the projected a debit cardave transaction losses if the numbee of people theiry have all beeni' debit cards by the company. i didn't come up with this of ls therush gentleman by the ninevee lazarus is a business reporter t in california was the first one that called it to my attention n on the report on friday night and we looked into it further and it's clear again bank of customers. i can just tell you it isn't tha first time. those people are aware of the fact they were sued for overcharging for various fees like overdraft fees in th e pasthe because of that suit andd i possibility of losing it to the entered into a settlement to pay over $400 million for overcharging their own customers. tsey are doing w it again. i bank america with its monthlycut are isom overcharging itsle stad

reasonable standarded for the ls based on this new law -- but the last point i want to make and i see some on the floon including symmetric thune they have a different point of viewhe of the last point i want to maki is i stood with the retailers and i hope that in tennessee ane utah they will be in touch withi my colleagues and let's hear their side of the story. give them victimized by the banks and credit cards for too s long. long. we what we do is e establish a and reasonable standard of compensation and now some disclosure about what is being e charged for transactions. i want to help small businesses, across america. their profitability, the succes. of their business needs more to americans go to work.ate if you want to stand up on the floor of the senate and defend the wall street banks like bance of america and the credit card i companies, be my guest. ret i wouldai rather stand with consumers and retailers haveyead been taking it to the cleaners t for years and years by the debit

card swipe see is the outrage when bank of america is a remina reminder that when it comes to dalia link customers, the bankst that don't doubt their customero and build overcharge devotees a are thmee ones that deservehe america's business.oor. t. president, on the yield the floor. >> of the understand i have ten minutes and if you would let me know when there is about a he tn minute left i would appreciatene it.abou i am here to speak on another topic that i was glad to hear bi the comment from the center of a illinois and ito would say inn general i think that consumersc are be--ginning to see the firse of many consequences about frank on the other side of the ogle believe that money just comes a. from air with the fact is when e you price something like we just did or like the senate just did through dodd-frank, when you price fix something like this t

obviously it's going to have the consequences that have been laid out and unfortunately consumers across the country are going to be paying the price but it's interesting most of the majorait retailers that my friend was arl alluding to are talking aboutnee the profits, the benefits theyay are going to have so at the endt of the day the consumers are going to be paid the price we already see that playing out while bank of america i'm not here to defend them this is just the first of many charges and lack of credit as a result. >> congressional reporter for the lindbergh government with what will happen when they passed a short-term spending bill comes up for a vote on tuesday? >> thank you for having me. as you mentioned the senate-passed spending bill that would fund the government by a november 18th is going to be approved of the house floor tomorrow, and the expectations are that will pass, the reason being that it's expected to get

pretty widespread democratic unlike an earlier version that the speaker passed with mostly predominantly republican support. >> you were at majority leader decanter what did he see the plans for keeping the federal government operating? kimmage he said that he expects they will not have to encounter any difficulty in terms of clearing these continuing resolutions tomorrow for the president's signature. devotee of congress a little bit of breathing room and what's been kind of a series of devices, spending fights over the last several months. they wouldn't have to address this issue until november 18th but it remains unclear that time will fly between now and six weeks from now right for thanksgiving it will be shaping up for another showdown or another battle over how to keep the government running and the sort of last-minute showdown in another six weeks. >> he mentioned federal spending being divisive. what does the skirmish over the

spending of the ability to reach agreement on spending? >> it's interesting because entering a time where as you know the committee that was established through the august 2nd of all that raised the debt ceiling, that devotees in the process of meeting now and the have a deadline november 23rd to reach consensus with the following deadline by december 23rd for both chambers to have a vote on some of those recommendations, and i think the fact that they are still continuing to have difficulty reaching agreement between the democratically controlled senate and republican controlled house these more short-term spending measures, all the underscores how difficult the process is going to be going forward when they get to the more significant decisions about how to, you know, recent federal spending in the long term. >> what were some of the ever legislative items on representative qtr's to do list for this month? >> the other major theme at least so far in the immediate term for this week is there are

two bills coming out that would effectively stay from epa regulations and that is part of this broader agenda the majority leader has often announced over the summer which is a series of initiatives on the floor to rollback in regulations republicans have deemed the obama administration regulation republicans have deemed being to job creation so that's part of their broad agenda. there's also been a development just even since the majority leader's briefing this afternoon it looks as though the white house is going to be sending up the free trade agreement of colombia, panama and south korea and its songs like there's going to be swift action at least in the house on moving those perhaps on the agreement to move in some instances for, you know, displaced workers that the democrats have been seeking. >> cade hunter is dhaka consultant for bloomberg government. thank you.

>> thanks so much. >> for the first time, americans that have access to connectivity even if they are natural disasters and other things happening through our satellite network. >> taking a look at the white house tonight with up in pink light for breast cancer awareness month. today the hudson institute held a forum on u.s. israel relations we are going to be showing those events starting at 10:00 tonight eastern time kuran c-span2. but first we will take a look of a short portion of that event which is about ten minutes.

>> it is usually ring useful to refer to the greek philosophers to handle the ongoing questions like this. so, i'd like to refer to dr. seuss. [laughter] to pose the existential question for our time would would you do if you ran those -- ran the zoo. [laughter] you need not ryan white away. >> professor, would you like to start? >> i've always wanted to follow dr. seuss. i think the united states has -- as john pointed out -- devoted a huge amount of time to this negotiating process. i don't even call it a peace process since the signing of the jordanian and israeli treaty in 1994. we've exhausted every

conceivable method. we have spawned all sorts of ideas and participants. i don't think that the site is there to reach an agreement particularly the palestinians, and i don't -- because i am a historian and i look back to the 30's and 40's and fragmentation of that movement then and now there's not a lot that has really changed in terms of their geographic ideological intellectual attitude towards sharing the land west of the jordan river, and if we keep on beating a dead horse. no one can claim the united states has not had an instrumental role to play in upgrading palestinian national definition from a press conference in 1972 when he referred to the palestinian

participation to a president -- presidents to talk about a 2-cd solution voluble contingent palestinian state. and we've given a lot of money. the palestinian arab national movement remains ideologically divided. it hasn't come to grips with the reality that there's been a political change in the middle east. thus when we mention the united states at the u.n. he never mentioned to 43 or 248. he mentioned the 94. now, maybe that's because he's appealing and appeasing his right. maybe he's talking to his constituents. but i think the united states as john points out we have so many more issues on our agenda today than carter had in 1977, 78, 79. and they are much more critical

to the strategic national interest of the united states than the peace process. so if i were giving advice at least for the next year and maybe the next year and a half, i would not try at rewind or accelerate or engage in the arab-israeli negotiations in any seriously in fact i would tell the palestinians point blank look, either you think about the concept of 242 and 248 and abide by them or we are just not going to be there for you. and it's time that we use our influence, the bully pulpits and didn't get caught up so many people in this town devoted to this issue. i've made a legal office. i can't imagine how many others in this city have. we just have too many other issues in the middle east that require our attention.

>> well i have a lot of sympathy. in a way the high point for what i would view as a proper american policy came in 2002 when president bush is essentially said to the palestinians we will support palestinian statehood when you've met a series of preconditions, new leaders, not compromised by terror, a practicing democracy not by the way when we simply can't win election after each election after election to read a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty when the palestinian people have achieved it and new security arrangements with their neighbors egypt, jordan, israel been the united states will support the creation of a palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of sovereignty will be provisional for a while. in essence that is what goes into the road map. the united states should stop if

i can use another phrase treating the palestinians with a soft bigotry of low expectations and started making demands, the kind of demands that demand about teaching the palestinian people to prepare for peace both in the statement of the leadership and things like public school textbooks because i think that would be laying a real foundation for peace and meanwhile should continue to support the institution building efforts that if the talks are underway. >> i don't disagree with what my colleagues have said with regard to the peace process as again as sour as i am on what this transpired over the last 20 years and what was put in place

in terms of the been able to reclaim control of the territory next door to israel to create the level of tierney and dictatorship that they did and the amount of weapons that were allowed to go and the amount of debt that has occurred over the last 20 years on both sides is really quite dismayed. i do agree we need a transformational moment on the palestinian side that hasn't come yet although it was supposed to come with oslo in 1993. i think it is instructive that moment we thought we had with 93 under arafat came with quite specific circumstances in which the united states in effect have on the cold war the soviet union was defeated we had won a real

war in iraq and defeated a middle eastern tyrant the arafat supported and we proceeded to the negotiations with palestinians outside of the plo and it was only in that context that arafat's moly made the decision he did to at least not the words that he was recognizing israel to put himself back in the game for the oslo process and the negotiations with the prime minister ruffini. i don't think there's any direct application to our approach toward the palestinian issue today to things we can learn including but perhaps most important role of the united states while it's important and all this nonsense the palestinian gambit in the role in the peace process i think

it's true now as it was 20 years ago that the door to peace and the settlement in the middle east only goes through israel and because it goes through israel it goes through the united states and the essentials guarantor of that process and of pascrell's security and devotee to take risks for peace but beyond that the critical function of the united states and the hopeful will we complete is shaping the environment in which the parties either feel they can take risks for peace or they have no other choice but to take risks for peace and i think in particular in the current strategic environment first and foremost that means a contiguous american priority on the danger and threat posed by iran. i think it does mean leaving iraq in a stable situation as a

continuing developing democracy that has not in the pyrenean or bit and it does maintain a robust strategic relationship with judge united states and i think it means following through doing whatever we can to ensure some kind of orderly transition as possible in the arab countries that have undergone all of this turmoil first and foremost i think that means egypt. egypt and the fate of egypt and the future of egypt dwarfs whatever importance in time and energy we are going to spend on the peace process in the next several years try new to get egypt right and ensure the strategic orientation continues in a way that is at least moderately sympathetic to the american strategic interest in the region i think is absolutely essential and needs to be at the