quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by me and by senator mcconnell. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. recess: >> weekly party lunches. across the c-span network some live coverage today to tell you about. on c-span the house is working on a short-term spending measure that helps fund the federal government through november the 18th.

here on c-span2 we'll have more live senate coverage when lawmakers gavel in at 2:15 eastern to continue work on the bill permitting sanctions on china for currency manipulation. on c-span3 this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. a live house hearing looking at u.s. policy toward mexican drug cartels and criminal organizations. coming up at the top of the hour at 1:00 p.m. eastern, new jersey republican governor chris christie has scheduled a press conference his office in the state capitol in trenton. we're expected to hear him make announcement running for president. news organizations indicate he made that decision and he won't run for president. we'll hear more at 1:00 this afternoon here on c-span2. this morning on "washington journal" we asked viewers for their thoughts whether governor christie should enter it the presidential race. >> host: primary date of january 21st adds urgency for chris christie. governor chris christie of

new jersey is under more pressure to make a decision on running for president after south carolina's move to schedule republican primary for january 21st. the decision virtually ensures that the primary season will begin shortly after news year's day rather than february as the republican party originally determined giving mr. christy even less time to develop a campaign. reports say the decision could come any day. mr. chris kri tess east advisers say they thud wait until wednesday before finding a candidate which suggest as decision could come by then. several party strategists in iowa and new hampshire advisers to mr. christy had not contacted them. final calendar for primaries is not yet set but south carolina's decision is likely to mean that all the other early states, new hampshire, iowa and nevada will vote early in january. south carolina republicans have a 30-year track record picking eventual republican

presidential nominee the state party chairman said in a statement. we'll continue that historic decision on january 1st, 2012. nevada is likely to hold e its caucus in early in the second week of january. for years to the day after the a 2008 caucuses. the schedule forces candidates and the news media to be in full swing in iowa during december. so that puts chris christie's decision whether in or out to even more urgent pace. so we want to hear from all of you. what do you think if he should get in? should he get out and why. let's hear from troy first. an independent in malone, new york. go ahead, troy. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: my really my comment i think the media driven this to the point that it's at. i will use an example from a past election. not really even an election but right here in new york

when the position was open for the senate seat and kristin gillibrand ended up getting picked by our governor that. the media kept hyping up kennedy and, i'm a little groggy this morning. so i'm trying to remember all names here but i want to say caroline kennedy. >> host: right. what do you think? what does that mean for whether or not chris christie should run and all that? >> caller: i think it is popular to get on tv. it is the popular thing. it is like the cool thing, the trendy thing to say, hey, good morning, welcome america and chris christie is he running or not? just because that's what all the other media outlets have said. i don't really think that was his intention. and i think that the unfortunately for chris christie, he is going to be put into a position that he really didn't want to get into just because it was fueled by the media.

>> host: all right. just to be clear, south carolina is holding its primary january 21st, that is. and so from the article i just read it looks like iowa could hold its caucus then january 3rd. hear is the "washington post" this morning on chris christie. it says this. the quote has him saying there is never been a day where i felt like i'm overmy head. i don't know what to do. i'm lost, chris at this told the christie told "national review." i don't know whether i feel the same way if i walk into the oval office a year and a half from now. a few months later in an interview with cnn i wouldn't want to say i know i could win. i hope i'm ready. i would rather say i know i'm ready i hope i could win. if he changes his mind christie would face a series of political challenges, raising millions of dollars to building effect tiff campaign operation. the biggest hurdle may be christie's own pronouncements about a

potential run. over the past year he has worried aloud whether he is sufficiently prepared for the presidency. patricia, republican, st. paul, minnesota. >> caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i do really like chris christie. however, it is too late i think many people think. too much flirting. too much popularity. too much attention in the media. but i really like him. if he can hang in there 20 more years. but the biggest job in the world, this is the biggest job in the world. >> host: why do you like him? >> caller: obama won it. stop complaining already. who i like is romney because i was was just listening to him on your station. he is so intelligent. i think he's the best. he is so even. he is so level and just, i think, a great guy, who

could get a more decent guy than him and his family? so i like him but i do think obama has to stop complaining because he wanted the job. so do it already. pull on your big boy pants. >> host: a democratic caller in pine hill, new jersey. what do you think about the prospects of chris christie getting in? would he be a formidable candidate to president obama? >> caller: i really don't care for christie. i don't like the way he talks to people. he is very arrogant. i didn't like the way he did the school teachers, the firemen, the police officers. i mean, our taxes are sky-high and he is not really doing for us. and i really wouldn't vote for christie. >> host: okay. >> caller: because of the way, my sister is a school teacher. she doesn't make anything,

any kind of money, and she's a single parent. and he just keeps on raising taxes and don't want to give the teachers anything. don't want to give the fire companies anything. the police. i mean he is laying off people left and right. >> host: willa, this is richard cohen's piece this morning in "the washington post." christie's temper trap. christie's temper pem. he operate as lot on instinct but that instinct can come off as bullying. in new jersey debates he dialed back his personality and comes off as flat. cutting rejoinder, the classic you're no jack kennedy moment will never be his. he has to be nice and nice is the one thing that chris christie is not. ben in burlington, new jersey, what do you think? >> caller: i think, i'm at a

loss where christie is actually said that he was actually considering running. everything i've heard from his mouth was that he was not running. i'm wondering where the media gets that, you know, chris christie is still considering to run. >> host: yeah. well, some have said that he has asked big supporters, big republican supporters to hold off endorsing any candidate while he is reconsidering. the papers have said that he could make announcement any day now. but, this is what "the wall street journal" says to your point. ben, they say this, that new jersey governor chris christie who has kept the political world in suspense for weeks over his presidential intentions told prominent california fund-raisers and donors, recently as last wednesday he had no plans to seek the white house. one assurance took the form of a pledge mr. christy made to meg whitman, the newly appointed hewlett-packard company chief executive to people familiar with the matter. as a condition of miss

whitman's hosting a high-priced fund-raiser for him, mr. christy said he wouldn't enter the republican presidential contest these people said. mr. christy agreed to the terms earlier in september people with knowledge of the situation said and miss whitman is a prominent supporter of gop presidential con 10er of mitt romney. the dinner for 15 couples took place wednesday at the silicon valley home of miss whitman and her husband. at the dinner which each couple paid 15,000 to attend mr. christy said no whether he was asked whether he would join the 2012 race according to a person with knowledge of the event. but it goes on to say mr. christy made several fund-raising stops in missouri and california last week as he traveled to give a highly anticipate speech on september 27th at the ronald reagan library north of los angeles. we'll show you a little bit from that speech when one person in the audience begged him to run. randall, an independent in spokane, washington, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. well, what it really comes

down to, chris christie running would not be wise due to his year-long campaign of saying i'm not going to run or seek presidency. but i think within the republican party pushing, while certain pushing for him to run it really shows that the republican field currently is not strong enough that they really don't feel that they have a chance to compete, and actually beat obama. >> host: randall hold on, because gerald seib says the opposite today in his column. he says now the republican nomination up for grab looks a lot more valuable. perhaps many in the party are thinking the future is now. that the opposite, he says, that republicans are saying that they think president obama is beatable in 2012 and so that's why people who would have sat out until 2016 like chris christie are thinking the future is now, we've got to run now? >> caller: understandable. i also have to say that with the media blitz for chris

christie and the question marks around him is similar to the former, sorry, i'm just losing my thoughts here. the, running for the, the former vice president for the republican party for the last election. it just, because there is too many question marks if she is going to run too. >> host: all right. brady is a republican in texas. your thoughts? >> caller: yeah. chris christie, i don't know why everyone is blowing this up so much. i don't see him bringing anything to the table. even his hopes to defeat barack obama. even if he does capture the nomination. there is no way, for far too long. if anyone wants to talk about beating obama they don't show ron paul polls showing him capture 51-49. no one even cares. just a complete blackout and

christie shouldn't even run. thank you. >> host: all right. show you what governor chris christie had to say when asked at the reagan library on september 27th after an audience member asked him to run. >> i'm just a kid from jersey who feels like i'm the luckiest guy in the world to have the opportunity that i have to be the governor of my state and, so people say to me all the time now when folks like you say those kind of things, for as many months as being said, like you know, governor, why don't they just leave you alone. you've already given your answer? isn't it a burden? and what i say to you tonight and say to everybody else who is nice enough to applaud what she said, is that it isn't a burden. i mean, the fact of the matter is anybody who has an ego large enough, to say oh, please, please, please, stop asking me to be leader of the free world. [laughter]

it's, it's such a urd abouten. if you could please just stop. what kind of crazy ego-maniac to say, please stop, please stop. it is extraordinarily flattering but by the same token that heart-felt message you gave me is also not a reason for me to do it. that reason has to reside inside me and so that's what i've said all along is i know without ever having met president reagan, that he must have felt deeply in his heart that he was called to that moment to lead our country, and so, my answer to you is just this. i thank you for what you're saying and i take it in and i'm listening to every word of it and feeling it too. and please don't ever think for a second that i feel like i'm important enough in

this world that somehow what you're saying is a problem for me. >> host: let's go to new jersey. cathy joining us from long branch there. is governor chris christie in or out? >> caller: i don't really care. i can't stomach the man. let me tell you something, our unemployment in this state is higher than the national average because of him. my neighbor lost his job because of him. he despises teachers. calls them bottom-feeders. doesn't apparitily like women other than his wife thank god for that. he is huge by the way. larger in person than you see on television because my congressman knows him. and he told --. >> host: why does that matter, cathy, to you. >> caller: his health is an issue. if he wants to become president is an issue. i don't want another taft on our hands, you know what i mean? i can't stand the man and he is disaster for this state. nobody would be working. seriously. so that is really all i got to say, greta. but i can't stomach him. >> host: martha is democrat in punta gorda, florida.

>> caller: hello. i was listening to the last lady that commented on his, his weight. i think that if he doesn't have control over his weight, how can he have control over a country? and i agree with her, you know, like with teachers and things. and the lady in the audience, you have to realize, that is republican, i think they put a lot of them in there, but you know our country is so bad, and i think where we should be doing is these big businesses that are not hiring people. and they always complain about president obama but they have never worked with him. >> host: all right. front page of "the washington post" is out with a new poll for the republican field. cain sees rise after a quick rise in the race for the republican presidential nomination, texas governor rick perry experienced almost dramatic decline losing half his support over the past month according to this "washington post/abc news poll".

perry's slide comes after several uneven performance in candidate debates allowed former massachusetts governor mitt romney to resurface atop the gop field. the most direct beneficiary of disenchantment with perry is businessman herman cain who is now tied for second place. perry faces opposition to one of his signature immigration policies in texas the survey shows. then inside "the washington post" on that, on that poll, it says, that romney leads with 25% which is identical to his support about a month ago. perry and cain are tied for second place with 16%. and representing a 13-point drop for berry and a 12-point rise for cain. representative ron paul, texas is the only other candidate in double digits at 11%. if christie and palin are included in the hypothetical matchup, christie checks in at 10% and palin at 9%. contend dell, independent in new york. go ahead, contend dell.

>> host:. >> caller: hello? >> host: good morning, you're on the air. >> caller: i should he should -- [inaudible] because he can not run his country with his weight. >> host: robert, republican in oxford, michigan, what are your thoughts on chris christie bid? >> caller: i have a different little edge. christie, bachmann, palin are all ex-prosecutors. my concern when i listen to them, they don't seem to want to negotiate when they speak. it is all one way or the other. i really romney. especially listening to him this morning. one thing about romney they don't talk about, he was a governor here in michigan for two terms and, he was a gentleman that went vietnam and when he came back, he told westmoreland, the general at the time, he felt he was being brainwashed. i believe romney has good,

come from a very good family and i think it's time that we negotiate with the people of the united states and, i think he can, he can bring value to the back to the country and --. >> host: rob, why do you think people are searching for another candidate besides --. >> caller: i think the mormon system a problem. i'm a presbyterian. this is an issue. things have changed out there. >> host: okay. >> caller: things have changed. one time we went out there and couldn't drink beer. ski areas are great. there is history in the country with the mormon program. and i think religious right has an issue with it. but, with the smith brothers and all that kind of thing but 3200 different types of religions as far as christianity in the world. so, to me that is not an issue but what i like about mitt romney is he will speak. he negotiates and he can

teach us. we have a real problem in this country as far as history and where we're going and i just know what the family background in michigan that the father worked hard. he was president of the american motors. and i think it's a chance that we need to slow down a little bit and we all need to learn and i think this is the gentleman that can teach us. >> host: all right. the interview that you referred to is the one that mitt romney did yesterday with "the new hampshire union leader". he sat down with the editorial board and the publisher. we'll speak to the publisher a little bit later this morning coming up here in 10 minutes or so about that interview. but i want to show you how mitt romney responded to a question about why people are still searching for another gop candidate. >> i think it is so critical to replace barack obama and to return america to a posture of economic greatness, and military greatness, that the republicans generally and american people want to take a very careful look at the candidates and test them

well and they want to see them debate. they want to look at their track record. they want to see what it is that obama would use against them. so the fact that people want to take a very careful look and kick the tires again and again, i say yeah, of course we do. this is really important this time. more important than usual. and we have to have a candidate who can post up with barack obama and beat him. >> host: a new poll out by cbs says a full 70% of voters say they are undecided about chris christie or haven't heard enough about him. we're getting your take on chris christie presidential bid. should he be in or out and why. henry is democrat caller in houston, texas. good morning the. >> caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment. chris christie reminds me of a bully in school. he just, doesn't appeal to me at all. he is, he likes to just bully people around from a power standpoint. i think his temper will take

him apart during debates. and, not only his temper, his policies too. i think he is very beatable if he gets the nomination. >> host: okay. daniel, republican in raleigh, north carolina. morning. >> caller: yes, hi, good morning. definitely christie should not be running for president. i don't believe he has the experience that he has not shown us what he can do yet. and i don't believe he should be running for president. even believes he should not be running for president. >> host: because of both comments that he has made, he is not ready? >> caller: yes. i truly believe that he is not ready. and he believes he is not ready. so he should not be running for president. >> host: okay. if you want to send us a comment on our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. paul martin says chris christie is good candidate. only candidate that will focus on domestic completely

is ron paul. all the others spend too much effort on foreign policy which is destroying the country. we need a nationalism party. forget about the rest of the world until we fix our own and ron paul is the man to do it. that is one of the comments on our facebook page. here is "politico"'s story on ron paul. president barack obama's targeted killing of anwar al-awlaki might be an impeachable offense. asked about a manchester town hall meeting about the killing of al qaeda born leader, the congressman said impeachment would be possible. what do you think about your governor and a possible presidential bid? >> caller: i wish one of our governors likes new jersey enough to, to fill out their term. it's kind of odd that yet another new jersey governor is, about to leave to go run for president. but i wish he would sort of

clean up of the things he ran on here first, which was extensive property tax reform, and that has just not happened at all. >> host: all right. that was jean in new jersey. want to give you some other news this morning. mentioned this at the top. that congress is back in session this week. the senate moved yesterday to begin debate on china, on a bill to punish china for keeping the value of its currency low. beijing responded by saying it would severely hurt trade ties. the editorial page of "the wall street journal" this morning agrees with that assessment, calling it the obama-romney tariff. saying that democrats want to appease labor to hold the senate next year. senate republicans aren't about to stand in the way especially when their presidential frontrunner, supposedly business-savvy mitt romney is calling for unilateral trade duties against china to give his candidacy a populist edge. john boehner house

republicans may be the last obstacle to such a destructive bill passing. the richmond times this morning, the "richmond times-dispatch" has this story that eric cantor, from the richmond area, the number two republican in the house says no house vote on president obama's jobs plan. the chamber is set to vote on parts of it such as a trade deal for south korea and cuba and other countries. so that is in the "richmond times-dispatch" this morning. and then also some other news making headlines. the white house brushed off solyndra alarms. president obama who sat down with "abc news" yesterday dispended the solyndra investment in "abc news" interview saying hindsight is always 20/20. solyndra went through the regular review process and people felt like this was a good bet. e-mails warned the solar panel company could go

belly-up by the 2012 election. obama says hindsight is always 2020. john, republican in new jersey. talking about a possible prodentialal bid for chris christie. what you do i think. >> caller: i think chris christie does want to run and he would be the candidate. would take sarah palin and also michele bachmann. it's not roy blunt, senator roy blunt put him in there for missouri, our tea party candidate for missouri. >> host: okay. here from michael next, baltimore, maryland. >> caller: i would like to say this it is amazing to me how the american people are so impatient. host: baltimore, maryland. caller: it is amazing to me how the american people are so patient. barack obama is doing a very good job. first of all, i am a truck

driver -- host: you broke up. let me show you the front page of "the houston chronicle." many of you heard about the controversy over the hunting law -- logic that governor rick perry rented -- >> name that was painted in block letters in the property's entrance. it says perry has called the name offensive and said his father painted over the word. that account at odds of recollection of seven people mentioned in this story that the headlines says perry finds allies in unlikely place. the democrats say the governor isn't racist and the naacp leader talks about his record. and in the "washington times" has this headline, stumbles

aside, perry to remain a top contender according to several republican strategists. advantages outweigh the setbacks. an independent caller, go ahead. >> caller: i want to say i'm not excited to hear all the democratic callers attacking christie personally. i think that's -- they should be scared of this guy. i believe that he is the only candidate we have out there that's speaking the truth, and he's not afraid to speak the truth. it reminds me of ronald reagan and i'm praying that he runs for president. he's the guy that i believe in. >> host: and what do you think about the prospects of him beating president obama. >> caller: i think that he has an out -- >> we're going to take you live now to trenton and governor chris christie. >> it is a sincere, direct, no matter how many times i was

asked the question, to me the answer was never anything but no. stockton new jersey was my passion and i'm the luckiest guy in the world to have this job, doing a job that i love, in the state that i grew up in, on behalf of the some of the toughest and greatest people in the country. it wasn't until recently that i paused to reflect on my decision when you have serious people across the spectrum not to mention from all across the country passionately calling on you to do something as consequential, running for president of the united states, i felt an abolition -- obglags to seriously consider what people were asking me to do. i'll always be grateful for their confidence. over the last few weeks i thought long and hard of the

decision, i've explored the options and i've listened to so many people and considered whether this was something that i needed to take on. but in the end, what i've always knelt was the right decision is the right decision today. i have a commitment to new jersey that i simply won't abandon. it's a promise that i made to the people of this state when i took office 20 months ago. fix a broken new jersey. and when i look at what we've accomplished so far, i'm proud but i know we're not nearly done. i made this commitment to my state first and foremost. people sent me to trenton to get a job done, and i'm just not prepared to walk away. i know not everyone agrees with my decision but my loyalty to this state is what it is. abraham lincoln said i'd like to see a man proud of the place in

which he lives. i'd like to see a man live and basically be proud of him. that's what i feel in my heart about new jersey. i'm proud of this state and its people but i know there's still much more we need to do together to ensure the future we want for all of our children. so this is not the time to leave unfinished business for me. the stakes are too high and the consequences are too real. so new jersey, whether you like it or not, you're stuck with me. let me say this, i'm grateful -- i'm grateful to the many people both in new jersey and around the country who have spoken to me over these last weeks and months. i'm grateful for their confidence in me. i'm grateful for the faith that they place in me. it's an unbelievably humbling and inspiring. i only hope i'm able to live up to this confidence and to make it count doing the jobs i need to do here at home.

questions? [inaudible] >> i have an interest in being employed in the future and i'm not going to preclude any employment in the future, whether that would be president or working at in his, brian, so i'm not going to preclude any chances. josh? [inaudible] >> well, i didn't want to. but, you know, when you have as many both really serious people come to you and tell you that you really needed to reconsider, and then all kinds of regular folks. i mean, we got fedexed over the weekend at home from a farmer in

nebraska, my children -- asking my children to sit me down and tell me that it was okay to miss their games and their concerts and their events because our country needed me more, and that if they did that, that they would -- they would be remembered in the history books as the people who changed the course of our country's history. we got literally dozens of letters like that at home, to our home address, from people all over the country. and i think as this all started to accumulate over the past couple months, mary pat and i just decided, you know, we better really rethink this. and so we did. but in the end, my commitment to the state is what overrode everything else. i mean, i asked for this job. i fought hard to get this job. and my job here isn't done and it just never felt right to me to leave now. and so i rethought it because

when as many serious people, really earnestly come to you and ask you to do it, i think you have an obligation to rethink it. so we did but we came out in the same spot. [inaudible] >> no. sorry. [laughter] >> no, no. you screwed around and now you're out. next? charlie? >> [inaudible] >> none of them were a factor. i have a great political team and they were ready to do whatever i wanted them to do and i have complete confidence in them. none of that was a factor, the deciding factor was it did not

feel right to me, in my gut, to leave now when the job here is not finished. and i could never get by that, charlie. and i have lots of people talking me and trying to get me by it and i could never get by it and that's why i made the decision back to kevin. kevin? [inaudible] >> obviously, they weren't that good. [laughter] >> no, i wouldn't single anybody how the i mean, there were a lot of extraordinary people, extraordinarily accomplished people and a lot of really great, regular americans who wrote and called and tweeted. all kinds of stuff. and, no, there ain't any particular person. but in the end, you know, this decision is my decision. it's not anybody else's decision and there was no one who could

convince me of it. it's got to be your decision and today this decision is my decision. >> governor, how much of this is -- [inaudible] >> let me dispel that because i've seen some really wild reporting about this. mary pat and the kids were completely behind me running, if that's what i wanted to do. and, you know, three weeks ago, mary pat woke me up at 5:00 in the morning and said, if you want to run, go for it. go for it. don't worry about me and the kids. we'll be fine. mary pat, you know, in the last number of weeks has not been an issue at all. and nor are my children. they were all great. i talked to all of them about it. obviously, we talked a lot about it. together as a family. and they were -- they were, you know, listen, dad if that's what you want to do, it will be fun. you know, my son andrew said, it

will be a great adventure for us if you decide to do it. so they were all great. so it really was not a family decision. in the end they laid it all on me and told me i had to decide. so i did. [inaudible] >> no, listen. what i care most about is that the country is better. and i think the country will be better by making sure that president obama is a one-termer. and so, you know, no, i don't worry about that. but i don't think you can worry about that stuff. i mean, in the end, i have a great job that i'm really committed to and where we made great progress and i'm going to continue to do that job and whatever the future holds, the future holds. i don't think any of you -- you've covered me during the campaign in '09, you probably didn't think years later, in october of '11 you'd be sitting here asking me if i thought i missed my one chance to run for

president of the united states. life takes you in a bunch of different directions. marsha, marsha. [inaudible] >> no. i mean, you can't -- you can't make these decisions with any regret, marsha. how could i be regretful being governor of the state of new jersey? you know, i have a great job. and i love doing it. and i'm doing some great things here. and there's a lot of great things still to accomplish. and so i don't feel any sense of regret at all. you know, i felt like it was my obligation as i said before. given the seriousness and the amount of people who were coming to me and asking me to reconsider, to reconsider and i did and i thought a lot about this. i spent a lot of time, but in the end, i came back to the same

place that i was in the whole last year when everyone was asking me, which was i don't want to leave this job. i made a commitment to the people of new jersey to fix the state and do this job and it just never felt right to me to leave, and so i didn't. mark? [inaudible] >> listen, any advice i have for the people who are running i'll give directly to the people who are running. i know you like me to use you as a conduit but i'll resist the temptation. the reason it's so important is because the president failed. and the reason why it was so important, you were there and read the speech that i gave at the reagan library. i think this is, you know, just an example of somebody who has failed the leadership test. and more than anything else in these jobs, what i've learned is, there's no substitute for knowing how to lead.

everything else you can be taught. you can't be taught how to lead and how to make decisions. and, unfortunately, even though there are areas as you know that i support this president in, overall, he's failed the american people because he's failed that absolute litmus test to be president and that's to know how to lead and he's failed that test. terry? [inaudible] >> nothing's changed. you know, terry, it's just all you folks have shown up and i get to have this press conference. nothing's change. education reform is still my priority for the lame duck session and whatever we can't get done will be the next top priority for the legislature. and so, you know, all the things i've talked about over time nothing has changed in that regard. this has been a really interesting time for me. and i continue -- i will continue to speak out when i

feel compelled to. you know, you asked if there was any regret, marsha. the only regret that i have is that, you know, i've given such great tv exposure to some of the local reporters. who's going to have cats on tv now that i'm on this race. nobody is going to have cats on tv. you won't be able to get on news 12 for god's sakes. that's the only regret that i have. max? max? [inaudible] >> i'm not prepared to make any endorsement today. you know, as i said before, i'm not a halfway kind of guy. if i feel like there's someone in the field who gives us the best chance to defeat the president, i'll endorse that person and i'll work hard for that person. but i'm not in a position today to make that judgment.

>> governor, in -- [inaudible] >> why do you think that and was nancy reagan among one of them? >> you'd have to ask the people who are beating the drums. i noticed they got a lot louder and that's why i reconsidered the decision. and as far as mrs. reagan, i had a great time with her last tuesday at the reagan library. it was one of the great honors of my life to be invited by her to speak there. and we had a great dinner together. and whatever conversation i had with nancy reagan is between nancy reagan and that's why the reporting on all of this has been a little bit careless because i know who was at the table and maybe some of them overheard things that she was saying to me. i don't know. but whatever occurred between me and mrs. reagan is between me and mrs. reagan and nobody else.

steve in the back. [inaudible] >> listen, you know, my view on that is that -- that's not even a relevant question anymore 'cause i've made the decision not to run. and i made the decision not to run because i believe in my heart that this is where i belong. that i made a commitment here to the people of this state. and i'll tell you mary pat and andrew and i were out to dinner the other night add whole bunch of people come up to me, i hope you will run for president if that's what you want to do but i'll really miss you here. and that did a lot to re-enforce what i was feeling myself. because when you get in this whirlwind a little bit you begin to not lose your bearings a little bit and people in new jersey got me back on course over the time that this has been

publicly considered. yes. >> you have an election coming up in 2011, what's your -- [inaudible] >> to advance your agenda and what you've done so far? >> i don't see it as a referendum, bob, i really don't because these things are district by district races and given the condition of the map and all the rest of that i don't see a referendum on me. i see it a referendum on the candidates on the ballot. we have some good candidates on the ballot on our side which i'm trying to help if i can. and to the extent they will get elected they will help move me to move our agenda forward more rapidly than it is now but on the other hand, you know, i found a way to get some things done even though we don't have the legislature. so, you know, we have some tools. we'll see how we do. in the back. na[inaudible]

>> as i said in the statement, i made the final decision last night. >> governor -- [inaudible] >> neither. you know, i didn't really take a lot of time thinking about it that way. i am who i am. i think, you know, there's not a lot of -- people would have judged me up or down based upon what they see and what they see is what they get. and new jersey has learned that. and, you know, to the extent we had some appeal for people around the country i think it was probably based on that. john, jonathan. na[inaudible]

>> i don't think it says anything particularly about the field. i'd like to think it says something about me. and there are folks who feel like what we've done here in new jersey in blue state in getting people together and getting things done is something they'd like to see in the country and i think that's what it really was all about, john. you know it wasn't my charming good looks. you know that. i think it was the accomplishment that we had in new jersey that made people excited that maybe a divided government could work. maybe leading in a very bold and direct way affords compromise and i think that's what it's all about. and i've answered about vice president a bunch of times and, you know, the fact is, i don't think anybody in america who would necessarily think my personality is best suited to being number 2. lis

lisa? [inaudible] >> sure it is. it's a no until it's a yes. [laughter] >> it's a no until it's a yes. i would reconsider my no and i did but the no never changed as you can tell from standing right here today that i'm saying no. so it's the same kind of answer -- you know, listen, i know it's your guys' job to ask me this question like a dozen different ways and i'll answer it almost a dozen different ways which infuriates my staff but in the end the answer remains the same as it always has been. [inaudible] >> we were in the midst of the reconsideration when i went to the reagan library so it really didn't make a difference in that

regard. i mean, you know, those are things that i feel and have felt for some time and i thought that was the appropriate forum to speak out about them. but, no, the speech itself or the reaction to the speech really didn't have any effect on my thought process. it was great to be there. i enjoyed the evening tremendously. i thought i had some important things to say which was why i said them. but in the end, you know, it didn't have any effect on my decision on how i was going to do things. [inaudible] >> 'cause i said no and i've spoken to a lot of people this morning and told them the answer is no, so they can hear me personally. a lot of people have encouraged and people think i'm serious and

i think they understand that this was a long shot for them to change my mind in the first place. but i felt an obligation given as i said before both the seriousness and the amount of people that were asking me to reconsider to reconsider but in the end they didn't change my mind because i feel in my heart what i'm doing is right. and that is to say in new jersey is to stay committed of the job that the people of this state gave me. again, i can't emphasize this enough. if you're looking for something else, it's not there. it just didn't feel right to me to leave before the job was done. [inaudible] >> i don't know. again, i think in response to jonathan's question. it's the same thing. no, you got to let me answer first. you're new here. you don't know the rules here. [laughter] >> people in the front will let you know that's not allowed here. the fact is, i think it's about what we accomplished here in the

state. and i think that's why -- they weren't searching. they came right to one target. and it was me. and it's been me for a long time. i think it's because of what we've accomplished here and i'm proud of that but there's a lot more to do here. the state was pretty messed up when i took it over. and we're making great progress towards fixing it but we're not there. and so i think that's what it was about. and i don't think it's a reflection on other folks. monica? [inaudible] >> well, you know, i found that the advice i got from other people who had run for president was very dependent on whether they won or lost. the ones who lost calls itself a nightmare and the ones who won typically said it was really awful. it was a slight difference but not a significant one in terms of making your decision.

no one to me endorsed the joy for running for president in my experience. nobody really talked about that. everyone talked about the sense of duty and obligation and honor and excitement about it. but nobody said, hey, this would be a really good thing to do if you have nothing else to do. you know, it was not characterized that way. ben? [inaudible] >> well, i think -- i think a bunch of the people who are candidates wouldn't say something like that 'cause i think they want me to think kindly of them. so even if they were annoyed, i think they would hold their fire. no one said it to me. and i don't think it was that kind of sense. i mean, i think people who objectively look at this are not

something that i stoked. this was something that i kept trying to, you know, push off but eventually just became more than i could push off without giving those folks a real serious reconsideration, which is what i did and now, you know, i made the judgment. and that's that. [inaudible] >> look at the reagan speech. i mean, the reagan speech is my statement on the state of our country, both at home and around the world. and the things we need to do to fix it. i thought long and hard about this speech. i wrote most of it myself. and it's how i feel about where our country is and the challenges we face right now and what we need to do to change it. i'll continue to speak out as i said before, i'll continue to speak out on issues that really matter to me.

and where i think my voice will be useful. and i'll play a role to the extent that i can be helpful and i'm vice chairman for the rga so i'll be working for the republican gubernatorial candidates around the country in the next year and a quarter or so, so there's lots of things for me to do and if people want me to do along they're not inconsistent to really perform my duties here at home. charlie? na[inaudible] >> you worry a lot more than i do, charlie.

[laughter] >> really? we need to get you some help. you're obviously overwrought. it's great to see charlie is so concerned about my future. you couldn't tell it about reading his columns. i thought you have one idea about my future, charlie. matt? [inaudible] >> i didn't mark it down in my diary, okay? it's an evolving thing. i have lots of people as you all know, you know about lots of different contacts that i had and folks who approached me. i can't say that there was a moment. mary pat and i -- at one point, i don't remember when it was, had a conversation where we said, you know, we better start really thinking about whether we need to reconsider this decision. and it certainly was in the last few weeks but i can't pinpoint a

particular date. yes, sir. [laughter] >> that's such a shock to people in new jersey. i don't even know how to address it. it's crazy. it really is. listen, that's when i knew that i could actually win. [laughter] >> when they started -- when all these people started shooting at me before i even got in the race. so that's when -- that's when you really know you got something special is when they start shooting at you before you get in. you know, listen i've said all along i'm a principled conservative. but i also said in the reagan speech as ronald reagan did, you have to compromise at times to get things done. and that doesn't mean compromising your principles but it means not getting everything you want. now, someone called for that liberal being compromising, then you're dead wrong. in the end, you know, you look at ronald reagan's record.

that's what i talked at the library. ronald reagan had a record that was replete with principled compromises in order to move our country forward. someone wants to accuse me of that, i'll be happy to wear that mantle like ronald reagan did. josh? [inaudible] >> are you a member -- [inaudible] >> no. that's all stuff to be seen in the future. i think it's very important for the republican party in new jersey to play an important role in determining who the nominee of our party is going to be. and i'll continue to give advice, advice to folks in my party in the state about how we

should conduct ourselves in the presidential process and hopefully my advice will be followed. and we'll see how it goes. terry? na[inaudible] >> i can't say that. i'm not yet midway in my term. and there will come a time when i will have to make that decision. if you don't make any decision before you absolutely you have to and i don't feel i have to make that decision now. so i'm not going to make that decision now. no. ginger? [inaudible] >> not to respond. i think you guys know this. i'm not particularly self-conscious about this.

it's not a news flash that i'm overweight. i saw letterman's top 10 list. 8 out of the 10 were really funny. and i saw that. i saw some of the stuff that some of the other folks did, you know, listen, you got to know who you are in this life, you know, and i think for me their job is to be funny and if one of the things they want to make funny is my weight, i'm a public figure. the point is that they are funny and i thought letterman the guy who came up with jokes weren't about me not being weight, that guy was really good. so there was a lot of good spots but i watched him and some of the stuff i didn't see it initially and andrew would come with my computer, hey, dad, did you see this one. so he's been grounded.

[laughter] >> but, you know, it's really -- it's not something that bothers me. i'm not self-conscious about it and i'm self-aware and it is what it is. and hopefully they continue to be funny. that's the most important thing if they're going to poke fun at you, make sure you laugh in the process. brian? na[inaudible] >> i made the decision last night. i made the decision last night and i called my folks this morning and told them. and told them i wanted to announce it this afternoon. you know, i went to -- i went to

bed last night for the first time in a few days knowing exactly what i wanted to do. and then i called everybody this morning and let them know what we were doing and that was it. so it's a very complicated process. and for the politics it was never a consideration. it was about me getting to the point write believed it was okay for me to leave and i never got there, brian. i mean, it's just -- i never could justify the idea of leaving the state early and before the job was done and that's kind of, you know, where it sat. the rest of it is kind of irrelevant. naud na[inaudible] >> listen, i don't imagine i will be asked. i don't think i have the personality to be asked. i mean, seriously, can you imagine? i would always want to be a boot

taster. i mean, seriously, i don't see it. but, you know, it's -- again, it's not relevant, jason. it really isn't. and i don't -- i don't see it happening. you don't run for that job. i'm not looking for that job. and after everything i've said today, you know, this is the job i want. and this is the job i want to do. and i'm going to keep doing as best as i can do it over the course of people that people give me the opportunity to do so. so that's what i'm focused on. i'm not focused on the rest of it. lisa? na[inaudible] >> i have to point out to those who are new here. she anticipated my answer and she lost the moment. i have no other answer. that was my answer. i will just get in.

this isn't hard. i've run campaigns before, i've run lots of campaigns before. if you want to get in you get in anytime you want to get in a race there's pluses and minuses for your candidacy. i've never seen pro economists put in together where there's all-pros and no cons. every time you get into something you get in. that's the way it works. matt? na[inaudible] >> i have a complete confidence for all those guys. i got elected and this is about my commitment to those in the state. it's not about any lack of confidence that i have in anybody else. it's about the fact i'm the one who made the commitment. i'm the one who asked for the job and campaigned for the job and asked for it and that's, you know, in the end is what it was all about with my commitment to

them. and it does not lack any confidence in any of the people that i work with at all. it's just about my commitment to the folks who voted for me and who elected me and even to the folks who didn't vote for me but who now have me as their governor. it's not about any lack of confidence in that. marsha? na[inaudible] >> you know, i'm not a political analyst. i don't get to be paid one on tv and i'm not going to talk about that. halperin does it all the time. he'll write a book about it. it's not my job to do that. if i have particular advice for any of the republican candidates, the appropriate way for me to convey that advice is to get on the phone with them and talk with them directly and not through all the cameras. and so if i have advice, if i have an observation on that stuff, i'll give it to them directly but i'm not going to do

it out here. >> governor -- [inaudible] >> taking you out of the equation -- [laughter] >> is that a fair question to put to any candidate? >> no. and, you know, ginger asked me before about the comedians and i think that they'd been great and they have free rein to do what they want to do. the people who appear to be serious commentators are among the most ignorant people i've ever heard in my life. you know, to say that because you're overweight, you are, therefore, undisciplined -- you know, i don't think undisciplined people get to

achieve great positions in our society. and so, you know, that kind of stuff is just ignorant. and the people who wrote it are ignorant people. and, you know, at least the comedians don't try to pretend to be serious. they're comedians and that's fine. and those who write that stuff in what appears to be serious columns, you know, they're just jokes. and what they do is, they further stigmatize people in what is really irrelevant to the people's ability to do a particular job. and so, you know, those are the people that we should really, you know, look down upon. are those folks, those comedians they get paid to do that stuff and like i said, as long as they're funny, what the hell do i care. yeah. na[inaudible]

>> these are on a million important issues and i think, you know, the public to an extent is really hungering for that. to get on to the issues that we all know are the really important issues. how do we deal with our short-term deficits? how do we deal with our long-term debt? how do we reform a tax code that's putting a wet blanket over our economy and how is america's standing in the world if we don't have our house in order at home? and how do you intend to do all that and tell the people the truth about, you know, moving from an entitlement society to an opportunity society. i'm trying to make sure that those things are available for our kids. i don't hear a lot of conversation about that. i hope to hear it and one of the reasons that i gave the speech

that i gave at the reagan library and i think i said it at the time was to try to spur more of that discussion. i said that in the q & a, i think. to try to spur a discussion on it and try to nudge people along to do that. and that's -- that's what i'm going to continue to try to do because i think that's what's in the best interest of our country and that's my, you know, first obligation as a citizen is to speak out on the things that i think are in the best interests of our country. that's kind of, you know, where i sit on that one, darrell. i think it's up to the candidates themselves to decide it's their campaign. they get to decide what they want to convey and what they want to communicate. in my view they should be communicating -- i'm freaking you out, aren't i? in my view we should be communicating and saying things on the really important issues and i don't think that they've done that yet to a large extent. josh? na[inaudible]

>> you know, not really. it's really about this job, and about this place in the end. you could argue any side of any of that stuff, josh, the right and wrong about those decisions and believe me i've had people, you know, tell me that i was right in one point and wrong in another and that's not really the issue. the issue for me again was i made a commitment to the state and in the end i could not defy in my mind, in my heart that i was going to leave here 20 months into my term. i just couldn't get by that. i felt like i owed the people of new jersey more than that. and despite the fact that i am

incredibly inspired by all these people who have said all these amazing things to me and i think meant them, that's one thing. but to get by the idea that i worked so hard to get this job and asked for it and then to walk away from it after 20 months, that was the only factor in the end. i could not get by that. anything else could be dealt with and i could not get by that. and as long as i couldn't get by that, then there's no reason to have any further discussion. so that's where it sat. na[inaudible]

>> none. new jersey unemployment is significantly lower than when i got here. we created 50,000 new private sector jobs in the last 20 months. after having lost 117,000 in the year before i got here. and, you know, my position on all those other issues have been made really clear to people over time. it didn't affect my election here in new jersey and i don't think it would have affected me if i ran for president. in the end, none of that played a role. you know, i hate to be repetitive but you guys keep kind of asking the same question, looking for something else. and i want to be really clear, there is nothing else. everything else in my mind could be dealt with. i had to get by the idea that i was leaving this job after 20 months and i could not make myself feel right about that. and if i couldn't feel right about it, then i wasn't going to do it. that's the way i felt, a year ago. that's the way i feel now and that's the way i felt for most

of the time in between. so you're looking for other factors, there really aren't. that's it. [inaudible] >> the thought process was i couldn't get by that. i just couldn't get by it. like in the end all the other stuff i felt could get by with. it's not dispositive issues. the dispositive issues was can i look in the mirror and justifying after leaving this job after 20 months and i couldn't. i couldn't walk away on my commitment from the people of this state and so i made the decision that i made. max? na[inaudible] >> i think anybody would be troubled by that, anybody would be troubled by the use of that word in any came back that wo-- any trouble.

and i don't know what it says about governor perry or not, i have no idea. i don't know enough about that. but just the use of the word, i think, is something that troubles most americans because i think that's a phrase of a long-away past that shouldn't have been part of our vocabulary then and it certainly shouldn't be a part of our vocabulary now. pardon me? [inaudible] >> no, i haven't said anything about anybody. i haven't ruled anybody in or out, you know? i haven't ruled anybody in or out so let's be clear. it's not on any particular commentary on anybody. i'm here to make clear what my position is on running for president and i think i have done that. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> no. i don't think i would have resigned as governor. but as a practical matter, i

would have been gone a lot, you know, and i would have -- iowa and new hampshire and south carolina and florida and nevada and, you know, all those places and so it would not leave you a lot of time to physically be in the state to be able to do the job and so when i say walking away from it, i mean, two things. i remember one walking away from it physically to chain and, two, i would never get into a race that i didn't think i was going to win and so my expectation would be if i got in, i was going to win and then i couldn't hold both jobs. and so, you know, you would have to leave it officially then but, no, i never gave any thought of resigning to run at all. >> i don't feel a whole lot different. i didn't find it to be emotionally trying. i mean, it was a tough decision

but i'm used to making tough decisions and i dealt with it in the way i deal with making decisions. i try to get all the information that i possibly can. i try to listen to as many people as i can listen to who i believe has something relevant and who have the kind of gravitas to make their opinion matter. i played devil's advocate with people who are making the arguments to me to try to punch holes in their argument to try to open my own mind up. and then i tell them to leave me alone. and that's where we were this weekend. i mean, i told my folks, don't bother me. don't call, don't ask for updates. just leave me alone. and they were great about that. they all left me alone this weekend because i just really needed time with me and with mary pat just to really kind of now, you know, take in, absorb everything that i'd heard and learned and then see whether i could look in the mirror and

make that call. and so, you know, my originally hope was that i did that -- that i would do that by sunday so we could do this on monday but i wasn't quite there and last night i was. i didn't find it any emotionally draining and i never saw it as a burden lifted off me because i never saw it as a burden. i saw it as an compliment from someone who was in office 20 months and people asking him as loudly and clearly asking him to run for president and i never saw this as a burden and similarly, i don't see this job is a burden. this job is an extraordinary opportunity. i get up every morning having no trouble getting out of bed 'cause i know that every day i got a chance to do something great and i don't do something great every day but every day i have the chance. that's an enormous blessing. that's a job that's a blessing and that's the way i view this job.

and any of the decisions that i had to make over the course of the last, you know, few weeks about this was another blessing. and to be born in newark and be a regular guy from new jersey who people were considering to run for president of the united states. that's an enormous gift and blessing that people gave it to me. i wasn't emotionally tried by it. it was a decision, a serious and important decision that i gave serious and important consideration to and at the end of the day, you know, you decide. as soon as you're ready, you decide. you don't dawdle. you don't linger. you decide. that's who i am. that's how i do things. that's what i did in this case. and i don't have any second thoughts about it. at the end i tell my folks all the time, when we make decisions and we believe we're doing the right thing, tear off the

rearview mirror. there's no reason to look back. we look ahead, i look ahead for the challenges that i have as governor. i look ahead to the opportunities we'll have to make our place a better state and i look forward to any opportunity i'm going to have to be able to play a meaningful role in helping to heal our country because no one can look at this country and not know that we're hurting and not know that our people are scared and they want leadership and they want someone to just express a strong direction about where to go and to lead us there. and to the extent i can play any role, i will do so. no one would really view that as a burden. that's a great gift, to have the opportunity to play a role in that. that's the way i view it. that's the way i feel today and so, you know, i got stuff to do this afternoon. i've got a job to do here. i'm going to continue to do it. i appreciate all of you coming today. i appreciate the great deference

that you've given to me to try to make this decision. it's an important thing for all of us to understand. we all have our jobs to do and i think you all have done your jobs well. i appreciate the way you've covered all this and i'm going to get back to work. thank you all very much. >> new jersey governor chris christie at the state house in trenton spending the last 50 minutes or so telling people he's not running for president and explaining his reasons why and answering reporters questions and telling the citizens of new jerseyans new jersey, like it or not you're stuck with me. watching the press conference this afternoon michael shear who covers politics for the caucus obligate for the "new york times." which candidate, which republican candidate benefits from governor christie's decision. >> i think to some extent some of them benefit with the sense of stability we'll get in the race now. there's been so much waiting and

wondering whether there's going to be somebody else jumps in. this pretty much ends it but sarah palin but it's unlikely she will run. you have donors and activists and people who are free to move where they are likely to be then for the race and, you know, to that extent probably mitt romney, to the extent there were people sitting on the sidelines kind of wondering whether or not there was going to be somebody else besides him. he may have see some support. >> and the caucus calendar really hastened his decision, correct? >> i think so. i mean, you know, the fact that we're likely to be just where we were last year with the iowa caucuses right after the new year's means that the filing deadlines are coming quickly. new hampshire, you know, within a couple of weeks and then florida by the end of the month for anybody that wanted to be on the ballot and wanted to be a serious contender you pretty

much needed to decide now. and, you know, i think he was pretty clear in the press conference today, you know, saying that's where he was for most of the year. that he really meant no. but that, you know, sort of did reconsider in the last -- in the last few weeks. >> he took time answering lots of questions from reporters. so what's his role now? what's his value on the stump for potential candidates he may support? >> you know, he really deflected a lot of those questions suggesting that he -- you know, in kind of the theme of his whole news conference that he wanted to focus on new jersey. i suspect, however, that there's going to be a lot of candidates for the house and the senate and, of course, the presidential candidates who are going to be eager to have this sort of blunt-speaking, plain-speaking every man kind of guy come out and stand next to them and endorse them. you know, he was asked whether or not he was going to endorse one of his potential would-be rivals. he said no, not at this time.

but, you know, i suspect that at some point there will be an endorsement and that will be an important one. >> he mentioned several times in the speech, too, the reagan library speech of a week and a half ago or so. why was that important to governor christie? >> well, i think -- i think it was important for two reasons. i think if you kind of take what he said on face value, i think he really has delivered a series of speeches over the last year that are policy speeches which he sort of lays out what he -- what his vision is for the country and for the governance of the country. but i think that it was also a moment and his people have said this over the last several days, too, where there was such an outpouring of both kind of big muckity muck that we're there but also people in the audience saying, look, we want to you run. i think it was really a moment for him that encouraged to take another look at the issue. >> you can follow michael shear of the "new york times".com he writes part of the caucus blog and follow him on twitter at the

caucus. michael shear of the "new york times." thanks for that update. >> sure. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns. candidate bios and the latest polling data plus, links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states all at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> with congress back if session this week the house will consider a spending bill that will keep the federal government open for another six weeks through mid-november and the senate is proposing a bill dealing with china's currency. watch our live gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. and use our comprehensive resource on congress to get more information about your elected officials with c-span's congressional chronicle including video of every house

and senate session, voting records, the daily schedules, committee hearings and more. it's washington your way. the c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evan hughes was a lawyer and professor. a two-term governor of new york and though he lost his bid for the presidency, his impact on political history remained serving as a post-war secretary of state and ultimately chief justice of the u.s. he's one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, the contenders, live from the supreme court building in washington, dc. friday at 8:00 pm eastern. for a preview about hughes, watch a number of videos about him at our special website for the series, c-span.org/thecontenders.

is set to release the september jobs electorate we'll show you a portion of his testimony from this morning as we wait for the u.s. senate to return here on c-span2 and that's at 2:15 eastern. >> the hearing will come to orde order. >> good morning, everyone. i look forward to chairman bernanke on the state of the economy and the recent rackets taken by the federal reserve and its insights into the short and

the long-term of the challenges facing the united states economy. my hope for today's hearing is to move beyond the partisan politics and finger-pointing that sometimes colors discussions about the federal reserve and what it should or should not do. instead, i think we should focus today on the economic challenges facing the country and the potential solutions to those problems. all of us on this committee share a belief that congress needs to take action to bolster the economy and to help americans get back to work. similarly, monetary policy has an important role to play in strengthening our economy. millions of americans are still struggling in the wake of the great recession. the economy is not growing fast enough or adding enough jobs to make significant progress in reducing unemployment. just by way of example, 14

million americans are unemployed and 6 million of the jobless, some 43% have been out of work for six months or more. second, private sector job creation which had been well above 200,000 a month in february, march and april fell to less than 20,000 in august. state and local governments are reeling as they lay off workers to meet a balanced requirements. payrolls have been slashed by 345,000. my home state of pennsylvania, the unemployment rate after declining is 7.4% in may. has climbed to 8.2% in august with more than a half a million people out of work. economic indicators also have been weakening abroad. with financial conditions in the eurozone deteriorating, contagionants to other parts of

the world is now a significant risk to the global economic outlook. >> the fed has already used a variety of approaches to ease monetary policy. and the current economic environment we needed to use all available tools to support our economy in the short run. we also need to take the actions that will get our fiscal house in order in the medium and long-term. the two re-enforce each other. getting our economy growing at a healthy pace is critical to sustain deficit reduction. as chairman bernanke discussed to the economic club of minnesota, and i'm quoting, there's ample room for debate about the appropriate size and role of government in the long term. but in the absence of adequate demand -- adequate demand from the private sector, a substantial fiscal consolidation in the shorter term could add to the head winds facing economic growth and hiring.

the federal reserve act created the federal reserve system and established two objectives for the nation's monetary policy. maximum employment and stable growth. stable prices i should say. this is what is commonly referred to as the fed's dual mandate. maximum employment and stable prices. the federal reserve's recent announcement that it will ease monetary policy further is consistent with that dual mandate. the federal open market committee said it will purchase $400 billion of long-term treasury securities and pay for those securities by selling in equal amount of shorter term government debt. in the so-called operation twist, the fed is not expanding its portfolio but shifting its composition so that the average maturity of its holdings is longer. the goal of the fed's actions to bring down long-term interest rates further reducing borrowing

costs for businesses and consumers, sparking additional economic activity and ultimately boosting employment. the fed also affirmed that it will continue to pay close attention to inflation and inflation expectations. some in washington have called on the fed to quote resist further extraordinary intervention in the u.s. economy, unquote, arguing that action by the fed could further harm the u.s. economy. i disagree. with so many americans out of work and with gdp growth having shown -- having slowed through less than half of 1% annual rate of the first half of the first of the year additional actions are needed to strengthen the economy. let me say a word before i conclude about an issue that's in front of the senate right now. currency as it relates to china. this problem has had a substantial harmful impact on

the u.s. economy and american jobs. a recent report by the economic policy institute finds that the u.s. trade deficit with china caused in large measure by china's undervaluation of the euan has cost our economy 2.8 million jobs over the past decade. chairman bernanke in testimony before this committee april of 2010 noted that, quote, most economists agree that the chinese currency is undervalued and has been used to promote a more export-oriented economy, unquote. the chairman also said at the time that it would be, quote, good for the chinese to allow more flexibility in their exchange rate unquote. in that quote we should continue to press for a more flexible exchange rate, unquote. i agree with those statements by the chairman. this week the senate has the opportunity to take action in response to china's unfair trade practices when we vote on

bipartisan legislation to crackdown at long last on china's currency malaysian. last night the senate passed the first procedural hurd well a strong bipartisan vote to move forward with debate on the legislation. so to sum up briefly, more than two years after the recovery officially began, our economy remains very vulnerable. unemployment is stuck above 9%. and long-term unemployment remains at near record levels. we need to use every weapon in our arsenal to support a stronger economic recovery. chairman bernanke, thank you for being here today. thank you for your testimony that you're about to give in a few moments. and i look forward to working with you and others to make sure that we can focus on the economy, creating jobs, putting america back to work. vice chairman brady? >> chairman casey, i join with you in welcoming chairman bernanke to today's hearing on the economic outlook.

unfortunately, ominous clouds are gathering. economic growth is stagnant. we have 6.8 fewer payroll jobs today than when the recession began in december, 2007. according to economists, carmen reinhart, recoveries from financial crises are weak and vulnerable to external shocks that may trigger double-dip recession. republican members of congress recognize this. we're critical of the president's expensive economic policies because not only have they failed to spur job growth and restore business and consumer confidence, but also as we feared, they've left america susceptible to double-dip recession. today america faces greater risk from the european debt crisis. the united states europe face a crisis and i'm worried about the crisis in financial markets as well as the broader economy. i'm anxious mr. chairman to hear your assessment of the

eurocrisis and any steps the federal reserve may take to quarantine any contagion. in response to the financial panic the federal reserve took extraordinary action to stabilize u.s. financial institutions in markets during the fall of 2008. many of these actions were both necessary and proper. instead of rehashing the past, however, i would instead like to initiate a discussion on the framework for monetary policy in the future. nobel laureate economist said if you want a certain policy outcome you have to use the right policy lever. unfortunately, too many washington policymakers are ignoring the wisdom. monetary policy affects price. in contrast, budget tax and regulatory policies affect real output in jobs. while the great contraction from august of 1929 to march of 1933 prove the bad monetary policy can shrink production and destroy jobs, good monetary

policy cannot accelerate economic growth or foster job creation except in the very short term. washington, congress facts business investment production and job creation to its budget tax and regulatory policies. if the prospects for a swelling federal debt, higher tax and an additional costs from the president's health care plan as well as burdensome regulation are detouring entrepreneurs from investing, with me building, equipment and software and, therefore, hiring new workers, there is little the federal reserve can do to overcome this drag. until 1978, the federal reserve's mandate regarding monetary policy was merely to provide it in the last currency. that year the full employment and balanced growth act known informally as the humphr humphrey-hawkins act was a dual mandate on the federal reserve to give equal weight and full employment. since 1978 many examines examined what a central bank

should do and have opted for a single mandate for long-term price stability by law 17 member states of the european monetary union and 13 other developed and major developing countries have been stability for the sole goal or the primary goal but the subordination of other goals for their central bank. moreover australia and canada have adopted single mandates through published statement. the time has come for congress to reconsider the federal reserve's mandate. in my view the dual mandate should be replaced with the single mandate for long-term price stability. i will introduce legislation to make this change in the near future. while some may mistakenly claim a single mandate means maximizing employment is unimportant history proves the best way for the federal reserve to maximize employment is of to focus on achieving long-term price stability. under a single mandate the federal reserve would publicly announce an inflation target,

the federal reserve would retain full operational independence from both congress and the president to achieve that inflation target. while i may criticize certain actions that the federal reserve has taken, i want to be absolutely clear, for our economy's sake, the federal reserve must remain independent and free from any undue political pressure in implementing monetary policy. congress should also reconsider the federal reserve's lender of last resort policy. i remain deeply concerned about the precedent set in 2008 regarding clearly insolvent financial institutions. especially aig, bear stearns, fannie mae and freddie mac. in 1913, congressmen envisioned federal reserve would be the lender of last resort during a financial crises. part of the federal reserve is never articulate as the lender of last resort. as allen membership cher observed, the absence of a lender of last resort policy has three unfortunate consequences. first, uncertainty increase. no one knows what we'd done.

second, troubled firms have a stronger incentive to seek a political solution. they ask congress or the administration for support or to pressure the federal reserve or other agencies to save them from failure and third, repeated rescues encourage banks to take greater risk and increased leverage this is the well-known moral hazard problem, end of quote. if the federal reserve were to promulgate a clear statement about its lender of last resort policy it would go far to diminish uncertainty, reduce the likelihood of political interventions and mitigate the moral hazard problem. finally, many years congress ago congress gave the responsibility for exchange rate policy to the secretary of the treasury. this is the vestige of the long defunct fiscal exchange right by controlling the money supply the federal reserve directly affects the foreign value of the u.s. dollar. moreover swings and exchange rate influence domestic price, thus, responsibility for exchange rate policy should be

moved from the secretary of treasury to the federal reserve. chairman bernanke, i look forward to your testimony and the questions that follow. >> chairman bernanke, i would follow a brief introduction. dr. bernanke began a second term on february the 1st, 2010. dr. bernanke also serves as chairman of the federal open market committee, the systems principal monetary policy-making bode. he originally took office as chairman on february the 1st, 2006, when he also began a 14-year term as a member of the board. dr. bernanke was chairman of the president's council of economic advisors from june, 2005, to january, 2006. prior to beginning public service, dr. bernanke was a chaired professor at princeton university and he has been a professor of economics public affairs at princeton since 1985.

dr. bernanke, it's good to have you here. >> thank you. chairman casey, vice chairman brady and others members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the economic outlook and recent monetary policy actions. it's been three years since the beginning of the most intense phase of the financial crisis in the late summer and fall of 2008. and more than two years since the economic recovery began in june, 2009. there had been some positive developments. functioning a financial markets in the banking system in the united states has improved significantly. manufacturing production in the u.s. has risen nearly 15% driven substantially by growth in exports. indeed, the u.s. trade deficit has been notably lower recently than it was before the crisis reflecting in part the improved competitiveness of u.s. goods and services. business investment and equipment in software has continued to expand and productivity gains in some

industries have been impressive. nevertheless, it is clear that overall, recovery from the crisis has been much less robust than we had hoped. recent revisions of government economic data show that the recession was even deeper and the recovery even weaker than previously estimated. indeed, by the second quarter of this year, the latest quarter for which official estimates are available, aggregate output in the united states still had not returned to the level that it had attained before the crisis. low economic growth has in turn led to slow rates of increase in jobs and household incomes. the pattern of sluggish growth was particularly evident in the first half of this year with real gdp estimated to have increased at an average annual rate of less than 1%. some of this weaknesses can be attributed to temporary factors. notably, earlier this year, political unrest in the middle east and north africa, strong growth in emerging market economies and other developments

contributed to significant increases in the prices of oil and other commodities which damped consumer purchasing power. and the crisis in japan disrupted supply chains and production especially in the automobile industry. with commodity crisis coming off their highs and manufacturer problems with supply chains well along resolution growth in the second half of the year seems likely to be more rapid than in the first half. however, the incoming data suggests that other more persistent factors also continue to restrain the pace of recovery. consequently, the federal to market committee, the fmoc now expects a somewhat slower pace of economic growth over coming quarters than it did at the time of the june meeting when committee participants most recently submitted their economic forecast. consumer behavior has both reflected and contributed to the slow pace of recovery. households have been very

cautious in their spending decisions as declines in house prices and in the value of financial assets have declined household wealth and many families continue to struggle with high debt burdens or reduced access to credit. probably the most significant factor to pressing consumer comments has been the poor performance of the job market. over the summer private payrolls rose by only about 100,000 jobs per month on average. half of the rate posted earlier this year. meanwhile, state and local governments have continued to shed jobs as they've been doing now for more than two years. with these weak gains in employment, the unemployment rate has held close to 9% since early this year. moreover, recent indicators including new claims for unemployment insurance and surveys of hiring plans points the likelihood of more sluggish job growth in the period ahead. other sectors of the economy are also contributing to the slower than expected rate of expansion. the housing sector has been a

significant driver of recovery for most recessions in the united states since world war ii. this time, however, a number of factors including the overhang of distressed and foreclosed properties, tight credit conditions for builders and potential home buyers and the large number of underwater mortgages have left the new rate of home construction at only about one-third of its average level in recent decades. >> you'll be able to see all of this hearing later in our program schedule on the c-span networks and, of course, in our video library at c-span.org. we're going to leave this now and take you live to the u.s. senate. because i think it's really poor public policy. i know that back home in all of our states people are concerned about the future, i'm concerned about the future. people are concerned about manufacturing jobs, i'm concerned about manufacturing jobs. it seems to me that mr. president, what we ought to focus son those things that will take us to the places we want to be. i know a lot of times when we're

having these types of economic situations, the country turns inward, the country tries to look for other things to blame the cause of where we are on. and i think that's exactly what this bill is doing. again, mr. president, here we have a situation where our economy is slow, we have a financial crisis in europe which is creating tremendous fear in every country in the world, and what we're looking at doing in this united states senate is creating a trade war with the second largest economy in the world, one that's growing rapidly, one where our exports to this country grew twice as fast in the year 2010 as it did on average to the rest of the world. so mr. president, this to me is one of those bills where you cut your nose off to spite your face. it's one of those bills where you try to make it look like that you're doing constructive -- something

constructive back home when what you're really doing is hurting the u.s. economy. mr. president, we've got three free trade bills coming to the floor that have been held up now over 900 days that i think are going to pass and this body is going to embrace them because we know that this country is losing market share in the three countries that we're reaching an agreement with. we're losing market share in south korea, we're losing market share in colombia, we're losing market share in panama. in other words, the manufacturers in tennessee and virginia and all across this country have lesser ability to sell their goods into these three countries because these free trade agreements are not in place and it's my sense that we're getting ready to do something constructive and in a bipartisan way approve these bills. so mr. president, what is stunning to me is that we'd be

taking up another bill that would actually likely hurt trade with the fastest growing other economy and the biggest other economy in the world. so mr. president, look, to me what we ought to be focused on with china and by the way, china does manipulate its curnz. it does that do that. it has something called a managed float. their financial system is antiquated, it is being liberalized. they understand that what they're doing with their currency has to change. and by the way, over the last five years, the chinese currency has actually appreciated relative to our dollar by 30%. china knows that it has to do even more of that and the fact is as people's standard of living in china improves, they're going to want even greater access to american goods. so mr. president, what we ought to be doing instead of trying to create a trade war with an economy, a country that we want to create better relationships with, is we ought to be

focusing on the real problems that exist in china. there is no question that the chinese government, the chinese government needs to open up procurement policies. as a government, they are a large purchaser of goods. and right now, they have laws in place that cause them to purchase those goods from companies that exist in china. we need to cause them to open up. the secretary-general or the person that we believe to be the next leader of china is going to be here in january and this is something that our president ought to talk with him about when he comes, and create an opportunity for success, for our companies here in america to be able to sell goods to china. secondly, we should focus on intellectual property rights. there is no question that chinese companies take advantage of u.s. companies by stealing intellectual property rights. it exists in almost every area

and that is something that we certainly should be talking to china about. thirdly, we ought to be taking about china investing in this country. i mean the fact is that we would like to see more plants created in this country. we'd like to see more manufacturing occur. so yes, we should be talking to china about making investments in this country and then lastly, certainly we should be creating avenues for chinese consumers to have greater access to american goods. mr. president, that is the type of solution or those are the types of solutions we ought to be talking about. they can be dealt with, certainly, at the executive branch level. there are w.t.o. violations. we ought to be bringing to the w.t.o.'s attention. but this bill, this bill in my opinion is great in optics, it allows senators to go back

home -- by the way, the senate is supposed to be the cooler place. it's interesting that the leadership of the house, the leadership of the house where you might expect a bill like this to move out quickly, a hot piece of legislation, the leader of the house has already talked about what bad policy this is. so hopefully this bill will not gain traction if it passes the senate in the house of representatives. but the fact is this is not the kind of thing the united states senate ought to be taking up and certainly not something the united states senate ought to be passing. mr. president, again, here we are, we're in a situation where we have an economic slowdown, the markets continually get worse and have been, especially, since august 2. we've got a financial crisis in europe where contagion, contagion with those financial institutions is potentially

spreading around the world and here the united states senate in its wisdom is considering creating a trade war to add to that. this is exactly the kind of reaction and behavior that took place in the 1930's. and again, it's almost as if we cannot learn from the past. mr. president, i understand that numbers of senators voted to proceed to this bill and i understand that we ought to have debates on these kind of things. that's what the united states senate is for. but i would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that don't have an investment in this bill -- and again, i realize there are numbers of cosponsors but i would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up, to realize that this is terrible policy. i know that back home it may sound good, but i think when americans understand that what we're really doing is pursuing the wrong issues in the name of trying to make ourselves look good back home.

hopefully, hopefully this bill will not see the light of day. hopefully this bill will not -- we will not have the 60 votes to have cloture on this bill. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. you know, i hear this over and over and over in this body and in the house of representatives that, you know, whenever anybody talks about whenever the president of the united states talks about increasing taxes on millionaires, just making their tax rate the same as middle-class taxpayers, the other side yells class warfare, class warfare, class warfare, against the rich when we know the class warfare in this country has been aimed right at the middle class. that's what's cost so many middle-class jobs, caused so many people in the middle class to see their incomes flat the last 10 years.

when i hear discussions about trade, i always hear characterizations of protectionism or trade war. and mr. president, we're in a trade war. look at the number of jobs that we've lost to china in the last ten years. you don't have to look very far to know every time you go to the store and buy something, it seems that darn near everything is made in china. and it wasn't that way ten years ago, sure wasn't that way 20 years ago. when many of us opposed this, something called permanent normal trade relations with china, letting china join the world trade organization, in those days there was a relatively small trade deficit with china. a trade deficit means we buy more from them than we sell to them. today, that trade deficit with china is about $750 million every single day. every day, we buy $750 million

worth of products from china more, more than we sell to china. and if you have -- if you're buying that much more than you sell, day after day after day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, you end up losing jobs paws these are the things we were making in this country. never -- never in our history, mr. president, do i remember that i can -- looking back i'm not a professional historian but i've never heard anybody say otherwise on this that companies in one country will shut their production down, stop producing steel in steubenville or stop producing other products, chemicals in cleveland or stop producing cars in dayton or stop producing glass in toledo, they'll shut down a plant, they'll move it to another country, often china, and then they'll sell the product back into the home country, into the united states of america. mr. president, that's not a ticket to the middle class for

middle-class americans anymore, for messengers middle-class americans. it's not good economic policy, so which when i hear the opponents to this idea of leveling the playing field saying, oh, my gosh the senate which is supposed to cool the saucer whatever that george washington, thomas jefferson was, cool the hot tea of the saucer, however he said that, and say this is a trade war, that our doing this, our saying simply level the playing field as a trade war is just unilateral disarmament. the chinese understand what a trade war is about. let me give you one story real quick, one example. i was talking to a gentleman who works for paper companies in the united states, including paper companies, we have a lot of -- still have some paper manufacturers in ohio. in chillicothe and west carroll and dayton area and butler

county near cincinnati and other places around the state. he said the chinese which didn't even have a coated paper industry 15 years ago, the kind of paper, the glossy magazine type paper, that the chinese started this industry 15 years ago, they buy their wood pulp in brazil, they ship it to china, they mill it in china, and paper is expensive to transport, it's heavy for cost, for the cost of it and it's bulky for the cost of it. they take the wood pulp from brazil, they ship it to china, mill it in china, sell it back here, the labor cost of making paper is only 10% of the cost, yet they can undercut prices here. why is that? well, they -- we assume they subsidize water and capital and land and energy. we also know they get a 25% additional subsidy because of currency because the chinese game the currency system. they devalue their currency, they underappreciate it if you

will, their currency, meaning they in a sense get a bonus. when they sell anything to the united states, anything, they get a 25% discount. so they can undercut american manufacturers that could be even more efficient than they are. or if the united states sells into china they get a 25% -- we -- our sellers, our producers get a 25% penalty. but look at the job loss, mr. president. this is the whole story. this really is the whole story. and when i hear my colleagues say the ten cosposhes, we have five democrats, senator schumer and i, senator hagan, senator stab know and casey, senators snowe and collins of maine, sessions alabama, burr of north carolina, graham from south carolina. this is a bipartisan effort that got 79 votes out of 98 yesterday. when i hear them say the other side say we're starting a trade

war, look at this. california in the last ten years since pntr, we set up this relationship with china and allowed china into the world trade organization, look at the job loss. califo california lost almost a half a million jobs. most of these are manufacturing. texas lost 232,000. my state lost 103,000 jobs. these are 103,000 people, mr. president, that saw their plant closed. we have lost 50,000 manufacturing plants in this country in the last decade or so. these are 103,596 people that are people. they lose their job at $16 an hour in manufacturing, they often lose their health insurance, they often lose their home. imagine, it's easy for us to talk numbers and easy for us dressed like this and getting paid well-to-do these jobs. it's -- paid well to do these jobs. imagine -- imagine, mr. president, if you -- if --

you know, just imagine a family in richmond or a family in columbus where they lost their job and then they lost their health care, then they lost their home. they have to go to their 12-year-old daughter and say honey, we're going to have to move, we're losing our house, we can't live here anymore. these are terrible human problems. and to dismiss our efforts to try to come to an even, level playing field so we can compete is what we need to do, not calling names of trade war and protectionism and class warfare and all that. mr. president, i'll conclude my remarks, there will be much more in the next two days debate on these issues. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: --

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back. the motion to proceed is agreed to and the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 183, s. 1619, a bill to provide for identification, misaligned currency, to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes. mr. reid: the bill having been

reported, mr. president, i have an amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 694. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 695 to amendment numbered 694. mr. reid: i have a motion to commit the bill with instructions. that's also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to commit the bill s. 1619 to the committee on finance with intruckses to -- with instructions to report back with the amendment numbered 696. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment to the instructions. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 697 to the instructions of the amendment numbered 696 to the motion to commit. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the second-degree amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 698 to amendment numbered 697. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for three weeks president obama not has been traveling around the country calling on congress to pass what he calls his jobs bill right away. here's what he'll say in texas today if he's not said it already: at least put this jobs bill up for a vote so the entire country knows exactly where every member of congress stands. well, mr. president, i agree with the president. i think he's entitled to a vote on his jobs bill. the suggestion that senate republicans are not interested in voting on his jobs bill is not true. i think he's entitled to a vote. it won't surprise anyone to know i don't think it's a good approach, a way that's likely to create jobs, but he's asked for a vote. and i think we ought to accommodate the president of the united states on a matter that he has been speaking about frequently over the last few weeks and give him his vote.

in fact, they've been calling for this vote with great repetition. his press secretary said it on october 3, david pluf, the senior -- david plouff said the same thing september 27. david axlerod, his top strategist called for us to have this vote on september 13. and the president himself, let me count the number of times, one, two, three, four, five, six, secretary of, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12 times the president of the united states over the last few weeks has called on us to have this vote as he put it, i want congress to pass this jobs bill right away. well, i hope that it will not pass because i don't think it's the right direction for the country to take to begin to deal with the joblessness issue but i

do think the president makes an important point that he is entitled to a vote. so if i were to be given an opportunity by my good friend, the majority leader, by offer the president's jobs bill, which we think would be more accurately described as stimulus 2, sort of a redux of the approach and the bill that we approved back in 2009 after which we've lost 1.7 million jobs. so therefore, i would ask consent to set aside the pending motion and amendments in order to offer the amendment which i have just described and hold in my hand at this moment. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: reserving the right to object. i'm not going to do a long

dissertation on stimulus 1, the jobs bill, that we did, to in effect do so much good for our country. i can't talk about the other 49 states but i can talk about what the recovery act did for the state of nevada. it basically saved the state of nevada from going into bankruptcy. hundreds of millions of dollars to help state government stop massive layoffs of teachers and create tens of thousands of jobs in areas like renewable energy. that's enough on the american recovery act. i thought it was extremely important for nevada. other senators can come and talk about what their own states, how it benefited. mr. president, right away is a relative term. the president has been calling for a vote on his jobs bill and rightfully so. why did he start calling for a vote not his jobs bill?

because there was, again, one of the long obstructions that took place in the senate and in the house on an issue that was fairly simple. what was that? funding the federal emergency management agency. these devastating floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and fires had created a situation where fema was about to go broke. you would think we could move on and quickly pass that but no, we couldn't. because something we agreed on in late july that we would fund the government the rest of the year was again brought to the forefront and because the republicans were threatening to close down the government again. so of course the president was calling for his jobs bill, recognizing that what was going on here in the senate and in the house was a waste of time. that is, why were we spending time unnecessarily on funding one of the essentials of government, that is taking care of people who have been devastated by these terrible storms and other calamities.

mr. president, we have moved very quickly after we got through that slog caused by the republicans to get fema funded, and to get the c.r. extended for six weeks. we're now on something that is long, long overdue, china currency. china has been manipulating their currency for a long time. the last ten years we've lost two million jobs because of this. if there were ever a jobs bill, it's this that we're doing on the floor right now. now, i sponsored the president's bill. i'm the one that brought it to the floor. i have announced in a number of speeches i've given out here that i believe that we should move to this jobs bill. i'm sorry, i was handed something that threw my thought process off a little bit here.

so we need to move to this right away. there is no question about that. but to tack this onto the china currency manipulation legislation is nothing more than a political stunt. we all know that. if we don't, we should know, i'm telling everyone. i've said that i'll bring the american jobs act to the floor this boarkd, this work period. we have two more weeks left in this work period. so my suggestion would be this: obviously the republican leader, my friend, the senator from kentucky, wants to do something about the jobs bill. i'm glad that he does. he wants us to move this forward. so my suggestion would be to modify my friend's unanimous consent request and suggest that we have the permission, for lack of a better word, of the

republicans here in the senate to immediately move -- the motion to proceed would be unnecessary, we could move to that as soon as we finished, you have two choices, either as soon as we finished the china currency legislation or we finish the trade legislation senator mcconnell and i have talked about finishing that next week. so i would move to modify his consent agreement, my friend, the republican leader's consent agreement, that we move immediately to the legislation i've introduced on behalf of the president, either after we finish the china currency legislation or after the trade bill, whatever my friend would rather do. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the pending request is a request from the republican leader. mr. reid: which is -- i've asked that it be modified. the presiding officer: does the republican leader so modify

his -- mr. mcconnell: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i listened carefully to what my good friend the majority leader had to say and he was talking about other matters debated at other times, the first stimulus bill which we've i think probably have a basic disagreement on, i think it was almost total failure, he also talked about the debate we had with regard to the continuing resolution which was finally worked out on a bipartisan basis but those are things that occurred in the past. what i'm trying to do here today bisuggesting that we vote on the president's jobs bill but my good friend the majority leader has previously introduced and i gather by way of introduction supports, that we honor the request of the president of the united states to vote on it now. he has been asking us repeatedly over the last few weeks to vote on it now.

now, if my friend the majority leader is saying he doesn't want to honor the president's request and vote on it now, but would like to consider voting on it later, that's something he and i can discuss as we decide how to move forward with senate business. but i think the president of the united states, his policies i generally speaking do not support although i'm happy to support his initiatives on trade, be it ever so late, is entitled to know where the senate stands on his proposal that he's been out talking about over and over and over again the last few weeks, suggesting that we are unwilling to vote on it. and what i'm saying is, we don't agree that ities right policy, but we're -- it's the right policy, but we're more than willing to vote on it. what i hear the majority leader saying, even though he supports

it, he want to vote on it some other time. the president is saying he doesn't want to us vote on it some other time, he wants to us vote on it now. i'd be happy if my friend is saying we're not going to vote on it now i'd be happy to reach an understanding to vote on it later, but my feeling here is that the least we can do for the president is give him a chance to have a vote on his proposal now as he has requested on numerous occasions. so i will object to the modification, understanding full well the majority leader and i off the floor will have further discussions about when we might move to the president's bill and give him the vote that he's been requesting. mr. reid: mr. president, further reserving my right to object. 14 million people in this country are out of work. what a charade we have going on here. we're in the midst of some of the most important legislation we've done this entire year. china currency manipulation. and we now have a proposal that

is ridiculous on its face. that is, we vote with no debate on the president's jobs bill. this is senseless, it's unfair to bring this up in this form, and we're going to get to this and we're going to do it either as soon as we finish this china currency or after we finish the trade bills, whatever i can work out with my republican colleagues so that i can move to it. it takes 60 votes to get to this legislation, 60 votes to get to it. and so the american people i'm sure can see through this very clearly that this is nothing more than a political stunt. it's clear that we need a full debate on this. we don't need a filibuster, and that time will come very, very soon. so i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, if i may elaborate further. we've had a request from the

president on multiple occasions to vote on what he calls his jobs bill, and to vote on it now. i just to count up again, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12 times the president has asked us over the last few weeks to vote on what he calls his jobs bill now. i don't think the president is saying here he wants an extensive debate about it. i think he's saying he wants a vote on it. and i wanted to disabuse him of the notion that somehow we're unwilling to vote on his proposal. we are more than happy to vote on it. i understand why my friend the majority leader may have some reservations about going forward on this. i've read a number of critiques of this legislation by democratic senators, one part of it or another. but look, even though there is

bipartisan opposition to the president's jobs proposal, bipartisan opposition to it, i think he's entitled to a vote. and so i'm sorry that it appears we will not be able to achieve this vote that the president has repetitiously asked for over the last few weeks. i'd like to give him that vote. and we'll be talking to the majority leader about when we might have an opportunity to vote on his proposal, the president's proposal, which the majority leader introduced, which he has been requesting us to vote on. the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: the president introduced his jobs bill. immediately the republicans continue their obstruction on issues very simple, but maintain the floor. there are things going on here, you just can't automatically move to things. we know the senate procedure. it takes 60 votes to get on a piece of legislation. the president was calling upon

congress, and especially the republicans in congress, to allow his jobs bill to move forward. as i indicated, we were hung up here on issues that had very little to do with the jobs bill. in fact we shouldn't have been doing it. all the time, i repeat, hung up on fema funding, on the continuing resolution, which should have been approved quickly, because we already agreed to that last july, but they reneged on that even. and threatened shutting down the government unless fema was paid for the way they wanted it. and we were able ultimately to win that debate, but it took a long time. so when the president said he wants to notify his legislation right away, he was absolutely candid and forthright. yes, he did want it -- he want to clear the unimportant things on the floor, the stalling tactics on the floor and move to his bill. that's what we're going to do. what i would be willing to do,

mr. president, if my friend would be agreeable, would the republican leader agree to a vote on the motion to proceed to the jobs bill? we could do that. we could interrupt this legislation right here. we could interrupt the trade bills. we could vote on a motion to proceed to the jobs bill. mr. mcconnell: is my friend propounding a consent agreement or simply asking a question? mr. reid: well, if you're interested, i could put it in proper form, but you get the point. the bill is on the floor, to get it on the floor, i need 60 votes. i would be happy to, if the republican leader would agree to a vote on the motion to proceed to the jobs bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me just say to my good friend, i'm prepared to vote on the president's proposal today. if the majority leader wants to vote on it some other day, we can talk about that, about how

to move forward with it. but the president has been repeatedly asking us to take it up and vote on it now. and i'm prepared to do that. with regard to taking it up some other time and voting on it some other day, we'll be happy to talk about that off the floor, as we do frequently on every issue that we deal with. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm sure that in the immediate future, right away, the american people will see once again the republicans are filibustering things they shouldn't be filibustering, this time a jobs bill. mr. mcconnell: i would just add in close, mr. president, i think my good friend's problem here -- and i sympathize with him -- is there's bipartisan opposition to the president's proposal. mr. reid: mr. president, i didn't want to hear my friend say that. i didn't want to get into a long dissertation about bipartisan opposition. there's 53 of us. a majority of democrats will support the president's jobs

bill. mr. mcconnell: the majority leader just confirmed what i was saying, which is that there is bipartisan opposition to this, and we'll discuss at what point the majority leader is comfortable with going forward with this proposal. my only reason for offering it today was to respond to the question -- to the president's request that we vote on it, and we're prepared to do that. if we can't do it today, we'll be happy to discuss, as we always do, the agenda of the senate and when it would be appropriate to vote on it some other time. mr. reid: mr. president, i know that i only have in my head the math i learned from mrs. picker, at the searchlight elementary school. i know when i've told everybody here that we'll get a majority of the senate, that's not really very bipartisan opposition to

this bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i can only quote my good friend, the majority leader, who repeatedly has said, and most recently in early 2007, that in the senate it's always been the case you need 60 votes. this is my good friend, the majority leader, when he was the leader of the majority in march of 2007. aand he said it both when he was the leader of the majority or leader of the minority that it requires 60 votes. so it is not at all unusual that the president's proposal that we raise taxes, that we spend a half a trillion on a second stimulus bill would have to achieve 60 votes. that's the way virtually all business is done in the senate, certainly not extraordinary or unusual. mr. reid: the american people will see very soon that a majority of the united states

senate supports the president's jobs bim bill. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. webb: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: i ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak

for ten minutes and following my remarks that senator barrasso be allowed to speak. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to speak for a few minutes today about an amendment that i introduced that in my view gets to the heart of some of the more troubling chinese trade policies that are threatening the economic security and the long-term competitiveness of our country. it's well-known that many foreign companies, many american companies, operating in china are required to transfer their intellectual property and proprietary technology to china as prerequits for -- prerequisite for doing business in that country. despite ainsurances from -- despite assurances from chinese leadership earlier this year that this was no longer -- quote -- "official chinese policy" china does continue to be aggressive in its pursuit of

intellectual property as it seeks to do its own innovation. companies require the transfer of proprietary technology in order to do business there. if a private company has developed technology on its own and make a business disoition transfer that technology to a joint venture partner in a place like china, flls there are national security issues, we are obligated to respect the free marketplace. there may be -- they may be seeking short-term profits at the expense of long-term competitiveness, but that is a business decision. but it is a different case when the american taxpayer has financed the development of these technologies through federal funding assistance, and i do not believe it is appropriate to allow those technologies simply to be given away to other countries. every american owns a piece of intellectual property that has

been financed through taxpayer assistance. federal dollars that go to war and r&d funding, loan guarantees, public-private partnerships in order to develop the next generation of technologies here are supposed to be making american businesses competitive and generate american jobs, not to help develop other industries such as those in china. my amendment would prohibit that practice. last year the united states chamber of commerce issued a report entitled "china's drive for indigenous innovation." the chamber noted that china's master plan for the development of science and technology is -- quote -- "considered by many international technology companies to be a blueprint for technology theft on a scale the world has never seen before" -- end quote. the report wint ton say that china's "persistent intellectual property theft is compounded by the indigenous innovation

policies which propel technology transfers in order to have being access to chinese markets." "the new york times" recently reported that ford motor company is looking to share proprietary technologies for electrical vehicles in exchange for selling cars in china. the electrical -- the electric vehicle sector has been developed through federal r&d funding, loan guarantees and public-private partnerships by american taxpayers. ford motor company received ads 5.9 billion loan guarantee from the department of energy to advance its vehicle tegnology manufacturing program in 2009. we see these types of transfers in other industries as well. "the washington post" reported last month that general electric has transferred valuable avionics technology to state-owned aviation corporation of china. our government has long supported the aviation industry

through federal research projects. the fruits of american taxpayer support may now be incorporated into chinese commercial airliners in line with china's desire to develop an internationally competitive aircraft dislai could rival american-based boeing. we see similar examples of technology transfer in the nuclear energy sector. according to "the financial times," westinghouse electric has transferred more than 75,000 documents to chinese counterparts as the initial phase of a technology transfer program in exchange for a share of china's growing nuclear market. theis documents relate to the construction of four third third-generation a. pee reactorrers that westinghouse is building in china. american taxpayers supported development of the ap-100 as well as its predecessor through decades of nuclear energy

research and development at the department of energy. in other words, our taxpayers provided years of government support for the design and licensingings of this reactor. in january 2010, in a letter to obama administration officials, the heads of 19 american business and industry associations wrote -- quote -- "of systemic efforts by china to develop policies that build their domestic enterprises at the expense of u.s. firms and intellectual property. signatories to that letter included the business round table, the national association of manufacturers, and the u.s. chamber of commerce." i would like to add that letter to the record at this point with unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. so i'm introducing an amendment today, a very simple amendment. it's intended to protect american innovation and american jobs, and it's intended to make america more competitive and to create jobs here at home.

in cases where technologies are developed with the support of the american taxpayer, my legislation prohibits companies from transferring the technology to countries that, by law, practice, or policy require proprietary technology transfers as a mast doing business. -- as a matter of doing business. specifically, it says, a country which by law, practice, or policy is required to transfer proprietary technology or intellectual property as a condition of doing business in a n. that country will not be the recipient of any of these technologies that were developed with the assistance of the american taxpayer." quite simply, if taxpayers supported the development of the technologies, they own a piece of it and it can't just be given a way. the transfer of publicly supported proprietary technologies by american firms to china and potentially other countries clearly and unequivocally places the

expettive advantage of the american -- competitive advantage of the american economy at risk. our trade laws are designed in order to protect national security, but our economic security is also an element of our national security. intellectual property in the civilian sector should also be protected. my amendment seeks to do that, mr. president. i believe this is an issue that every senator can support. i th, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today as i have repeatedly since the health care bill was signed into law, to offer a doctor's second opinion about issues related to that health care law. mr. president, a group of house and senate republican lawmakers, including senator thune of south dakota, released a startling new report about the president's health care law. the report is entitled "classes:

untold story. taxpayers, employers and states on the hook for flawed entitlement program." i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to have this included as part of the record. thank you, mr. president. many may remember that president obama's health care law established a brand-new federal long-term care entitlement program. it's called the class program, a community living assistance services and supports. well, this "class" program pays a stipend to individuals enrolled when they're untaoeubl -- unable to perform daily living activities. to qualify for the benefits, an individual above to* pay a monthly premium for five years, pay a monthly premium for five years before the federal government starts to pay out any of the benefits. the health care law mandates that the "class" program

collects individual premiums for those five years before the program actually even starts to pay out benefits. well, sounds pretty good, but not so fast. when it comes to the health care law, the american people have come to realize that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. the "class" program was supposed to start january 1 of 2011, ten months ago. but the obama's officials decide -- the obama administration's officials decided to delay the program because they know it doesn't work. it's now known that the "class" program was an intentionally designed budget gimmick. that is correct. an intentionally designed budget gimmick. during senate floor debate of the president's health care bill, i along with many other members on this side of the aisle warned repeatedly, repeatedly that the "class" program is a financial disaster

waiting to happen. the congressional budget office estimated that the "class" program would reduce the deficit by $70 billion over a ten-year period. well, these savings are mythical and they come from the premium dollars that "class" collects those first five years before it pays out a single penny. during those first five years the program is not required to pay out any benefits to any individuals. over its first ten years the congressional budget office says this "class" program will collect $83 billion in premiums and only pay out $13 billion in benefits. but instead of holding on to the $70 billion in excess premiums collected to pay for future expenses we know are coming, members of the senate, members on the other side of the aisle used those same funds to pay for the president obama's health care law.

and to add insult to injury, washington democrats then tried to claim that the $70 billion could also be taoufd pay down on the -- could be used to pay down on the deficit. the american people immediately saw this claim was irresponsible. even the senate budget committee chairman, senator kent conrad from north dakota, admitted that the "class" program was -- quote -- "a ponzi scheme of the first order." something he said bernie madoff would be proud of. yet the president and washington democrats pushed to include this "class" program in the health care law. this new report provides undeniable evidence that administration officials knew the "class" program's design and payment structure were fiscally unsustainable. the obama administration knew it and yet they repeatedly ignored the explicit and persistent warnings. you might ask yourself why is

that? the only logical explanation is that the administration officials chose to hide the "class" program's true cost from congressional lawmakers and the american people. all to advance president obama's ideological health care agenda. this push to advance an agenda rather than reasonable patient-centered health care reforms served only to create yet another unsustainable entitlement program. an entitlement program that this country simply cannot afford. the obama administration's chief -- own chief actuary, a man named richard foster, he repeatedly tried to tell the administration officials that the "class" program was not fiscally sound. internal e-mails from mr. foster first warned administration officials in may of 2009, well before the health care law was enacted. according to that report, this

is what mr. foster's e-mail says. he says the program is intended to be actuarially sound but at first glance this goal may be impossible. he said due to the limited scope of the insurance coverage, the voluntary "class" pra*pl plan would probably not attract many participants other than individuals who already meet the criteria to qualify as beneficiaries. he went on to say while the five-year vesting period would allow the fund to accumulate a modest sum of assets all such assets should be used just to meet benefit payments due in the first few months of the sixth year. and then a key sentence: the resulting substantial premium increases required to prevent fund exhaustion would likely produce the number of participants in a classic assessment spiral. or he says insurance death

spiral would ensue. but what does this mean in plain english? it means the "class" premiums would be too expensive to persuade healthy people to participate. it means the long-term care payment is -- payout is enticing to people who need the care. healthy people don't participate. sick paoerpl do participate. individuals in the health care system call the phenomenal adverse selection. when adverse selection occurs, then the american taxpayer is at very serious risk of being forced to bail out the program when it fails. the report goes on to show that mr. foster repeated his concerns during the summer of 2009. he writes to another administration official. he says, i'm sorry to report that i remain very doubtful that this proposal is sustainable at the specified premium and benefit amounts. but, he says, 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to

believe, he said, that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue. well, let me remind everyone that the chief actuary is a nonpartisan, high-ranking official at the u.s. department of health and human services. the chief actuary's assessment is important to understand the true impact and long-term viability. mr. foster doesn't have an ax to grind. he simply offered his analysis based on the data and the obama administration ignored it. not only did the obama administration officials ignore mr. foster, they stopped requesting his input. but mr. foster wasn't alone. in the fall of 2009, the department of health and human services office of the assistant secretary for planning and evaluation also raised the red flag. according to the report, one

employee wrote in an e-mail on october 22 -- quote -- "seems like a recipe for disaster to me." he said "i can't imagine that "class" would not have high levels of adverse selection given the significantly higher premiums compared to similar policies in the private market." mr. president, just a week after senator thune released this stunning new report on the floor of the senate, media out lets indicated that the department of health and human services closed its "class" program. mr. bob yee announced the closure in an e-mail. he went on to say he would leave his position at the "class" office effective immediately. news reports indicated that the "class" office's employees have either been reassigned or asked to leave. mysteriously, however, the department of health and human services issued a statement denying that the office was officially closing. in fact, the statement failed to say if and when the "class"

program would even start. the obama administration has had 18 months to figure out how to implement this "class" program. recent developments show that they're not even close to resolving questions about the program's solvency. the american people deserve more. the american people deserve the truth. the evidence is indisputable. administration officials at the department of health and human services knew that the "class" program was unsustainable, and they knew it before president obama signed the health care bill into law. they knew it. yet this senate and the house of representatives and the administration failed in their duty to be honest with the american people and to tell them the truth. were administration officials deliberately hiding "class'" true cost for political game? well, this is certainly not the first time during the last several weeks that we have seen troubling reports exposing the

administration's tendency to ignore financial warnings. they ignore the warnings so that they can advance politically important projects to them, projects that turn into expensive failures with the american taxpayers being stuck with the bill. i see this report, this incredible study, this report as yet one more piece of evidence that the president's health care law must be repealed. it must be repealed and replaced with reasonable, commonsense, and financially sound alternatives. patient-centered reforms that allow individuals to get the care they need from the doctor that they want at a price they can afford. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of amendment 680 that we have filed. i am concerned that the bill

before us will have only marginal effects on china's manipulation of its currency. my amendment offers a different approach, one which i believe will be more effective over the long term. let me first say that i strongly agree with the sponsors of this bill about the need to send a strong signal to china. and other currency manipulators as well, that massive intervention in the currency markets to gain trade advantage will no longer be tolerated. for the international economic system to work, every country, including china, needs to play by the rules. like many of my colleagues, my frustrations with china's trade and economic practices go far beyond currency manipulation. china's failure to protect intellectual property rights, for example. china's industrial policies. their limitations on american investment. and their unfair support in subsidization of state-owned and state-assisted enterprises are all very serious problems that

we need to address. so while today we are focusing on currency manipulation, i look forward to working with spwaubgs to examine senator baucus to examine potential solutions which i hope we will hold soon. the sponsors of this bill assure us thatth their approach is w.t.o. consistent and will not result in a trade war with one of our largest trading partners. given the importance of these questions, i wrote secretary geithner and abg bass tkor kirk -- ambassador kirk to request the administration's views. while they assured us that they are reviewing the bill, to date they have not publicly weighed in one way or the other. it seems to me they really need to weigh in on this. given that they know the senate is debating the legislation this week, i think this is very unfortunate. if the administration is going to have any impact on this debate, i would urge them to comment soon. even though i have supported similar legislation in the past,

i have continuing reservations about this approach fundamentally. we must remain focused on one question: will this legislation actually solve the currency problem with china? and after careful consideration, i've come to the conclusion that it will not. while well-intentioned, the bill is too focused on unilateral remedial actions. as a result, i fear that the bill will only have a marginal effect on china's practices while at the same time potentially targeting many u.s. exporters for trade retaliation by china. for example, the congressional budget office scored this bill as generating $61 million in revenue over ten years. to put this in context, in 2010 alone, the united states imported almost $365 billion of goods from china. given the scope of the problem, i find it difficult to believe

that unilaterally imposing an additional $6 billion in anti-dumping and counterveiling duties a year in chinese imports will compel china to change its currency policies or have any meaningful impact on our trade deficit with china. many of the other remedial provisions in this bill require the united states government to take other unilateral actions against china, many of which may actually harm u.s. exporters directly or expose them to potential retaliation by the chinese.to succeed over the loni think we need to go in a different direction. my amendment strikes the unilateral provisions while retaining the core of the bill that actually advances our shared goal of combating chinese currency practices. i agree with my colleagues that the exchange rates and international coordination act

is simply not working. administration after administration refuses to exercise its authority and deem china a currency manipulator. this is enormously frustrating for all of us, especially since the obama campaign against china's currency practices and after being elected having his own treasury secretary testify before congress that klein is in fact manipulating its currency, yet they renews i support this had goal in the past. i also agree we need to hold the secretary of treasury and the u.s. trade representative accountable so i've retained, you know, the requirements under this bill that they report to

and testify before congress on their progress. but to succeed over the long term we need to adopt a fundamentally different approach. we have had some success in the past. for example, during the bush administration from 25 to 2008 negotiations pushed china to appreciate its currency by 25%. thingthe obama administration ho such success. my amendment takes it a step further. first, my amendment directs the secretary of the treasury and u.s. trade representative to initiative negotiations in the world trade organization and the international monetary fund to develop effective remedial rules and actions that will mitigate the adverse trade and economic effects of fundamentally misaligned currencies designated for priority action under this bill. and that will encourage priority action countries to adopt

appropriate policies to eliminate the fundamental misalignment of their currencies. the w.t.o. and the i.m.f. were designed to handle complex issues like currency so we should start there and work with our allies to devise long-term and effective solutions. working with like-minded countries, we should be able to agree that when individual members advance their nationa nationalistic interests so aggressively through currency manipulation, they threaten the whole global economy and their own long-term interests and that their actions need to be addressed. now, many of my colleagues may argue that negotiations in the w.t.o. and i.m.f. will not work. my amendment addresses that potential problem in its second section. it provides that if the secretary of the treasury and u.s. trade representative cannot make progress to effectively mitigate the adverse effects of

fundamentally misaligned currencies within the w.t.o. and the i.m.f. in 90 days, then the administration shall enter into plural lateral negotiations outside of the w.t.o. and i.m.f. to develop agreements with their friends and allies but also committed to open and fair currency policies. these negotiations will need to develop mechanisms to mitigate the adverse effects of priority action, country currency policies, and to encourage those priority action countries to abandon their interventions into their currencies. we have seen mullly lateral approaches work in the past -- multilateral approaches work in the past in combating coming of china's unfair economic practices. for example, china changed course on both of its indigenous innovation policies and on efforts to hoard its rare earth materials premerrell due to multilateral pressure against the chinese.

these important issues have not been solved and require additional efforts but by working with our friends and our allies, we effectively convince the chinese government to take a more constructive approach. let's build on the successes that we have witnessed in recent years. and let's work together to counter in a systematic and comprehensive way the efforts of those priority action countries that derive trade advantages through current policy. to be clear, i'm not suggesting that the united states violate any of its international obligations, and that point is made clear in the amendment. but i am suggesting that the solution to the currency problem cannot be achieved unilaterally and our negotiators must reach out to our allies to aggressively counter the behavior of china and others. so far the administration has failed to lead on the currency issue. my amendment requires that they do so.

the third section of my amendment helps maintain pressure on the administration to take concrete action. it requires the treasury department and ustr to report to congress every 180 days following enactment of this bill. in these reports, the administration must identify, one, the countries with which the united states is conducting negotiations to mitigate the adverse effects of and in what international fora those negotiations are taking place; two, the remedial rules and actions under discussion in those negotiations; three, any remedial rules that have been adopted and any remedial actions that have been taken pursuant to those negotiations; and, four, what, if any, additional authority the secretary or the u.s. trade representative needs from congress to conduct these negotiations and to effectively mitigate the adverse trade and

economic effects of fundamentally misaligned currencies or to implement coordinated actions with other countries. finally, my amendment sets up a process to immediately take advantage of ongoing international trade negotiations by establishing a new priority negotiating objective of the united states for ongoing and future trade agreements. this new objective requires that each party agree to not fundamentally misalign its currency in a manner that would result in a priority action designation and agree to work together to mitigate i think adverse trade and economic effects of fundamentally misa lined currencies by nonparts such as china. for example, if the transpacific negotiations are to tackle 21st century trade issues as the ustr continues to promise, i think this plural lateral negotiation would be a great place to start to address the challenges of fundamentally

misaligned currencies. working with this group of like-minded countries, we should be able to agree among all nine parties that no party will fundamentally misalign its currency. we should also be able to agree to work together to counter the actions of other ccurrence whose interventions in currency markets destablize the global economy. we have also seen multilateral engagement work in other areas. if we are truly going to solve this currency problem, we need to look at what other efforts have actually produced some results and moving the chinese off a mercantilist policy course and improve the conditions for american businesses and workers competing against the chinese. we can all agree that china's massive interventions and its financial sector in currency have disrupted global trade and that it's efforts to benefit china at the expense of others

has harmed many countries and workers, including many here in our own united states. but i believe that rather than merely sending a message to china, we must try and find real long-term solutions and empower and direct our negotiators to reach out to our friends and allies from around the world to finally solve the problem. if existing institutions are not working, we must modify them. if that is not possible, we must look to create new effective international agreements. the challenge that china's currency interventions present are not just to the united states but to the international economic community. we, the congress, must demand that the administration launch these critical negotiations so we can avert further damage by currency policies of countries like china. so i all on my closing to join me and not just to send a

message but to take actions that could in effect produce results. in the end, china itself as well as its neighbors and trading partners will all benefit from a more open, transparent, and fairly exchanged currency regime. what is at stake is far more than making a statement. we need to actually alter the international agreements and the rules of the game to address the problems of today and tomorrow. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and when it comes up -- and i hope that we can get it up once we come to the fin final agreement on thoud proceed to this bill. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. and i am -- my main purpose here is to address the china currency bill, particularly in regards to

the remarks of speaker boehner and chairman bernanke. but there are two other points i wish to make on previous speakers' comments. first, senator webs's amendment. it is a very important amendment what. it says, of course, is that in cases where commercial technologies are developed with the support of u.s. taxpayers, it prohibits companies from transferring the techmology to countries that force proprietary transfer as a country of doing business. we've seen this over and over again. china, which doesn't play fair up and down the line, they basically get away with economic murder. one of their techniques is to say to big american companies, we'll allow you to sell a ton of stuff to us, you'll make lots of money, but in return you must give us your proprietary technologies, basically your family jewels. it's outrageous. and in the long run it weakens

america's ability to grow and create jobs. the companies do this because in the five or ten-year period in which they've signed the contract, they get a lot of revenue. but it certainly hurts american workers, and it certainly hurts these companies in the long run, but the c.e.o.'s probably figure they'll be long gone before that money is maivmentd so i want to support senator webb's amendment. now, in regard to my good friend from utah, who proposed an alternative, i would say this: we've tried for a decade to get multilateral action. that involves getting china's acquiescence. it's not going to happen. multilateral action is like saying to the chinese, "please." that hasn't worked. it won't works, and it will not work. our legislation is much stronger. and it can pass. it got a large vote here this

week. it has bipartisan support. i know that speaker baron -- i'll talk about this in a minute -- has said he won't take up our bill, but there's going to be huge pressure for him to do so, as i'll elaborate later. so my goods friend from utah -- and i have tremendous respect for him, and i don't doubt his good intentions, his integrity, his hard work and desire to see things happen -- to say to the chinese, please negotiate is a strategy for weakness, is a strategy for failure, and multilateral action will not succeed. the chinese understand only one thing -- and i will yield for a brief moment to my colleague for a question for a comment, whichever he prefers. but the chinese only understand one thing. being tough, telling them if they don't discontinue these actions, we are going to take action unilaterally on our own. i've been doing this for years. i can tell you, china's policies

get worse and worse and worse. and as one of my constituents said to me, uncle sam, when it comes to china, is uncle sap. to have a policy that involves large multilateral actions and says to the chinese, come and negotiate with us, makes no sense at all. i yield for a brief moment on my time to my colleague from utah, for a minute or so. mr. hatch: well, i appreciate my cleesmght he's always been very fair and gracious to me. i feel the same way towards him. i understand him deep feelings about this matter and i respect and appreciate them as well. but i'm not talking about necessarily negotiating with china directly other than what we can do. i'm talking about meeting with nations that literally are feeling the same way we do. and gradually multiplying the effect to get not just -- not just send a message but

multiplying an effective way of getting the whole world to start saying, yeah, the united states is right. yeah, this group of nations is right. and we can do that even outside of the world organizations that currently exist. but i would like my colleague to just look at that amendment and see -- i think he'll see some real good in t and i think it'll get us farther down the path way of doing what he knows needs to be done and i know needs to be done without necessarily causing a major trade war. so i just bring that up to my colleague for that purpose, respecting him and respecting what he's trying to do here. i think this plural lateral approach i'm talking about goes far beyond just w.t.o., i.m.f. and some of the other organizations. it means doing effective diplomatic work to bring worldwide pressure to get people to live within certain monetary

constraints. but i thank my colleague. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague, and i understand his good intentions and his desire to get to the same place i do, which is to get china to behave fairly. neither of us dispute that they do not. i will certainly look at his bill. i will simply say to him, growing up in brooklyn we had to deal with a lot of bull list. the only time bullies give in is when you stand up to them. the proposal that my colleague has made does not stand up to china. the nations of the world have made their opinions clear. just recently brazil did. china doesn't care. they will only care if there are sanctions, tough sanctions that give consequences to their unfair and usually illegal by w.t.o. standards action. now, mr. president, i'd like to talk about speaker boehner's remarks and chairman bernanke's

remarks. last night brought a milestone here in the senate, mr. president. for years the government of china has been willfully breaking the rules of free trade without provoking a formal response from the u.s. government until yesterday. the full senate for the first time went on record that it wanted to consider formal action to confront china's currency manipulation. it was a lopsided vote, bipartisan, majority of both parties, 79 senators in favor. we'll spend the next few days debating the particulars, but make no mistake about it. when it comes to china's unfair trade practices, there is a consensus to act in the senate. mr. president, it can be hard at times around here to get 79 votes to turn the lights on. when the majority leader and minority leader vote together to move forward on a major jobs-boosting measure, we shouldn't delay in moving forward. but then today, less than 24

hours after the senate saw the overwhelming vote in favor of moving forward to finally confront china with real action, the speaker of the house of representatives suggested he wouldn't take up the bill if it passes the senate. he called it dangerous. the speaker's argument is behind the times. the only thing that would be dangerous would be to continue turning the other cheek while china mounts its assault on u.s. jobs, u.s. wealth, u.s. manufacturing. up and down the line they oppose fair practices. they're march -- they're mercantilists, maximizing their wealth at the expense of american jobs. i have news, mr. speaker, we are already in a trade war with china, and it's not going that well. american companies are fighting for survival in the united

states and around the globe, battling subsidized chinese exports with a built-in price advantage of 20% to 40%. we cannot raise the white flag on american jobs, american wealth, american manufacturing. we can only succeed against chinese -- we can compete successfully against chinese competition at home and china and around the world, but only, only, only if we level the playing field. our bill helps level that playing field. there's already a trade war going on, mr. speaker. china is cheating to gain unfair advantage. it's about time we do something about it. as mr. samuelson said in his article in "the washington post," "the only thing worse than a trade war --" and i believe that won't happen because china has more to lose in a trade war than we do. if they do one thing, they are

smart. and they won't cut their nose to spite their face. they may take a few sanctions in response, but they're not going to create a trade war. absolutely not. but the only thing worse than even a trade war is continuing our present policies where five and ten years from now america cannot get up off the ground because of unfair chinese policies. house speaker seems to want to sit out this fight. he seems to want us to take a hands-off approach to china. he says this is -- quote -- "well beyond what congress should be doing." well, mr. president, i'm aghast at that notion that the speaker says fighting for american jobs against unfair practices that china foists upon us is well beyond what congress should be doing. what should we be doing? there is nothing else congress should be doing except rising to

defend american jobs. and if he doesn't believe that these practices are unfair, he should just listen -- the speaker should -- to chairman bernanke. here's what he said this morning. "the chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a more normal recovery process in the global economy it is hurting the recovery." that is the top economist in the land. hurting the recovery, mr. speaker. that's what ben bernanke said. that is beyond -- does the speaker really think it is beyond what congress should be doing to confront something that's hurting the recovery, that everyone who studies it says is unfair, that no one has come up with a solution. multilateral negotiations, give me a break. china won't budge. we know that.

mr. president, i find it ironic that the speaker wants a hands-off approach on china's unfair currency practices considering he along with the rest of the republican leadership in both the house and the senate just sent a letter a couple of weeks ago seeking to medal in u.s. currency policies. just two weeks ago the republican leadership in the house and senate sent a letter to chairman bernanke trying to influence his handling of monetary policies in a highly inappropriate way. it was nothing short of a preach of a protocol that has -- short of a breach after protocol that has long been observed which is you don't put political pressure on the federal reserve because they need to handle monetary policy in an economic, not a political, way. a former fed official called that attempt to politically meddle in the fed's independent policy making -- quote -- "outrageous." phreut quo wrote that the --

"politico" wrote the letter -- quote -- "was an awe dishes move against -- was an audacious move." a leading economist said it crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. so let me get this straight. the speaker and the house leadership feel it's okay to cross the line and try to strong-arm the fed, but it's not okay to have the will to stand up to china. this is totally inconsistent, totally inconsistent. it's hard to figure out how you could do one thing one week and say the other, the second the next week, unless of course the house leadership's goal is to hold back our economic recovery. i fear to think that. i fear to think that their goal is to make sure the economy is so bad so they might do what our republican leader said was his number-one goal: unseat president obama. i shudder to think that millions

of american households without jobs, with people looking and searching to find a way to provide some dignity for their families, they have to be political fodder for a goal to hold the economy back. so i don't want to embrace that conclusion, but it's hard to see, hard to see another explanation for, on the one hand, trying to twist the arm of the fed when it comes to u.s. monetary policy. but when it comes to fighting back against china is to say hands off. it's totally inconsistent. i also find the speaker's position on this china currency measure strange because if he blocks this measure, he's effectively thwarting the will of his own members in the house. there are 225 cosponsors, 61

republicans at last count for a measure similar to the one being debated in the senate right now. it's clear there's a consensus in the house very similar to the consensus here in the senate. so i would urge the speaker, heed your own chamber. put this bill on the floor. don't thwart your own members who want a chance to support this measure. give it an up-or-down vote. even if the house leadership doesn't want to vote for it, they should at least allow the will of the house to go forward. they should not suppress the collective will of their chamber. because at the end of the day you have to ask yourself what side are you on? two major candidates for president on the republican side support this legislation. jon huntsman, who just got back from china, hardly known as a

radical, said he would sign this bill. i haven't talked to him, but i can tell you having worked on this issue for six years, i am sure that former ambassador huntsman is totally frustrated with the chinese and knows what, unfortunately the legislation introduced by his fellow utahan doesn't address. that the chinese don't react when you ask nicely. they don't react when you ask. period. they only react when there are consequences that are harmful to them if they continue an unfair, antifree trade policy. for some inexplicable reason, the republican leadership in the house is siding with the chinese

government. this is not the time to go soft on china. the top economist in the country tells us china's holding back the recovery. many other economists say that china, in its currency is i policies is distorting, thwarting world trade. i have seen some even list it as some of the causes for the international recession that we have. and we know, we know, we know it costs america in jobs. i want to relate what i related yesterday. just one company in upstate new york, and i would remind some of the editorial writers and pundits who say this won't make a difference. it will just move jobs from china to bangladesh, they are five years behind the times. we're not talking about jobs that are in labor-intensive industries like toys or clothing or furniture. those are gone. those aren't coming back. we're talking about top-end

mainly middle-sized and smaller american manufacturers and producers who have to fight with one hand tied behind their back because of chinese currency. so this company which makes a ceramic that is put in generators, electric generators and prevents pollution, they have a great ceramic tool. they're doing fine. but a few years ago china stole it. they just took it and stole it. but the head of the company told me he didn't mind because his growth with a so large just from selling these in the united states and in europe that if china wanted to sell them in china where they're building lots of power plants, so be it. but now china's not only producing them for consumption in china -- his product -- they're producing them for export to america.

whapbd this gentleman said -- and what this gentleman said was he'll compete head to head. but when china gets a built-in 30% advantage on intellectual property that they stole, how is he going to survive? that story can be repeated over and over again. of course china's holding back our recovery. of course china's policies lose us millions of american jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of american wealth. and finally, this body in a strictly bipartisan way, our bill has five lead republican and five lead democratic cosponsors. we have equally criticized president bush and president obama for their failure to act. finally this body gets some resolve, and the speaker says no. well, you know what? i don't believe his "no" is going to stand. this is an issue that the american people know has to

come. this is something they care about. democrats, republicans, you look at the polling, there's no partisan divide on this one. liberals, conservatives, you don't have to have a ph.d. in economics to know china is cheating us and playing unfairly with us. and i believe the pressure from members of both sides of the aisle in the other body, and more importantly, from the american people and manufacturers all over the country could work, could get the speaker to reconsider his view. and i please pray and hope that it does, because there is no greater step that we can take to restore jobs in america than to pass this important bill, get it enacted into law and see for once our top-notch american companies be able to compete evenly, fair fight with chinese

manufacturers. thank you, and i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

general's report that i

requested 18 months ago, and having to do with the endangerment finding of the e.p.a., and while it's a little bit complicated, let me just go back and put this in kind of a perspective. back in the 1990's, we were asked by then the clinton administration to ratify a treaty called the kyoto treaty. this is a treaty that would -- was aiming at reduction of greenhouse gases, and this type of thing. well, it didn't -- it didn't pass, and the reason it didn't pass, it went down by 95-0 because of two things. we all declared in this body that we weren't going to ratify any treaty that, number one, was damaging economically to the country, and number two would treat developing countries differently than developed nations. of course it missed both of

those criteria. after that happened, it became very popular by some of the more radical environmentalists groups that enjoy the overregulation that we have so much of in this country and started introducing some of the regular -- the different bills. we had the mccain-lieberman bill of 2003 and 2005. we had the warner-lieberman bill, several others, the sanders-boxer bill. and i guess the last one was a house bill that was the waxman-markey bill. these bills were all aimed at what we can do in this country to restrict our use of co2. and obviously, there is no disagreement on this line that if we unilaterally in the united states of america reduce our co2, it's not going to affect the co2 emissions worldwide, because this isn't where the problem is. and even the administrator of

the e.p.a., the one that was appointed by president obama, lisa jackson, one i have a great deal of respect for, i asked her the question on the record, i said if we were to pass any of these bills, the ones that i just mentioned that would have the effect of the kyoto treaty but just on the united states in reducing anthropogenic gases, would this have the effect of reducing co2 emissions? she said no, because as i pointed out this would affect only the united states of america. i take the argument one step further and say it would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, emissions because as our manufacturing base has to find power to generate itself, they have to go where that is. so anyway, i only wanted to bring that up because that effort is still going on today. now, with all these bills that were -- that have been before us, and i was at the time of most of them, i was the chairman when the republicans were the

majority, the environment and public works committee which had jurisdiction over this subject and was the one who sat on the floor to defeat these bills, and it became easier each bill that came along. the reason is people recognize that while the science is in question, the economics are not. it had been determined by a number of sources including wifa, which is a branch of the wharton school of economics, and m.i.t., c.r.a., charles rivers associates. the range of the cost of a cap-and-trade bill is always in the range of between between $300 billion and and $400 billion a year. it's confusing when you talk about these large numbers and people's eyes glaze over. they don't really understand it and i have a hard time understanding it. how does that affect me? how does that affect me and my 20 kids and grandkids out in oklahoma? i have a system, and i recommend it to my friends in the united states senate that i take the

number of family income tax returns that are filed each year, get a current figure and then i do my math. this range between $300 billion and $400 billion, when you reduce it down to what it would cost each family, it's in excess of $3,000 a year. even if you do this and if we were to pass something like this, it still wouldn't reduce the emissions. that's the thing that we need to get over. anyway, in order for -- when president obama saw this, he said there was no way in the world that the united states senate or the house now are going to pass a cap-and-trade bill, so i'm going to do it by the -- just by regulation. and you have been hearing us talk about the overregulation. sometimes we're inclined to think that our -- that the antibusiness attitude of this administration is just an overtaxation, this type of thing is not true. also overregulation is a killer. and in this case, we're talking

about the overregulation on something that is -- that is -- is something that we cannot sustain. so when the -- in order for the president to be able to do through regulation what he could not do through legislation, he had to have what they call an endangerment finding. that is the environmental protection agency had to come up with a conclusion that co2 is dangerous to your health. it's called an endangerment finding. well, i was getting ready to go over to this thing in copenhagen that they have every year. those people who are promoting these programs have these cop meetings and i was getting ready to go over there. we had administrator jackson before our committee. i remember looking over at her, i said i'm leaving for copenhagen tomorrow. shall i assume that you're going to have an endangerment finding as soon as i leave town? she didn't answer. she smiled, because she smiles a

lot. anyway, that's what happened. well, endangerment finding has to be based on science, and that's where this inspector general's report came in. again, this is new stuff, just two days ago. i had requested this report 18 months ago to -- for them to look at the endangerment finding and see if this, in fact, is based on science, and of course they came out with the report. it was just released. it confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of president obama's job-destroying regulatory agenda was rushed -- this is using their words -- rushed, biased and flawed. it caused the scientific integrity of the e.p.a.'s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding. keeping in mind you have to have an endangerment finding before you can start regulating all this stuff. well, the inspector general's investigation uncovered that the

e.p.a. failed to engage in the required record-keeping process, leading up totten dangerment finding. well, that's a requirement by law, so they did not comply with the law at that time. it also did not follow its own peer review procedures. peer review is something that is required. they didn't do it. and so anyway, they admitted -- administrator jackson readily admitted way back in 2009 that the e.p.a. had outsourced its scientific review to the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change. now, this is interesting because they are going back to say all right, you guys, you do the peer review on the thing that you have developed. well, it doesn't work that way, and i think at that time we're complaining about it. so even the e.p.a. still refused to conduct its own independent review of the science, as the e.p.a. inspector general found whatever one thinks of the u.n. science, the e.p.a. is still required by its own procedures by law to conduct an independent

view -- review. of course, i have long warned the ipcc process what they have been doing in the past. in fact, it was six years ago, i sent a letter to the head of the ipcc, specifically raising the many weaknesses of the ipcc's peer review process that dr. pachari dismissed my concerns. reuters had an article on how he responded to my request. he said -- i'm quoting now from reuters. he said -- quote -- "in the one-page letter, pachari denies that the ipcc has an alarmist, biased and says i have deep commitment to the integrity and objectivity of the ipcc process. pachari's main argument is that the ipcc compromises both scientists and more than -- compromises scientists of more than 130 governments who approve the ipcc's report line by line."

now, that's what he said. that's what was reported. and then as i predicted, it all came apart for the ipcc. on the senate floor last year, i highlighted several media reports uncovering serious errors and possible fraud by the ipcc. ipcc, now, that's the united nations we're talking about. they are the ones that started all of this thing. abc news, the economist, "time" magazine, "times of london," among many others reported that the ipcc's research contains embarrassing flaws, using their language, and that the ipcc chairman and scientists knew of the flaws but published them anyway. the media reports uncovered a number of nonpeer review studies that the ipcc used to make baseless claims, including that global warming would, number one -- and listen to this. this came out. this is ipcc stuff that's been totally rebuked.

they said it was going to melt the himalayan glaciers by 2035. didn't happen. it had 40% of the amazon rain forest endangered by global warming. didn't happen. melt mountain ice in the alps, andes and africa. didn't happen. slash crop production by 50% in north africa by 2020. it's something that is not even going on. these embarrassments led to a number of these same publications to demand that the ipcc come clean on the review process of the ipcc. the financial times -- to let you know how serious this is, "thethe financial times" talking about the ipcc, "now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future assessments, increase transparency and open up the field of climate research to the

widest process range of scientific views." "time" magazine, they had on their cover this last polar bear standing on the last cube of ice, we're going to have a -- you know, we're all going to die. anyway, "time" said that glaciergate when they talked about the glaciers melting, is a black eye or the ipcc and for the climate science community as a whole. the economist, this mixture of sloppiness and highhandedness gives the ipcc's critics a lot to work with. "newsweek" came out, quoting from "newsweek," some of the ipcc's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, corporate reports including claims of plummeting crop yields in africa and the rising cost of warming-related

natural disasters both of which have been refuted by academic studies just as damaging many i scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics rather than by supplying data and reasonable arguments. that was in "newsweek." their analysis was they're doing all of this stuff and they resort to name calling and this type of thing because they don't have a logical response for it. last year, this was keeping in mind after i requested the i.g.a. report's, the inspector general's report and still a year ago, in a speech i made right here i said there is -- quote, "there is a crisis of confidence in the ipcc, the challenges to the integrity and credibility to the ipcc merit a closer examination by the u.s. congress. the ramifications of the ipcc spread far and wide most note blie bli to the environmental

protection agency's finding that greenhouse findings endanger public health and welfare. still quoting myself, before the rote came out from the inspector general, e.p.a.'s finding rests in large measures on the ipcc's conclusions and epa has accepted them wholesale without an independent assessment. at this pivotal time as the obama e.p.a. is preparing to enact policies potentially costing trillions of dollars and thousands of jobs, the ipcc's errors make plain that we need openness, transparency, and accountability in the scientific research financed by the u.s. taxpayers. that was a year before the i.g. report came out. and it's almost exactly what the i.g. report said just this last week. two months before that speech i'd asked the e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson to delay the e.p.a. endangerment finding based on climategate. she told me and i quote now,

and i have a lot of respect for her, by the way, i've professed that many times. she's one who normally i'll ask her a question, she'll give an answer, even though it may be unpopular with her boss, president obama. she said i don agree the ipcc has been totally discredited in any way. i think it's important to understand that tiench pcc is a body that follows impartial and open objective assessments. she's saying essentially the same thing. yes, they have had concerns about email, i do not defend the conduct of those who sent those emails. here they're talking about climategate, we all remember the secret emails that went back and forth between the principals to somehow manipulate the science. she goes on to say there is a peer review which is part of the ipcc process. there are numerous, numerous groups in teams and independent researchers all a part of coming up with ipcc's findings such

that even the ipcc has said that while we need to investigate and ensure that our scientists are to a standard of scientific conduct that we can be proud of, we stand behind our findings. so they're all whitewashing the work of the ipcc. again, that was before the i.g. report came out. but it didn't work because there are magazines throughout the world, publications who generally were on the other side of this argument or their side of this argument, "the guardian" for example said, this is right out of "the guardian" talking about climategate and how they were disgraced, "pretending this isn't a real crisis isn't going to go away. "the daily telegraph" said this scandal could be the greatest in modern science." this is what they're talking about with climategate. "the atlantic monthly" the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering." let's remember, the

regulationses imposed under the clear air act will cost american consumers somewhere in the aing of $300 billion to $400 billion a year. this is not to mention the absurd result e.p.a. readily admits they need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its greenhouse gas regime if they're not given discretion to circumstance up vebt -- circumvent the law. all this economic pain is for nothing. no gain at all. as e.p.a. administrator admitted before our committee it would have no effect on the overall release of gases. also of note what happened to the e.d.a.'s vow in 2009 that the agency would commit to high standards of transparency, because i'm quoting now, the success of our environmental efforts depends on earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve or obama adviser

john hold revenue's promise -- holdren's promise they would make decisions based on the best science possible because the public must be able to trust the science and scientific process in forming the decisions. given what has come to light in the report, it appears that the obama e.p.a. cannot be trusted on the most consequential decision in an agency they've ever made. i have already called upon the committees in the senate, this would be my committee, on which i am the ranking member, the environment and public works committee, to have an investigation. my gosh, and i.g. report. i don't ever recall in the years i've been here an i.g. report coming out, inspector general's report where there weren't numerous hearings to probe into see just why they came up to the decisions they made. so, you know, i've tried for years, for ten years now to

pursue this thing with the various bills that were introduced, to do legislatively what they -- to implement these requirements and then when we see that they're unable to do it and if you look around the united states senate, there are only about 30 votes now, you're not even halfway there, don't have half the number of votes to impose capital and trade. it's not here. that's why the president is trying to do it through regulations. it's kind of interesting, you put this in perspective this super committee they keep talking about, the 12, six democrats, six republicans, three from the house, three from the senate, their goal is to find $1.5 trillion in ten years. $1.5 trillion in ten years. we have a president in his own budget and this isn't democrats or republicans or house or senate. this is the president. his three budgets that he came out with have just under a $5 trillion deficit. now, that's just in

inconceivable. i can remember coming down here in the mid 1990's when president clinton was in power and the first $1.5 trillion budget that we had i just was complained this is is not sustainable. now it's $1.5 trillion over and above what it costs to run america. and obviously that can't be done. and so when you stop and think about the fact it should be fairly easy to find $1.5 trillion, that would just be his deficit for one year. to find $1.5 trillion. now, if they were successful and this is kind of hard to follow but if they're successful in implementing by regulation what they could not do by legislation and have a cap and trade that would cost a minimum of $300 billion a year or by ten years, that would be $3 trillion. so we have this super committee trying to find $1.55 trillion, at the same time they're advocating increasing the cost to america by $3 trillion.

it's not believable. anyway, i think it's very important that we all -- and i'm really on the floor now trying to gather support for having a hearing. you can't have an i.g. report talking about the flawed product of the e.p.a. -- of the ipcc of the united nations, and not have some kind of investigation. hopefully we'll able to do that. with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the currency exchae

rate oversight reform act, which got an overwhelming vote yesterday. there aren't many times when a piece of legislation like this on a specific topic gets the kind of overwhelming support to move it forward as we saw yesterday in the vote that took place and now we're considering the bill. when i go across pennsylvania, other than -- other than parts of our state that have been devastated by floods, most of the eastern part of pennsylvania, everything -- if you drew a line down the middle of our state and moved to the east, a lot of communities devastated by flooding. other than that issue, the number one issue, of course, for the people of our state and i think the people of the united states in total is the issue of jobs. and in their frustration, they look to washington for action,

for solutions, and too often what they see when they turn on the television set or read about what's happening here, they see a lot of -- a lot of fighting, a lot of bickering, a lot of back and forth and frankly a lot of politics, but not enough action on the question of jobs. what we have before us today is not some esoteric bill about currency. it is somewhat about that, obviously, but it's -- it really isn't that. this is a bill that speaks directly to that frustration that americans feel. i know the people of pennsylvania feel. there aren't many places in pennsylvania i can go where i talk about this issue of china for many years cheating on currency, and us losing lots and lots of jobs because of it, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs because of that. there aren't many places in our state i can go to talk about that and i don't receive or the

point of view that i express doesn't receive unanimous support. this is a very real issue for people. this isn't far off. they know that just like in other aspects of life, especially on something as consequential and significant as international trade, most people understand that when you're involved in that kind of endeavor you got to play by the rules. every country should play by the rules. and when you have a country as big and as significant in the international economy or the international marketplace as china, not playing by the rules, cheating, time after time after time, giving their workers and their industries an unfair advantage, i think most people know what that means. and it's not just a question of fairness and playing by the rules. it's the -- the impact of that cheating, the impact of that cheating is americans lose jobs and have lost jobs. so we have to take action.

the time is up. we've been talking about this the for years, pleading with china in one way or another, urging them, pushing them. but the time for that is over. the time to act is now. and this is a prudent piece of legislation. it does a couple of things. basically what it does is at long last is help a manufacturer -- help american manufacturers and our workers by clarifying that our trade enforcement laws can and should be used to address currency undervaluation. it also provides an opportunity for to us improve oversight, oversight by establishing objective criteria to identify misaligned currencies and imposing tough consequences for offenders. so it doesn't put into place a new rule for international trade. it just says if you violate the

rules, there are going to be consequences, that our treasury department or our commerce department are going to take action. and no matter what administration is -- is in office, a democratic administration or a republican administration, and i could point to a number of senators in both parties. i think i'm one of them, who have been urging this administration and the prior administration to take stronger, more decisive action and for a variety of reasons they haven't -- they haven't done that. not to say they haven't been working on it. not to say they haven't been public work their counterparts in china, but i think we've been far too timid in the approach we take. because again, this isn't some far-off issue. this is about american jobs and whether or not we're going to stand by and allow more and more, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more american jobs to be lost in the

next decade as we've seen hemorrhage from our society in the last ten years. and one of the causes, one of the substantial factors in that job loss, not the only but one of, is the cheating that china does on its currency. it's as if you -- it's as if you're running -- we're telling our workers and our companies look, you're going to have a foot race with chinese companies and chinese workers, and we're going to have this competition as we have every day in the international marketplace. but china's going to start -- if this is a 100-yard dash, they're going to start at the 20 or 25 or 30 yard line, and then we're going to start the race and see how you do. it's completely unfair to our workers, it undermines their ability to compete, even if they're working as hard as they can, even if they have a high

skill level, even if the company has invested time in training those workers, has invested capital in the equipment and the technology. sometimes it doesn't matter what the company does to improve its production, to improve its efficiency. it doesn't matter what the workers do. they can go to school and learn and prepare and get trained but if they're at a -- at a 15% or 20% or 25% disadvantage. and by the way, those are low estimates. this has been a problem, above 30% or higher at times. but no matter what the percentage is, we know that there's been a lot of cheating and we know it's costing us jobs. so it's time for action. this morning at the, the joint economic committee hearing we had federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. i asked him about currency and i actually read to him some statements he's made in the past about currency and about the

role that china has played, the adverse role, the role that i am as frustrated as any american about. i asked him about that, and it's been reported already a summation of his comments, but in addition to commenting about the impact on our workers and our companies, he talked about the impact of china's currency policies on the global economic recovery. so this isn't just an adverse consequence for america, for the united states. this is an impediment to a full and robust recovery around the world. so this isn't some --this president is just limited to the impact on our workers in our companies. it has worldwide reach, worldwide impact and has worldwide consequence. so the united states' unwillingness so far to crack down on china's currency and to

crack down on what i would assert is manipulation, some will say well, it might be something different than that but i think it's basic manipulation, cheating. it's -- i think it's the step we have to take now, to have rules in place for how we will react to their cheating and then to have very tough consequences. that's what's in the bill. unfortunately, this inability to respond appropriately or assertively or aggressively, is one of many, by argue one of many pieces of a flawed trade strategy that have been -- have been a prevailing point of view over the course of two administrations. and we're going to have some debates about trade coming up and we'll see some interesting alliances, some interesting coalitions here.

but our flawed trade strategy if we can even call it a strategy, has failed over many years, failed our workers and failed our companies. but at least today we'll get to the debate on the trade agreements later, but at least today and this week we can finally, finally make progress on an issue which has cost -- has cost the american people lots and lots of jobs. let me give you a sense of what could happen if we're able to pass legislation, this legislation. the economic policy institute, one of the many think tanks across washington of various points of view who have studies this -- studied this issue, on june 17 of this year in a report by the economic policy institute, and i'm broadly summarizing, but one of the many conclusions they reached about this issue is that if china revalued its currency by 28.5%, many would say it's a

bigger problem than 28.5%, or 28.5% advantage that their workers and their companies have. if they revalued to that level at 28.5%, the growth in our -- our gross domestic product in the united states would support 1,631,000 u.s. jobs. and if other asian countries also revalued their currency, then 2,250,000 american jobs would be created. so even if someone could prove that those numbers are off by 10,000 or 20,000 or even if you could debate the number being off because some might reach different numbers but i've seep numbers that high and i've also seen numbers in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. so any policy that we can enact

here, in this case being appropriately tough with china on the cheating they do on currency, if passage of legislation like this, like the one we're considering leads to the creation of 1.6 million jobs just as it relates to having china play by the rules, why wouldn't we pass legislation to do that? when people are saying over and over again to us, please do something about jobs, and sometimes the response is well, we're trying but we can't get agreement, we're trying but we don't have all the solutions. we finally have a piece of legislation that will create jobs for sure, and has bipartisan, broad, broad and substantial bipartisan support. we should pass this bill. because it will send two messages that are badly needed right now from us to the american people. number one, that your focus on job creation in the near term, not ten years from now but in

the next year or two. so it's a very specific answer to their request of us as their elected representatives, that we focus on enacting legislation that will create jobs. secondly, it will accepted the message that we finally get it, finally democrats and republicans can come together on a very serious issue that is of great consequence to families that have been devastated by job loss, that are finally coming together, democrat and republican working together to have a unanimous vote on a job creation bill. it is that simple. and anyone who tries to make it any more complicated than that is probably trying to mislead you because it is that simple. and we need to focus our attention on the days ahead to get this legislation passed and to finally take action in a way that's directed at job creation in a bipartisan way. madam president, i would kneeled the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: