in effect, the 20% down requirement creates a series of haves and have nots. in fact, most people believe that for those who would not qualify under the 20% rule would fall into the have not category, it would be substantially punitive to low-to-moderate-income buyers which seemingly contradicts everything we know about housing policy in this country. not only would it be punitive to that group of perspective buyers, it would subject them to rates that could be anywhere from 100 to 200 basis points higher simply because the government has defined that category as a high-risk loan. not by design, but that's the outcome. qrm is a major issue that -- and, thus, the administration has kicked the can down the road realizing full well that this is otherwise going to be an election year issue. deal with it after the fact, don't deal with it now. but it is, in fact, starting to build, find its way into the

marketplace, and i'm sure it's weighing heavily on the lenders and creating a problem. that needs to be addressed. .. that you would also not qualified as a qualified rather than to mortgage. that left out another set of people with those arbitrary -- not well-founded credit standards locking people out.

>> you said we should stop calling in affordable housing. if you look at the qrm standard people with large disposable income have high levels of disposable income left with the ability to have excess capacity beyond monthly obligations to save of for a down payment the qrm have less of an impact. schoolteachers and firefighters and health-care workers who work in our community average sustainable jobs -- this is not about redoing what happened last round. it is providing sustainable product. we collectively agree to risk retention should exist on high risk products but putting this down payment standard create a separation that causes terrible outcomes if you think about it. on this subject today, qrm has no impact on the market because

it is fannie mae and freddie mac and ginnie mae are accepted -- and the ginnie mae programs are exempted and being applied to the qrm standard as we know. that is more about future outcomes. i would think qrm would create a rush of demand to get in before something changed to take advantage of these programs and it is not doing that. there's something else here where qrm could cause greater demand to buy housing when you get the advantages that are not taking place and this goes back to the regional construct of confidence that is so important right now. >> you have to be complementary of the administration. they have sought the assistance of the public on this issue and received enormous in put and as a result made it clear through their inaction that they intend to review this and be careful

and thoughtful and deal with this at a later date. they are listening. it should be viewed favorably. >> that is one thing about the administration. if you are keeping the lineup card we have gone from affordable housing to work force housing. but now all of would like to jump into the throes of the government question which is i heard some support on the panel for maintaining a government role, government guarantees. there is a move in the congress to move to gse abolition that would get rid of any and all guarantees. how seriously do you take that move and how bad idea would that be for the market where the government is -- back up?

>> there will always be gse necessity. they're must always be a backdrop. you need only look at commercial lending in 2008 from robust commercial market to zero overnight. i don't think any elected member of congress will tell their constituents under certain circumstances there would be absolutely no residential mortgage lending for some period of time. that won't happen. we think there will always be a government role perhaps not as robust as it is now. it will end up being a private government partnership at some point in a different way. we have made proposals what is a good structure going forward but fundamentally there will always be explicit guarantee which would be a better outcome for

everybody. to give you an example i don't know if there's anybody from freddie but why do we have freddie and fannie? makes no practical sense. they used to have different missions but they don't day. we have disparate lending groups in the u.s. government. u.s. agriculture and f. h. a. and all these groups serving as lenders with a different mission than different agendas and different outcomes. the f 88 has done well --fha has done a difficult role. why is there one government entities that serves as the lending arm for the government? think about organizing that under fannie with a new mission and a new charter and spinning off or otherwise dispensing with freddie mac? that opens the private market, creates the need. the absence of freddie would

create the opportunity for private capital to flow into the marketplace under certain circumstances. that could be accomplished over several years. accomplishes reduction in redundant costs in the government and create a focus and a mission that the new 3 chartered fanny and get rid of excess capacity that the private sector would have to take in the form of disposing freddie through a spinoff or some other structure that would repay the taxpayer overtime. seemingly good business structure makes sense with the explicit guarantee, not the implied guarantee. >> i was going to suggest the issue is a bit like the qrm debate. neither of those is having a direct impact on the housing issue but there a critical policy decisions that to be made down the road.

i would think the uncertainty around freddie and fannie's role today is having greater impact than qrm simply because they have a regulator focus to protect the assets of the gses, low-level price adjustors and higher fico scores and difficulty and qualification standards. those are all driving levels of uncertainty and odd behavior is at the investor levelland the consumer level with direct access implications. fha statistic was given a 30% of the total purchase market. over half of the purchase market. so they are fulfilling a role gse traditionally filled or private capital filled. this is a long-term issue. i question to richard's point forget the mall. it is a question of how strong political will will be to take these institutions apart when

their liquidity is so important although we all recognize privatized gains and socialized loss is disgraceful to have in our housing market and all these institutions played too large a role. that is not in debate. if you think about the purpose created for this session, we have big policy issues we have to be engaged in and we have been but we also have the housing market and an economy that is in worse condition than it was in the beginning of the year and how we affect the housing market on a path over the next 12 to 18 months to make sure we see some recovery and to some degree we have to address both areas aggressively but this short term issue won't be affected by the outcome of qrm which is decided upon.

>> i am appreciative of your comments about qrm because there are exemptions to that. it won't be one new loan today but when you start thinking about the question around should the government explicitly back mortgages i think qrm creates a framework to think about conditions going forward. you laid up framework for consumer confidence and investor confidence. at the end of the day and think we will need a form of explicit guarantee to bring investors back to the market and give them confidence in securities and the guarantee ought to be explicit. we talked about the difference and spreads and it ought to be paid for. if you have an explicit guarantee it ought to be something compensated for the

government's compensated for. qrm provide a path that says this will be what the government will guarantee. it will be underrated this way and the loans will be rated this way and loans that perform where the ability to repay their loans going forward and loans that have some virus in the game but not an excessive level. cannon house office building% requirement by the borrower. there will be loans that have the ability to have traditional private capital for the investor in the form of private mortgage insurance which is another form of private capital in the market. that may not change the game tomorrow in terms of providing near-term path out of this mess but i think we have to put those frameworks in place to bring the investor side of confidence level back into the market. clearly some things could be done today to help with the problem. >> let's talk about things to do

today. this is the climax of the discussion. i want to start with ellen schlomener and come this way. give me a three part plan what the administration should do to get the housing market back on its feet and get these things moving again. >> glad you gave me something simple. the foreclosures -- >> the plan -- three parts. you can do one part and i will do one part. this could be -- >> i am -- i want to give you one that is out in left field that i would see my role as -- i would think with the echo boomers carrying large student loan debt we should think about taking the money that was set aside for a portable loan

modification and look at ways to help people to buy down that debt or pay less if they are not saying that $600 on their student loan that they can use to pay their mortgage. 400,000 people have signed a petition on change.org that says we need to spend government money to help people deal with student debt rather than this other stuff. it is intriguing and i have to say if you are thinking about a stimulus effect that will get those people into homes that might be one way. can it fur on the other two? >> we will come back. >> let me do one. this is referencing when i started. right now there's an opportunity to continue to modify the program which -- one of the biggest concerns with another

downward leg with the economy and from unemployment in house price standpoint is a bunch of borrowers have been making payments and staying in their homes and done it through the crisis. now they're doing it in a manner because of what is happening to home prices that the value is higher than the value of their homes. there is an opportunity to provide a tremendous degree of stimulus into the economy. it is helping borrowers who may not be able to take advantage of the low rates in the marketplace by allowing them to refinance the current available rates. that could be a significant benefit for people who have been making payments for of the cycle. the government is looking at this and i am encouraged by the discussions we have been having to raise the loan to value level up to 150%.

it allowed those loans on people's books. they are on gse books and mortgage insurer's books. those borrowers have been paying and allowed them to take advantage of the prevailing rates in the marketplace and put all that money back in the economy. >> three points. some minor adjustments would bring in more families. 22% of all americans have negative equities and 27% have 5% equity in their home. we are looking at half of all americans would come to the table with money to refinance today. that would be stimulative and if it was managed well particularly on the appraisal process and underwriting guidelines, with a thought about long-term debt could be step one and stabilize the inventory. they put out a request for

information on the proposal for foreclosure sales. i am a firm believer that if homeowners of those from 68 to 65 or 64, that means there could be less owner occupied transactions to absorbent and korean the market and investor program needs to occur. weathered the bulk sale or individual investors always giving priority to unoccupied and thinking about policy measures which i won't list but we need to stabilize the inventory. negative equity has to be partial focus. is concentrated in five states and won't target funds where they needed the most to stabilize those particular markets as opposed to a national program and eliminate uncertainty. i will put one idea out. we need a national service standard for this country. having each regulator, 50 states

engage in various approaches on standards do nothing but add cost to consumers and create more uncertainty in the process and do nothing to create confidence for consumers or investors when they get a loan that will be managed in an appropriate way. we need one national set of standards across the board. darrell lot of steps that could be going. those are the categories to stabilize the inventory to bring books sunni investor with negative equity. those are the three key areas. >> get the attorney general lawsuit behind us so there are standards that lenders know they will be held accountable for. so that they can accelerate the process of foreclosing on those assets that should be foreclosed and get them into the marketplace and attract in david's comment the investor community.

60% of inventory going to small investors. they are all cash buyers because they can't buy financing. if you open 203 k and make it possible to have financing to accelerate the purchase of that inventory and it would accelerate an already robust market. balance first-time buyers continue to keep that first-time buyer market strong and healthy through fha and that will feed that aspect of liquidating the inventory. government needs to refine its focus and eliminate the majority of programs that are not working. it is confusing to the marketplace and the consumer and creates a sharp and cohesive approach to whatever they are going to do to mitigate or avoid foreclosures entirely. we all in favor of that but once

that test fails to be personal for clothes rapidly and get to the marketplace so the market can stabilize. i like to attract people to the market today. i like was the inestimable. that 4.5% interest rate will be very attractive in later years. the buyer five years down will have to qualify with the interest rate that is attractive and last but not least it is critically important that we have a coherent national housing policy and everything else will follow. with that we can address many of these problems. we just need a national policy we all understand. >> my other two. i went first and that gave me time to think about it. i agree that state attorneys general settlements are done not just to get through foreclosure to get a national standard for

servicing but there are remedies for homeowners who have been hurt. looking again at the housing market, feel like someone down the street got some revenue that they were treated unfairly it might give you more confidence for jumping in the market. the third thing would be even though the qrm rules are in abeyance great now, there are qualified mortgage rules how to determine whether borrowers can repay loans and getting those rules translated from lot into actual policies and practices and getting regulators to put those in place. >> thank you so much. we would like to take a few questions from the audience. raise your hand and the folks with microphones will find you. >> i am konrad with the

affordable housing institute. to mr. smith's proposal for the debt to equity proposal. seems to be a very credible and reasonable and practical way to deal with the underwater problems and i am wondering whether he wanted to say anymore about it and if other panelists want to comment. >> i do believe it is being tested in the private sector like many solutions. it has had some success. it is initially clunky like most new initiatives but has very practical applications. what i particularly like is it keeps the family in the home and create shared equity environment. there are some limitations. can't dispose of the assets without the lender who has the lean. you can't rent or lease to your cousin. you have to maintain that as your primary residence and

maintain other obligations as a homeowner. there are hurdles. the hurdle is convincing the lender or private investors that they will take a hair cut on the loan. they have to come to the realization that that house is worth 150 and the family is not going to honor the original mortgage. they just can't. nor do they have the obligation under the current law. i think it is -- what i am not sure about is how the government gets involved. it is a private sector initiative. doesn't cost the taxpayer dime in the theory of less government loans are involved. that loan will write the loan off anyway. this is recognizing that the loan will go into default and incur foreclosure costs and creating a partnership between the homeowner and the lender to accept they will be partners the

next three to five years. it is doable and it would be possible on a broad scale with some government involvement. not sure what that is nor does anyone else and i don't know what social group involvement. that would be very helpful for the right group to pick that as a batter and move with it. it won't solve the entire problem but it will under certain circumstances be a very good school, i believe. >> another question? >> i have a question for anyone on the panel addressing qrm which is very important in the midterm in the housing market howard gets defined. you suggested the way regulators are going to define qrm in variance with how private sector thinks of risk so they do it in

a way that doesn't correspond with what constitutes risk for the mortgage. if that is true don't you think the private sector would be able to offer a product that does correspond with risk that is complementary to qrm which is a smaller slice of the market by accounts but private sector would step in and offer something that is not too many bases points higher for those who offer risk. >> the way mortgages are pulled from a liquidity standpoint if you create an environment where qrm lots are pooled and theoretically guarantee and ends up being in that box, what is the price of that slice? the securitization pull blends together good credit to bad credit and ends up with a modulating in terms of price.

what this all will ultimately do is a homogenous pool of qrm loans and heterogeneous pools and prices would be significantly bad because no one will want to buy pools of non qrm loans with higher risk characteristics on their own with a blended body. this has to do with how liquidity is form the. the one thing i would say, sector participants benefit to play in the margin, the data doesn't support the decision to put payment in this criteria. it does not support it. if you isolate amortizing loans and documented loans or occupied loans all the things in the qrm definition you accomplish performance standards you are looking for from the qrm outcome and we have data to prove it.

the down payment requirement means those with large amounts of inherited wealth or high levels of income will be able to get a loan with low rates and those that don't come from a wealthy family with high levels of income for down payment will play higher rates for no reason. is not a performance criteria on its own. it will mean a hair cut on capital markets those bonds will become more significant. if you do this the right with and solve for qrm without a down payment standards in place. >> with the qrm standards it gives the definition of a safe alone. gses are not subject to qrm requirements but when they come out of conservatorship you have defined a safe loans. i want gses to secure those safe

loans through liquidity points that you mentioned in the market. >> just to punctuate, within the sponsors did consider was forms of credit enhancement with improvement to demonstrate instances of what could be included in that qrm regulations specifically private mortgage insurance and loaned with those standards underwritten to that level and lower-level the loss. we have the data that can prove it was shared with regulators to make the right decisions. >> credit enhancement should be part of the equation and that is not a travesty. we have time for one more question.

>> i am vice president of the national association of realtors. a few member's approach this with proposals if you could comment on changing accounting rules so lenders don't have to write down loans as losses for period of time as one proposal that comes forward and another one is allowing people to make principal right downs so for period of time they just make payments but it goes directly toward their principle allowing them to stay in their home and giving them incentive to stay in their home. some thought on that. >> having spent time working on the programs when i was in the administration there are a lot of great ideas. one of the two you mentioned was one we talked about at some point. very difficult. it goes back to the point that richard made when we first

started. the silver bullet -- there is no silver bullet solution. those would be more difficult to implement than they seem because it would require some form of legislation and make things more complicated. without question it helps performance. >> all right. thanks so much to our panel. thank you to all of you for your time and attention and let's hear our head count. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we take you live to capitol hill as the senate convenes a measure imposing sanctions on china for keeping its currency value artificially low to hold down the price of exports. dave odum ending debate is expected today. this is live senate coverage on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by the reverend d. edward chaney, senior pastor of second baptist church in las vegas, nevada. the guest chaplain: let us pray

bless us now, o god. touch our hearts, for without your love, light, and life, we are nothing. give our lawmakers strength and courage as they make decisions today that impact the lives of all americans. lord, remove the divisive spirit that prohibits true transformation and allow your presence to become not just common but harmonious. through our dedication, commitment, and sacrifice we thank you for cleansing us from the ills of this world and making us fit to serve and honor you. we ask these blessings in your name. amen. the presiding officer: thank

you, pastor. please join me in pledging allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, october 6, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable sheldon whitehouse, a senator from the state of rhode island, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. rye reid mr. president? the presiding officer: the distinguished majority leader. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i have the rare opportunity today to introduce and say a few words about the gest chaplain. -- about the guest chaplain. reverend chaney has just delivered, as usual, an eloquent

invocation. reverend chaney is originally from south carolina, but for the last two years has led his flock at the second baptist church in las vegas, one of the older, extremely well-established, large churches in las vegas, nevada. he's a man who's involved in the community, very, very deeply. he serves on the board of the urban league and the naacp, but in addition to his service in the spiritual line, he's also served as a patriot in our nation's armed services. he has served in the navy for four years, as has our chaplain, barry black, both naval officers, and recently retired as chaplain of the united states air force reserve at necessarily is air force base. i've met with reverend chaney under very unique circumstances

on a number of occasions. he's wonderful human being. he is one of those rare people who has such a pleasant demeanor the minute you meet him. you know he is a man of great spiritual quality. i'm happy to welcome reverend chaney and his wife avis to washington. we thank you, pastor, for the invocation, which i hope will guide the senate's action today. mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1619, the china currency legislation. the deadline for second-degree amendments to that legislation is at 10:00 a.m. this morning. at 10:30 there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 1619. i am told that 1960 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to provide tax relief foreamerican workers and businesses to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing america and to rebuild pathways for americans looking for jobs. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i would note 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 consent that the call for the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: this morning, the senate will hold a vote to end the practice of currency manipulation by the chinese government. this prarks which gives chinese exports a tremendously unfair

advantage, an advantage on all the global markets but especially the one with our relations with china, it hurts american manufacturers and cheats american workers oust jobs. it has helped balloon america's trade deficit with china from $10 billion to $273 billion in the last 20 years. costing upwards of 3 million jobs. 2 million of those lost jobs came from the manufacturing sector alone which can't compete as long as the chinese government gives its exporters special, special advantages. this legislation is a advance to even a tilted playing field, help pump billions of dollars in our economy and support 1.6 million american jobs. that's why it has the support of labor unions and business groups. that's why it's advanced with an overwhelming bipartisan vote on monday. i believe there were 31 republican votes on monday, mr. president. i would remind my republican colleagues that since the senate

began debate of this bill, china has made no move to correct the value of its currency. it's clear that merely considering congressional action would not solve this problem, so it would be difficult for me to comprehend how people could be switching their votes from monday to thursday. we've offered to work with the republicans on an agreement to consider several germane amendments. i stand by that offer. we talked about that yevmentd in fact, late last night. i repeat, more than 30 republicans voted to advance this legislation earlier this week. so i'm hopeful my colleagues on the other side will continue to work with us in a bipartisan fashion to advance this important job-creating legislation today. i've indicated to the republican leader that i have a meeting with three of my senators at the white house at 5:30 this afternoon. so we either finish this bill, if in fact cloture is invoked and we work out something on the amendments, before 5:30 or we

can come back tonight after the meeting at the white house, or we can come back tomorrow, but we're going to complete work on this legislation before we leave one way or the other. if cloture is not invoked, of course, that ends it, which would be a sad day, i think, in the relations between china and the united states to think that we capitulated on something as important as this. we're going to finish this legislation today. i would like to do it before 5 thairl5:30. we have the jewish holiday that starts tomorrow at 5:30. i was actually -- on hour or so after that, about 6:40 sundown back here. we're going to continue working on this legislation until we complete it one way or the other. early next week, the senate will begin consideration on the american jobs act. it will ask every american to contribute his or her fair share. this legislation will put construction crews back to work building the things that make our country stronger -- modern

bridges dams, sewer systems and up-to-date schools. i spent a lot of time with the presiding officer, knowing how he and others feel about the colombian trade agreement and in spite of minot feeling so strong about these, i'm not big fans of these matters, aim doing the best to advance this so we can have a vote hopefully as early as wednesday of next week. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: what this week has shown beyond any doubt is

that democrats would rather talk about partisan legislation they won't pass than actually passing legislation we know would create jobs. two and a half years after the president signed his first stimulus, there are 1.7 million fewer jobs in this country, and now he wants to do it again. why? because democrats think it makes good politics. this week it was revealed that there weren't -- wasn't enough support within the democratic ranks to pass the president's so-called jobs bill. it was simply too partisan. so yesterday instead of making it less partisan, they made it more so by adding a tax on small business owners. they made it even attractive to job creators rather than working with republicans on legislation that would actually help create jobs. i mean, what's the goal here? if the goal is to create gorks then why aren't we even talking about -- why are we even talking

about tax hikes? the president himself has said that raising taxes is the last thing he wants to do in a weak economy. that's the president of the united states. even the white house predicts that unemployment rate will be high when this tax would kick in. so the real goal here for the democrats as far as i can tell is entirely political by arguing for a permanent tax hike to pay for a temporary stimulus, they are essentially admitting they're not particularly interested in creating jobs. because proposing a partisan tax hike 13 months before an election won't create one single job. not one. so i would suggest that our friends on the other side put away the play book and work with us instead. as i've said repeatedly, republicans are ready to act right away with democrats on bipartisan job-creating legislation, on the three trade bills, for instance, on regulatory reform, increasing

american energy production, and tax reform. all those things would help the economy, and all could be strongly, strongly bipartisan. yet, democratic leaders don't seem to be interested in working together on these kinds of thepbgz. two days ago -- things. two days ago i offered the president a chance to work on his second stimulus. our democratic friends blocked the vote. democrats have fallen back to tired talking points, the same stale rhetoric we've heard literally for years. and with 14 million americans out of work, this is completely and totally unacceptable. we're wasting valuable time. despite the president assuring americans that nobody is talking about raising taxes right now and that a down economy was a

horrible time to raise taxes -- again, this is what the president said -- the new democratic tax hike would take effect in a little over a year when c.b.o. tells us the unemployment rate will still be well over 8%. it's no wonder that the economy is stagnant. businesses aren't hiring and unemployment is at 9%. how can anyone be expected to make plans when the next gotcha tax hike to pay for this president's spending binge is always lurking right around the corn center the president said it's wrong to raise taxness this weak environmental environment. if he meant when said, surely he'll join me in opposing this tax hike senate democrats proposed. republicans along with some democrats have progrowth solutions to help solve this crisis, but we will not stand for a permanent tax hike or a

temporary stimulus that is largely a rehash of the same stimulus ideas the administration has already tried. this bill is the same wasteful spending, the same burdensome union giveaways and the same temporary tax policy that has failed the american people in the last two years. this economy can grow and create jobs when washington reduces spending and regulations. and by simplifying our incredibly complex tax system. this is what's needed to literally unleash the private sector. it's time democrats move beyond the political rhetoric and for the president to stop campaigning. it's time for democrats to reach across the aisle on bipartisan legislation that can actually pass. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration

of s. 1619, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 183, s. 1619, a bill to provide for identification of misaligned currency, require action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or thaer designees. -- or thaer designees. the senator from new york. mr. schumer: just a point of clarification. are we in morning business or are we on the bill? the presiding officer: we're on the bill, senator. mr. schumer: and there's an hour of time confide? the presiding officer: until 10:30. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. first i'd like to make a comment on the republican leader's comments on the tax bill. just make note, american people, the leader says don't raise taxes, but he does not mention

what our proposal actually does. it imposes a 5.6% surcharge only on those whose incomes are above $1 million. in other words, 99%-plus of american people will not have their taxes raised, nor should they. average middle-class people are struggling. their incomes are declining. we shouldn't be doing that. but for those who are the very wealthiest -- and this is no aspersion to them. i admire, i think most of us on both sides of the aisle admire people who have made a lot of money. most americans would like to be in their shoes. and most of them have done it the hard way, by coming up with a good idea, struggling and working a business. that's great. but they are the one segment in society whose income has increased significantly overt last decade, and the kinds of cuts we must do, the one consensus we have in this place is we have to reduce the deficit and reduce the budget.

the one consensus we have is that we have to do that. you're asking middle-class people to chip in by making it harder to pay for college because student loans aren't as good or cutting back on somebody who's been unemployed, worked their whole lives, lost their job and now are unemployed. so how do you have the top 1%, the one part of society doing the best, chip in? the only way is through the tax code. they don't need hem getting their kids through -- help getting their kids through college, don't need health care help. god bless them. this is the only way to do it. if you say no taxes on anybody, even the millionaires, you're saying the best off in society who have done the best in the last decade should not contribute to this deficit reduction that we have to do. and i believe -- and i'll say this again and again -- that the only way we're going to get real

deficit reduction is by raising revenues as well as cutting spending. and the only real way we're going to break through on raising revenues is making sure those at the highest income contribute and contribute more than others when it comes to the tax system. i'd like to go to the bill at hand, which is 1619, the currency act. and i know my colleagues have heard me on this all week. it's passionate for me. it's passionate not as a democrat or not against republicans. in fact, we've religiously tried throughout -- lindsey graham and i, senator graham and i -- throughout the history of this bill which is a long one and the bills before it, their predecessors, we've tried to keep this religiously bipartisan. in fact, we have five lead democratic sponsors and five lead republican sponsors. lindsey and i have opposed presidents on this issue, whether it be the republican

president bush or the democrat president obama, with equal vigor because we think administrations get too caught up in that highfalutin diplomatic tworld understand what companies, particularly middle-sized companies go through when china doesn't play world. and i'm on the floor on this bill many times, more often than i usually speak, because i feel passionately this is about the future of america, mr. president. if we continue to lose wealth and jobs to china because they manipulate trade laws and intellectual property laws and all kinds of other economic laws for their own advantage unfairly, against the w.t.o. rules, against the rules of free trade, we may never recover as a country. this is serious stuff. this is not to gain political advantage. although most americans agree with it, of course.

but i would do this if most americans didn't. editorialists don't. business leaders, multinational corporations don't. do this because when you have small companies that are growing, that have great products, and china unfairly competes with them not because china's products are better but because china's trade allows it to undercut them here in our market and in the chinese market, you're giving away your seed corn. take solar cells. china usually use as one-two punch to hurt us unfairly. first they will use some trade law to get that business in this country, whether it's rare earths, and they say you want these rare earths, you've got to manufacture in china. whether it's intellectual property they just take it regardless of pat the tent laws

and other -- patent laws or other laws. or if it's solar cells, they say you make the solar cells here, the chinese companies will get deep subsidies. but that alone wouldn't be enough to put our american companies on their butts. what happens is after they unfairly take the business and move them there, they send them here at a 30% discount, using currency manipulation. and our american companies -- and i've spoken to company after company in manufacturing businesses, in service businesses, and things in between, and they say i can compete. my product is usually better. but not against a 30% currency disadvantage so the price of the chinese good is 30% cheaper. there is a window manufacturer. i just visited, i think it was

last friday. and he makes these high-end windows for these buildings in new york and elsewhere. and the window he makes is better than the chinese window. this wasn't a theft of intellectual property. and he wouldn't use the chinese windows because he's a contractor as well. he makes the windows and then he installs them. he says i wouldn't use the chinese product. but because it has a 30% advantage in currency, it undercuts me in price and lots of other people use it. now who would have thought that we're talking about windows, the chinese are competing against us everywhere. high end, middle end, low end. on the low end we'll never get the businesses back. toys or clothing, shoes, maybe even furniture, except high-end furniture not coming back. the argument some of these editorialists use they're going to go to bangladesh or somewhere

else if china has to raise its currency. it's true but that's not what we're fighting for here. we're fighting for high and middle-end companies that have great products -- solar panels -- that america has a future in, jobs that if china played fairly, we'd win because we make a better product and it doesn't have to be exported. and yet, we somehow sit here and twiddle our thumbs. not only does china compete in manufacturing the windows. chinese companies come here and install them. again, it's still a 30% advantage because they're paying that chinese company and workers the yuan which is undervalued by 30% over there. so, this is serious stuff. it's about the future of america, mr. president, about

the future of american jobs. we're all concerned about jobs. there are very few jobs bills that are, a, bipartisan and, b, don't cost money. this is one of them. it's been a bipartisan bill all the way. the votes showed it. i see my colleague from alabama, who's been a great partner. i saw my colleague from south carolina who's been a great partner. how else in this deadlocked, gridlocked situation can we help american workers in a bipartisan way that doesn't cost money, in a big way? this is it. there aren't many others. so i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, leader reid said on the floor a few minutes ago what he said last night, that he would certainly entertain amendments and come to an agreement, amendments from both sides of the aisle,

relevant, germane amendments. relevant to trade. i'm sure if we could move on cloture, senator hatch's amendment, he's the ranking member of the trade committee, of the financial committee which deals with trade, would be debated. we'd try to have time limits. there would be a fair and open debate on an important issue, and then we could vote on the bill. so i hope we will get a positive vote on cloture this morning. and i hope we will not, for political gain or anything like that but for american gain. we cannot, cannot, cannot continue to let china flaunt the rules. ten years ago or eight years ago when senator graham and i started on this, china was a much smaller economy. now they are huge, second largest in the world, they compete against us up and down the line. they have found six ways from sunday to lure businesses there.

and that will, that deals with the chinese market. but then with trade currency, when the businesses go there with currency manipulation they're able to undercut us and send the goods here. again, to me -- and i'm just one person, and obviously i feel this issue more passionately than 99% of americans because i've been involved in it so long, but to me, if you could do five thoeupbgz restore american -- things to restore american jobs and restore american wealth, this would be one of them. this would be one of them. i want to see, mr. president, our children and grandchildren know that they're going to have better lives than their parents and grandparents, and it's a difficult and tough world to ensure that, with global competition, with so many changes. we were just talking in the gym about how our kids spend so much time on video games all day long instead of learning in school. there's so many challenges that

we face as a country, and at this time we can't just shrug our shoulders and be benign, like 20 or 25 years ago when we were in a different situation, say, if china cheats, so what? let's not risk any change, let's not get them mad. we can't afford that anymore. the future of america is at stake. and to those who say it'll cause a trade war, we are in a trade war. we have our clocks cleaned every day and lose jobs every day because of unfair chinese practices. to those who say china will retaliate, china has got far more to lose in this than we do. they're the ones that benefit from all of these rules, we don't -- all these manipulations. they won't retaliate. yeah, they may do a little thing here or there, but they will not

retaliate big time because it'll do even more to the chinese economy. what they will do -- and senator graham and i have seen this and senator sessions and senator brown -- when they're faced with the hard reality that they will no longer be allowed by legislation -- or i wish by administration action, but that hasn't been forthcoming from either president bush or president obama -- they, then, adjust plaindz fairer. that is what has happened every single time, and that will happen again. so i want to first compliment my colleagues on this legislation. i want to hope and pray -- i really pray in this one, me -- for the future of america and the future of america is linked to free and fair trade with

china. the future of america is linked to the fact that we can no longer let china unfairly take advantage of american workers, american wealth, and the american future. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. mr. graham: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. i rise in support of moving forward on this legislation. i wish i could fix the senate. it's not functioning the way any of us would like. plenty of blame to go around. the congress is at 15%. but here's some good news: there is a piece of legislation before us that if we could ever get a vote on the legislation would have an overwhelming bipartisan support that actually would matter to the average everyday person. when you look to our congress, you got to say, what is it about these folks up there? why can't they do the things that all of us know need to be done? now, there's a difference of opinion about how to deal with china.

this is a complicated issue, but the one thing no one is telling me on the other side, lindsey, they're not manipulating their currency. i think it's the american taxpayers organization -- pretty good standing, i just disagree with them on how to proceed with china on this particular instance. i think they said in their own letter, we agree that china manipulates their own currency. well, if they do manipulate their currency what does it matter? it matters a lot if you are an american businessman or woman. the chinese manipulate the value of their currency 6.31y yuan to the dollar. that means if a product is sold to the world marketplace and you're in alabama or new york competing with that, the value of their discount --

you're going to have a hard time in the marketplace not because you don't work hard, simply because the chinese government is doing things with their currency we don't do. we have a federal reserve. some of their policies i don't agree with with. but to suggest that our federal reserve system manipulates our currency to create a trade advantage is ridiculous. if we're doing for that purpose, everybody should be fired because we have a $273 billion trade deficit. every country has the right to set monetary policy. that's not the issue. if you disagree with the way we're doing monetary policy in the united states, i think you have a valid claim. this is about a country manipulating their currency for an advantage in the export market. the chinese manipulation of the yuan has cost this country at least 2 million jobs, 41,000 in south carolina, and it is an unfair trade practice and another name. if this were an island nation

somewhere, none of us would cairks but this is the second- or third-largest economy in the world and all of us should care. the people who are opposing this legislation today are probably doing business in china and they're afraid to offend the chinese. i have avenue got some manufacturing in my state that has a big footprint in china and they're nervous about this bivment i have most people in my state dying for me to get them some relief so they can stay in business. but here's a warning: it will come -- this movie will come to a neighborhood near you soon. in 2016 the chinese will going to start producing in large numbers commercial aircraft. it will be difficult for american aircraft companies to compete with china if the aircraft is 30% discounted because of currency manipulation. one day they'll be producing cars, not to be sold in china but throughout the world. if you're in a high-tech industry, what has happened to the tex textile industry and otr elements of the economy like

steel is coming towards you. all we ask of china is build cars, build angers but sell your product based -- build cars, build airplanes, but sell your product based on trade practices accepted throughout the world. don't manipulate your currency to create a discount at our expense. now, since 2004 i have been dealing with this. we started with a sense of the senate because everybody says this is delicate. i buy that that to a point. so a sense of the senate, we all agreed like 100 votes, you manipulate your cren virginia, please stop. in 2005 after they didn't stop, we introduced legislation, got 67 votes to proceed forward with a 27.5% taiforts taimplet we stopped our bill because we hoped things would change. guess what? the yuan has appreciated about 31% since we've been doing this exercise, but not nearly u.n. there is a restriction on the yuan trading. they can't float more than 0.5% a day.

it is tied to the dollar and it is still crushing our manufacturing community unfairly. so from 2004 to now, i've been reasonable, i've sent message amendments, i've taken votes where i won overwhelmingly and backed o i've had it. enough is enough. i am sorry the amendment process around this place is so screwed up. it is. there was an effort to get some amendments up. not as much as people on our side would like. i hate the idea of filling up the tree and becoming the house, but this is not about senate procedure for me. i try to be a team player where i can be, because i do believe -- senator mccons&l doing a very good job. senator reid has got his own agenda. it is not about harry reid or mitch mcconnell. iit is about people in my state who will lose their job if we don't do something. the institution i need to be protecting is the american workforce who is have their clock cleaned by a communist

dictatorship who cheats. they don't outwork us, they don't outperform you they steal our intellectual property, they manipulate their currency, they subsidize their industries. a few years ago they dumped steel all over the world and the american marketplace in particular produced in china below cost and the bush administration pushed back with a countervatting duty claim -- with a counterveiling duty claim. the chinese people are good. their government is bad. they're mercantil ist. they look at every transaction as to what is best for us in the short-term. since they've been in the w.t.o., the trade deficit has almost quadrupled. enough is enough for lindsey graham. we're going to have a chance after seven years of getting a vote that will matter to the american people. and i'm sorry we're mad at each other all the time about everything. i am tired of being mad about the senate not working well. i am going to set aside my

displeasure for the process and do something i think will help the people that i represent. i am going to vote to move forward in an imperfect procedural environment, knowing that if we can ever get a vote, it will be the best thing that could happen to the american manufacturing community. it would be a shot across china's bow that's long overdue. and the last thing i would say, that senator sessions has come into this issue. he has brought an intellectual weight to it, emotional comirntle he understands the middle class. and jeff sessions has been the best partner anyone could hope to have to try to push a bill forward that will give america a fighting chance in an a world ey dominated by communist china. jeff sessions is going to vote to move forward. let's do something that will

matter. with that, i yield. mr. hatch: i have been very interested in the comments of the g.d.p. senator from new york and my friend from south carolina as well. but this morning the senate will have the opportunity to send a strong message to china and the world community. whether that signal is one of inward protectionism or outward engagement remains to be seen. in my mind, the choice is clear. if we support the motion to invoke cloture on the underlying bill, we will be sending a signal to china that the u.s. senate is angry over china's manipulation of its currency but we are not really serious about taking real long-term action to stop it. we're also telling the world community that the u.s. is turning inward once again, seeking protectionist solutions to global problems, and not really interested in working with other countries to solve our current international economic crisis. at the same time, we would be

interjecting further uncertainty into our own economic recovery as our exporters and workers face potential retaliation from one of our leading trading partners. there is a better way. and it can be bipartisan. we can defeat cloture and give senators an opportunity to vote on my amendment, which not only has the best chance of actually resolving our serious currency problems with china but also demonstrates to the international community that the united states will continue to lead by promoting trade liberalization and holding exons accountable to -- and holding countries accountable to the rules of the game for the long haul. if given the chance to vote on my amendment, we can demonstrate our serious commitment to developing long-term solutions to the problem of currency manipulation. and it tells them that we are committed to starting that process today. yesterday i outlined some of the

serious problems with the unilateral approach adopted by the proponents of this bill. allow me to summarize them for the benefit of my colleagues. first, this is not a jobs measure. proponents of the unilateral approach argue that their bill will create thousands of jobs right now and millions of jobs in the years ahead. but all we have to do is take a close look at the numbers and the process laid out in the bill to see that this is not the case. i'm mostly concerned that the bill will inject economic instability in a key bilateral relationship and subject u.s. exporters to potential retaliation by the chinese. yesterday the white house also expressed concerns about this bill, though they still have not stated publicly what those specific concerns are. i wish they would. it would be helpful to us up here to have the white house weigh in and say what they really want instead of just waiting for the senate to do whatever -- whatever it wants

to. a growing chorus has come out to criticize the unilateral approach in this bill, a growing chorus. "the new york times" called this bill a -- quote -- "bad idea" -- unquote -- and -- quote -- "too blunt of an instrument" -- unquote -- which if flacketted will add another explosive new conflict to an already heavy list of bilateral restrictions. "the wall street journal" called the bill -- quote -- "the most dangerous trade legislation in many years" -- unquote. the u.s. chamber of commerce issued a letter stating that the unilateral approach in the underlying bill would be counterproductive in persuading china to alter its currency practices and that -- quote -- "in the end such unilateral action would very likely cause retaliation by china and

ultimately damage the u.s. economy, including exporters, investors, workers, and consumers" durbin quote. it doesn't get any tougher than that. again, there is a better way. my amendment calls for a bold, new approach which will empower the united states negotiators to work within the w.t.o. and i.m.f. to develop long-term effective remedies to counter the effect of currency manipulation by china or any other country and develop practices to persuade countries to stop crncy manipulation. if that does not work within 90 days, they are directed to go outside of these institutions. my amendment -- which would also send a great message to both the i.l.o. -- excuse me. the w.t.o. and the i.m.f. i'm used to talking about the i.l.o. from my days as labor

committee chairman. my amendment also would establish a new priority negotiating objective, so as we negotiate trade agreements with our trading partners, we should all commit in those agreements to not manipulate our currencies. my amendment also ensures that we have a partner by holding the administration accountable until they achieve results. and that's whether it's this administration or some administration in the future. this is not a quick fix, but truly resolving complex and long-standing problems such as currency manipulation will take much more than a quick fix. it requires that we stand together as a country and do the hard work necessary with the international community to achieve real long-term results. although my amendment was only recently introduced, it is already gaining widespread support. the u.s. chamber of commerce endorsed the hatch amendment, arguing that coordinated and multilateral pressure through

international organizations is essential to encouraging china to adopt market-determined currency and exchange rate policies. that is the precise approach taken in the hatch amendment. this morning douglas holtz-eakin, of the congressional budget office wrote in national review online that the hatch amendment -- quote -- "is a more complex solution to the currency problem." and while -- quote -- "not nearly as sexy or slogan inspiring as the currency exchange oversight reform act, happens to have a much greater likelihood of being effectual. the hatch bill does." unquote. americans for tax reform wrote a letter in support of my amendment saying that the hatch amendment -- quote -- "offers a sensible approach that utilizes the mechanisms created by the international trade community to resolve such disputes." the emergency committee for american trade says that the hatch amendment -- quote --

"will more effectively address concerns about currency misalignment by china and other countries without opening the door to many harmful effects on u.s. business and workers." these and other organizations such as the financial services round table recognize that there is a better way. let's quit playing politics with this issue. today we face a clear choice. by voting against cloture we can stand against unilateralism, stand against protectionism and stand against retaliation and stand against -- quote -- "quick fix" solutions and slogans. we can then turn to vote on my amendment, and that offers the prospect of real long-term and effective solutions that shows the chinese and the world community that we are serious about solving this problem over the long haul and tells this and subsequent administrations that they will be held accountable.

even the administration basically agrees with this. today we have an opportunity to make a difference. the atlanta journal constitution wrote today that -- quote -- "we have a trade problem with china, but georgians will pay dearly if congress keeps taking the wrong approach to solving it." unquote. i could not agree more. but i would say it is not just georgians who will pay dearly, but all americans. i urge my colleagues to make the right choice today to vote against cloture and support my amendment. i'm even willing to give my amendment to the distinguished senator from new york and others. have it be their amendment. i don't care who gets the credit for it. i just want to have -- when we work on trade issues, i want to have them worked right. i don't want to have politics played with this. this is too important to have politics played with it. so i hope everybody votes against cloture, and i hope that we can then take up this amendment that i've been talking

about. we can refile it so that those who feel so deeply about the schumer amendment can be for something. i would like to do that. i would like to see this done. i would thraoeubg see our country -- i would like to see our country move ahead in an intelligent approach towards currency and trade. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i would say that the majority leader has agreed that if cloture is invoked, that senator hatch's amendment will be one of the amendments that will be voted on. that is an agreement. and other amendments too would be allowed. i do believe that the majority has to -- the minority has to protect the right to offer amendments, consistent with other processes we've had here that i'm not happy with, the amendments offered by the

majority, i believe, are legitimate. i'm a bit offended and don't appreciate the view that this is a protectionist piece of legislation. i believe it protects free trade because trade can't exist when one party is manipulating the rules in a significant way that substantially impacts the balance of trade. and i would just ask the question: is presidential candidate, former governor mitt romney, a protectionist? is governor huntsman from utah, presidential candidate, president obama's ambassador to china, who said he would sign this bill if it came before him if he's elected president? rob portman, our fabulous new senator here who was president bush's trade representative, he said he supports the bipartisan

legislation. so i don't think it's protectionism. he think it's -- i think it's an effort to protect trade. there are some thaor religious about free -- that are religious about free trade. it is a religion with them. they believe that no matter how bad our trading partners act that we should not retaliate because that might cause a trade war. i think that is' not -- that's against common sense. trade is not my religion. i think any trading relationship should depend on how well the agreement served the interest of both parties. it's like any other business relationship. is it serving the interest of both parties? and this trade situation is a dramatic factor in the american loss of jobs. it is indisputable, in my opinion. a group of professors from california have said our trade

imbalance over the last decade has cost 10 million jobs. and let me just say that we're going to have dynamic changes in our economy. that happens all the time. there are winners and losers. we can compete with china in many different ways, but when you give them a currency advantage as large as this, good companies capable of competing and being successful would be hammered. the middle class in this country are being hammered. this has got to stop. and we have to ask ourselves: is this country going to abandon its commitment or belief in a manufacturing economy? are we going to give up manufacturing entirely? i don't think that's remotely conceivable. but we've had brilliant economists tell us we need to be a service economy. and we just deal with computers

and e-mails and things and move paper around. this creates wealth? you need in manufacturing a growing economy. i'm pleased to support, my colleague senator brown phab a strong advocate of this, senator schumer and senator graham who have been at this for years. i voted for the legislation in 2005. but i've really become energized about this because i believe it's a deep responsibility for every government official to protect our national security and protect our economic security. and when we have clear evidence that a predatory trade policy of a major world exporter, the largest exporter in the history of the world to any country is china to the united states. they are abusing their trade

privileges when the administrations refuse to act, i is that i congress can and should act. i believe this is a reasonable bill. it allows the administration to negotiate an end to this matter over a period of time. and it will provide the power and the requirements to make that happen. mr. brown: may i ask a question? thank you, madam president. senator sessions, i appreciate your consistent push for fair trade policies. we've worked on some alabama-ohio joint issues from sleeping bags to steel, and i appreciate that. you had said how important manufacturing, that we can't turn to a service economy or we begin to lose the middle class. i appreciate your advocacy there. would you explain again before the debate's wrapped up, what this currency depreciation, what

the china do, what it does to our economy. senator murray explained that when we export to china, their currency advantage, their artificial currency advantage gives the chinese, a 25% tariff on our sales to china make it go harder for a montgomery or dayton company to sell into china. coming the other way, it's a 25% subsidy to the chinese company or chinese government's company selling in mobile or selling in cincinnati. could you sort of, as we wrap the debate up, kind of go through that again, the poeufpbt what currency -- the point of what currency does? mr. sessions: thank you for raising that. yes. if a manufacturing company in dayton is competing with a chinese company to manufacture a widget. they can on the currency alone, more than have an advantage shipping the product from china

here to have 25% advantage. as you know, in modern trade and sales today, margins are very small. 25% is a huge margin that would be provided by the currency alone. then you have the things that are done in china to block our country's moving and selling there that goes beyond the currency. this is not a two-way street. i believe that any rationale government should not allow its manufacturing industry and its workers to be subjected to such unfair practices. we have an absolute responsibility to stand up and fix it. the best way to do is the bill that senator hugh pher and others have offered. i believe it will do it in a rational effective way. and other alternatives are less

effective and will not do the job. it's time for us to do it now, madam president. i would yield the floor and reserve the balance of the time. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: what is the time status for the majority and minority? the presiding officer: the majority has no time remaining. the minority has two minutes remaining. mr. schumer: since they're much better at this than us, i'd be happy to -- mr. sessions: i'd be happy to yield the two minutes to senator schumer or brown. mr. schumer: well, both, all four of us -- madam president? sproeup the senator from new -- the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i just again would make a plea to my colleagues.

we've had eight months talking about debt and many have said that's the future for our children and grandchildren. i think that's a consensus on both sides of the aisle that that is true. but i would argue this is also about the future for our children and grandchildren. because if good american companies with great ideas are wiped out in the next ten years as they will be if china is allowed to continue predatory practices, the future for our children and grandchildren in this country will not be bright. our seed corn, family jewels are being decimated by a plague, a plague of unfair competition that has been allowed. it's as if we have a phrag, and -- we have a plague and some of the leaders of this country, whether they be political or economic, shrug their shoulder and say that's that. we can't do much about it. but in a bipartisan way we have come together and said we can do something about this plague. and we are at the moment of decision. it is my belief, madam president, that if we pass

this here in a bipartisan way, as we have to, the way the senate works, that the house will then -- they may not take our bill up exactly, but they'll do something. we'll have a conference committee. we can get something done. and the odds are quite high that when china sees the train heading down the track, when their ability -- and i've seen the articles. i want you to read some of them into the record. i don't have them with me. companies with plans in china to lobby against this bill but when china sees the train heading down the track and that for the first time their efforts, they and their multinational allies to stall this bill won't succeed, they will adjust and correct themselves not just on currency, madam president, but on all the other areas where they don't treat us fairly. so this is an important vote and an important day for america. and i yield the floor. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york.

mr. schumer: i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the mexico motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 1619, a bill to provide for identification of misaligned currency and require action to correct the misalignment. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on s. 1619, a bill to provide for identification of misaligned currency, require action to correct the misalignment and for other purposes shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 6 2-rbg the nays are 38. three-fifths of the senate duly chosen and sworn having voted affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: move to reconsider and also laid this matter on the table. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senate will please come to order. majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, if we could have the attention of the senate, we're now 30 hours postcloture. the republican leader and i, what we'd like to do -- there is, of course, with what has happened procedurally, there's no opportunity to offer amendments unless we agree to offer amendments, except for the issue dealing with suspending the rules. what we would like to do is have senators work to come up with some amendments that they feel should be offered and we'll all be happy -- senator mcconnell is happy to see if we can work

our way through this. so we'd hope that senators would check with floor staff and see how we can get this done. it would be to my liking to not have to spill over into tomorrow. the highest holy day of the jewish faith is tomorrow starting at sundown. there are a number of people who wish to leave to be able to be home with their families but we have to finish this legislation this week. i would like to do it today. if we can. people should have opportunity to offer amendments, give a little speech, big speech, whatever they feel is appropriate. we can vote. and i'm happy to do that. so that i've called off the quorum, people can talk, and in the meantime, floor staff will be waiting to hear from you as to what we can do regarding amendments.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would only -- the presiding officer: the leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would only add that the practical effect of where we are, not having been allowed to offer any amendments during the consideration of this bill, is that we are left with motions to suspend, and as the majority leader indicated, we're going to have some discussions about how many motions to suspend the majority will, shall i say, tolerate. the bad part of all of this from the senate's point of view, as an institution, the minority is put as a substantial disadvantage. having said that, as the majority leader indicated, the floor staff is going to work together and see if we can come up with some list of motions to instruct that will at least allow the minority to have some voice in the course of the consideration of this piece of

legislation. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: there are a number of things we could do. we can do the motions to suspe suspend. we're happy on this side to have, with consent, just do amendments. that's fine over here. i would say -- and i don't want to get in a long debate here -- i've been in a situation, mr. president, during the entire pendency of this legislation to have amendments allowed. i said that yesterday. i have no problem with that. the problem we had is that the republican leader offered the president's jobs bill in a form that is not the president's jobs bill. now, i've told him this morning, you want to vote on that, fine. we'll do that. we'll have a vote on that today. it can either be a motion to suspend the rules or it can be a

regular amendment. i feel that way about all the motions to suspend that have been filed. so i -- there are times when i accept the blame of not allowing amendments. there are times that that's certainly -- that i'm willing to take that burden of being criticized. but not on this one. not on this one. i said publicly, i said privately to different senators, democrats and republicans, that amendments could be offered. i don't want to get into a long debate about that. but that -- mr. mcconnell: if i would friend would yield forea question, i listened very carefully to what the majority leader said. we interact every day. and what my good friend has just said, he'd be more than happy to get amendments that he gets to pick. e. gets to pick what amendments we get to offer. that is not, i would sty my good friend, the view of the minority leader as to how we ought to operate. that we ought to be able to determine what amendments we're going to offer, not my good friend, the majority leader.

so what he's saying, in effect, is, yes, he would have been preed prepared to allows to offer amendments but he would select which have our amendments might be appropriate. that is not, i think, a place that the minority, no matter which party is in the minority, would like to find itself. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we have tried to set up a system here that's fair. now, fair is in the mind of the person that says "fair." and i understand that. but we've had an open amendment process here, and that has led because of the intransigence of the republicans into getting nothing done, nothing done. offer an amendment, there's no way to get rid of that thing. so my -- the system that we have on this bill may not be the best in the world. but under what has been going on in the senate, sometimes we do the best we can with the tools we have.

and there was no way of managing this legislation other than how i've just described. you can -- people can imagine what this place would have been like had we had a simple -- anybody can offer anything they want. get the troops out of afghanistan, and on and on the one hand with all many things that people would -- and on and on with all the many things that people would have done with this legislation. so without he should, she said -- or in this instance, he said, he said -- i think what we should do is try to finish this legislation today. the motion to suspend has been filed. that's fine with us. let's try to work through as many of those as we can and see if we can finish this today. otherwise we'll finish tomorrow. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i would only add the way the senate used to work was the majority didn't pick the amendments that the minority chose to offer.

but there was some ability to determine whether or not it got a vote because any senator could prevent a time agreement on the opportunity to get a vote on an amendment. so it wasn't totally freewheeling. and then at some point if 60 members of the senate felt we ought to move to conclusion, we would. a much more orderly and open process leading to the same result, which is that if 60 members of the senate want to end a matter and bring it to a conclusion, they can. so my complaint is about what we do before we get to the 60 votes, which i think is, in this particular instance unfair to the minority. my party was divided on this issue. some members were for it. some members were against it. that meant for sure that at some point 60 votes were going to be achieved, and it was going to pass. the problem i would say to my good friend is what we did before that. which has the practical effect of putting the minority in a position where it gets no

amendments at all or is once again at the sufferance of the majority in a, in motions to suspend at the end in which we're basically, the majority determines how many we get and all of that. this level of control is really not necessary, in my judgment, in order to make the senate move forward. because i will say again before i yield the floor, if 60 senators are in favor of bringing a matter to conclusion, it will be brought to conclusion. that's what just happened a few minutes ago. so i hope we can move forward in a more orderly process in the future, and maybe we can work out some agreement to have motions to suspend here this afternoon that will not require us to be here tomorrow. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the republican leader and i came here at about the same time. i remember the good old days

too. but everyone knows that follows government at all that during the last congress and part of this one, the number-one goal of the republicans has been to stop legislation from moving through here. look what's happened this year. and they have been fairly successful doing that, i have to acknowledge. and i have said publicly and i say here today, i admire my friend, the republican leader, because he was very candid with what his goal is in this congress: to make sure that president obama is not reelected. that's been their goal. and as a result of that, legislation has been very slow moving. and we have not been able to legislate as we did in the gold old days. -- in the good old days. so let's now try with the situation we find ourselves in to work through this on a bipartisan basis. this is a good piece of legislation. let's see if we can get through

these amendments. i'm confident we can. we have two outstanding floor managers for both senator mcconnell and for me. gary myers and david schiappa. they do great work. they are going to try to put us on a pathway that they think will work, and we'll get out of here today. otherwise we'll do it tomorrow. mr. mcconnell: my good friend referred to the good old days. the good old days weren't that long ago. they weren't that long ago. i can remember a few years ago when my party was in the majority in this party and i was the assistant leader making the point with great repetition and listening to a lot of grumbling that the price for being in the majority is to take bad votes. you have to take votes you don't like in order to get legislation across the floor and get it finished. this is not ancient times we're talking about, where the

minority actually got votes, took votes, and were not shut out. i hope we can move back in that direction. i think it would be a lot better for the united states senate. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm not going to argue with my friend. the record speaks for itself. we know what's happened, and i repeat, we're where we are today. that's what we have to do to move forward on this most important legislation. and i'll do my best to cooperate and allow the senators to have votes on issues they feel are important. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked the motion to recommit amendments thereto fall as being inconsistent with cloture. the senator from connecticut.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:ed.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. begich: move to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: mr. president, like many of my colleagues, we were just back home last week and talking, in my case to alaskans, and all the issues that were on their mind were pretty simple: the economy and jobs. alaska has fared better than most states over the last two years, but no matter where i go, maybe a small convenience store while i'm driving around town or home depot, the gas station or wherever i may get a chance to engage with alaskans, people are

concerned about the economy and their ability for jobs to be grated in this great country of ours. alaskans have known that the economy will take some time to turn around. that's why today i'm pleased to talk a little bit about the jobs act before us this week and hopefully as we move forward we'll spend some time on the debate of how important this work will be. last week when i was in alaska, i had the transportation secretary lahood in alaska and we had a chance to travel around and get a good sense of what's important to alaska with regard to ports, roads and railroads, the core infrastructure of our state is no different than any other state. it's critical that we repair, put into shape some of the facilities that are falling apart, or in some cases expanding them. the jobs act alone would add in alaska, $200 million to repair

alaska's transportation network. that $200 million would be spent with the private-sector, construction companies, contractors, hiring private individuals, workers to work on those jobs, good-paying jobs to provide incomes for their families. the same is true in the jobs act in front of us that it would offer for alaska around $62 million for school construction, which again as you travel around my state, and i'm sure like any other state, the need for improvements and expansion to the schools, that some have been there for many, many years and have not had the renovations necessary. again, providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs. the jobs act also has some good steps to deal with small businesses. how to ensure that they get a break off their taxes, to ensure that they have a benefit as we try to move this economy forward, and the tax provisions, payroll tax reduction which

would affect 20,000 alaskan business nasp positive way, reduce -- businesses in a positive way, reducing their tax burden. or working families that would see a reduction in their payroll taxes. on average for a middle class family would be almost $2,000. not a bad gift in a sense as we move into this holiday season, but surely their money. it means that giving back this $2,000 to middle-class families means they'll put it back into the economy. they'll spend it in the economy. they'll use it as they see fit. however, i want to lay down a marker, as i've said about the jobs bill, it's important. as i just mentioned, the roads and water and sewers and ports that need to be repaired and renovated and expanded, the schools that need to be built or expanded and repaired also, or the benefits to our small business communities and the benefits to our middle-class working families. all important. but how we pay for it is also important, because we have to

make sure it's paid for. but i want to say that i want to kind of put down the marker on at least the first proposal that was laid down regarding how the president was planning to pay for this. and let me first start with the oil and gas industry. the oil and gas industry for alaska is about 85% of our economy in the sense of the money that goes into our state treasury, providing well over 40,000 jobs. nationwide, the oil and gas industry produces over nine million jobs, contributes over $2 trillion to our economy. i know some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle like to blast big oil, but as we know, the oil and gas industry is made up of hundreds, well over 500 companies of all sizes, small, medium sized, large. singling out a growing industry and imposing a tax penalty, in my view, is the wrong choice. it's the wrong road to go down. we need to recognize the

potential for more job creation instead of -- instead by supporting increased domestic oil and gas development. by developing the alaska arctic offshore resources alone, we can create over 50,000 jobs nationwide over the coming decades, jobs being created right here in our country. with 400 jobs as an example just in washington to update the drilling unit which will be utilized in alaska or the thousand jobs in louisiana to build new arctic supply ships right now. so when you look at what the potential is, when you look at the opportunities of the arctic for oil and gas development, american jobs, american jobs not only on the arctic in alaska but also throughout the country where many of the facilities that will be needed to construct or the material utilized will be built. as i mentioned in washington

state, louisiana. also the federal revenue that would be generated. the chamber of commerce has estimated that developing and increasing production on federal lands could produce well over $200 billion in new revenues to our country. an alaska analysis puts the federal revenues just for the bow for the and chukchi seas at at $116 billion. those are just before the north slope in the arctic. these have a potential of well over 24 billion barrels of oil development in the known technically recoverable reserves today, upwards to 24 billion, 26 billion. now, i will tell you that i do support and i understand in the original proposal they wanted to take away some of these tax incentives that help our industry move forward, especially the smaller companies expand exploration and development, and i recognize that tax reform needs to be

done, and i'm a strong supporter of tax reform. when i look at senator wyden, senator coats and myself, we have supported a piece of legislation that's all about tax reform. and i believe in a holistic proposal, not just selective industries. so don't get me wrong. do i believe in tax reform, do i believe in trying to clear out loopholes and incentives that aren't working or may be used improperly? absolutely, and that's why again we supported a much broader perspective, but in the pay-fors or the tax proposals to pay for the jobs bill, this is not the right approach. another concern i have is on aviation. alaska has six times more pilots and 16 times more aircraft per capita than any state in the country. alaska has limited road infrastructure. 80% of our communities are accessed not by roads but by water or by air, so it's critical that we have the right kind of aviation system.

general aviation is not a luxury in alaska. it is a necessity. it is our roads in the highway highway -- our highway in the sky. that's the utilization of our airlines and small planes. the general aviation component is critical for business, life safety, moving things from one village to another. one piece of the bill would change the way business can treat the depreciation of general aviation aircraft and create a disnever to buy american-made aircraft and further depress the industry that has already felt a significant impact due to the recession. the administration and congress should not be dimunizing general aviation travel. what we read about and see in papers is what people like to highlight, but in alaska, it is about moving from one community to the other. this would impact the turboprop aircraft which are the workhorse for the alaska general aviation fleet. another administration proposal

would impose a $100 per flight user fee on certain general aviation aircraft. this is not a wise or even cost-effective way to administer a tax. general aviation users pay their fair share now. they pay for the aviation system through a per-gallon tax on their aviation fuel. as a matter of fact, the general aviation industry has even agreed to a modest increase in this fuel tax as part of the f.a.a., federal aviation reauthorization bill which passed the senate earlier this year, and it shows their commitment to pay their fair share but in an efficient way and also puts it back into aviation, which is what in our state is, again, as i said, the highway in the sky to move goods and people all across our state. again, i think the idea the administration has of $100 per flight user fee is just another burden, another fee, another tax

that is not necessary and very inefficient. again, i want to move on to some additional, as we think about job creation and what's going on, the other piece of this that i'm concerned about, the taxes that are associated with this idea the jobs bill, which i support elements of it, as i mentioned, very important, but the issue when it comes to eliminating or limiting, i should say, the itemmized -- itemized deductions for charitable and mortgage interest deductions for families under $200,000. i think this is not a well-founded idea. i recognize the administration is trying to find ways to pay for things, but this is not in my view a good idea or a smart move. when you think of a family -- now some might say a family making $200,000 is wealthy. i would tell you if you have a couple kids in school and you're trying to figure out their future and after you figure out the deductions, your health care

costs, everything else, $200,000 disappears very quickly, and we need to ensure that limiting the deductions for these middle-class families continues. not limiting them, but ensuring that the deductions for mortgage interests, charitable contributions continues at a level that they can take a benefit from. so with those three or four items, i am concerned with the way the pay-fors or the tax increases to pay for the jobs bill are being handled. now, i know there is new discussion and i'm glad there is new discussion because it would be difficult for me to support any jobs bill with a pile of these new taxes or tax increases that are being proposed. this would not be in the interest of my constituents in alaska, would not be in the interests of my industries that work hard in alaska creating jobs not only in our state but across this country. i agree that we need to do what we can to have a jobs bill, but let's have a fair pay-for in

order to pay for it, not these additional taxes that i think would be a burden on working families, small businesses. let me also if i can just digress for one last second before i yield the floor back. mr. chairman, it's always -- mr. president, it's always enjoyable, i read every business newspaper i can. i try to read every business magazine i can. i want to absorb as much information as we live in washington here during the session and the work weeks and then getting back home, i rather from individuals, but it's amazing to me -- and i know in the debate on the floor here, we sit around and we have our philosophical debates, we saw some just a bit ago on the old days versus the new days. i have never seen the old days. i have been here only three years. this place hasn't run very well in the sense of trying to get things up and dealt with, but i will tell you some of the decisions i know, mr. president, you have taken, i have taken, many on this side of the aisle have taken a lot of votes that

have helped move this country forward. i'll tell you one specifically and which is about the auto industry. i noticed as i was sitting here waiting for the debate, i was looking through these articles. here's one yesterday from wall street, which i know is -- it's not your most liberal newspaper, to say the least, but if you recall a couple years ago, we made a decision that we were going to take some risk, we were going to try to move this country forward, save an industry that was struggling, that employed people in this country and was competing worldwide. folks on the other side said we were going to create a disaster by our actions, we would destroy the economy, we would sink this industry, the list went on and on, all the complaints. but as i read the headline in "the wall street journal" from yesterday, and it reads -- "automakers now import jobs."

import jobs. what does this mean? this means they're bringing jobs back to this country. they specifically mention japan and china. now, three years ago, i could read you a different headline. auto industry on their deathbed. never going to survive. maybe we'll only have one auto company left. we have now three and actually the day before, you look at the numbers, chrysler, 27% up over the previous year in sales. g.m., 20% up. ford, 9% up. the american auto industry is doing well because of what we did here. now, some called it a bailout. i disagree. what we did was partner with the industry to help them get over the hump, the recession, the struggle. they're paying back every dime that the federal government loaned them, and they are profitable, they are hiring people, they are growing the industry, and they are bringing

jobs back to this country. i see the policy we did, despite the naysayers, the negative attitudes people had on the other side, worked. now, maybe "the wall street journal" is wrong, but i don't think so because i've seen article after article that states the same. i can point to many others. now, is it as robust as we want in the economy? no. can it do better? absolutely. and that's why the jobs bill is important, important for my state, important for every state. investing in the issues that matter -- water, roads, sewers, electrification, schools. you name it, putting money back into taxpayers' pockets instead of the i.r.s. taking it and hoarding it, putting it back where it counts. that's what the jobs bill does. we have disagreements on how to pay for it. i think we're going to get to a

better solution because several of us, more of the moderate wing of the democrats, are arguing that we can't have these selective taxes the way they are laid out in the proposal presented by the president. we need to have a more simplified system and pay for it in a different way, but not penalize certain companies because maybe you don't like them or you have some -- creates it great headline, but let's focus on the right way to do this. i anticipate we will be able to have a different pay-for, a different proposal of how to pay for a great potential to bring more jobs back. but i end on that note only because i want to make sure, i know we're going to hear more naysay, but the bottom line is the proof is in the pudding. the article i just read gives you that. mr. president, i again want to thank you for the time and the opportunity to say a few words about the jobs bill. my concern, where i want to lay my marker down, but also about the success we have had on taking some votes that were tough votes and the success we have had to move this economy forward. not as fast as we all would like, but better than i think

the folks on the other side who are just saying nay, saying no to everything. so let me end there, mr. president. i will yield the floor back and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. sanders: mr. president, this country faces many problems, but i think if you go out on main street, if you go out to rural america, if you go to my state of vermont, what people will tell you is that the major crisis we face is that we have a massive problem with unemployment. some people will suggest to you that unemployment is 9% in this country. that's not really quite accurate. if you look at the numbers for those people who have given up looking for work, if you look at the numbers for those people who are working part time when they want to work full time, we are looking at a situation where 60% of the american people are -- 16% of the american people are unemployed or underemployed. that is 25 million americans. and what is the job of the united states congress now is to start putting those people back to work. that is what we have got to do.

and, mr. president, there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done. virtually every american who gets into his or her car understands that our infrastructure is crumbling. that's roads and bridges. talk to mayors all over vermont, in the united states of america, they will tell you they're having major problems with their water systems. if you look at our rail system in this country, it is way behind europe, japan, china. we need to rebuild public transportation and have a 21st century rail system. so if you put people to work, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, we building our transportation system, you are going to make the united states of america more productive, you're going to make us more competitive internationally, and you are going to create the millions of jobs that we

desperately need. and it is stunning to me that we have not moved adprefl in terms of job creation -- aggressively in terms of job creation. that is exactly what we have to do. if we put $400 billion into infrastructure, we can create millions and millions of good-paying jobs, we can make our country more productive and more internationally competitive. mr. president, every single year we are importing and spending about $350 billion on foreign oil, bringing that oil in from saudi arabia and other foreign countries. as we move to energy independence, as we break our dependence on fossil fuels, moving to energy efficiency and sustainable energies like solar solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, we can create millions more jobs. so mr. president, it seems to me that at a time when the

middle class is disappearing, at a time when poverty is increasing to a record-breaking level, at a time when people in every section of the country are saying we need to put our people back to work, now is the time to do that. mr. president, last year i introduced the concept which said let us have a surtax on millionaires. and the reason i said that is the wealthiest people in this country are becoming wealthier, their real effective tax rate is the lowest in decades. and i am very pleased to see the democratic leadership is moving forward in that direction. so as we create the jobs that we need by rebuilding our infrastructure, by transforming our energy system, it is absolutely appropriate that at a time when the gap between the very, very wealthy and everybody else is getting wider, that we ask the wealthiest people in this country to help us fund job

creation so that we can pull the middle class out of the terrible, terrible recession that they are suffering from. so mr. president, i think the job is a major jobs program now for our country. rebuild our infrastructure, transform our energy system, ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes, let's end many of these tax loopholes and breaks that large corporations have. we can fund a serious jobs program and put millions of our people back to work, which is something we absolutely have to do. mr. president, with that i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: i thank the president for recognizing me. i'm glad to be here to talk as we discuss what we should be talking about, how to get more people back to work.

there are a lot of different approaches on how we get there, but i hope we can reach the decision that we need to do the things in government that allow private individuals to make the decisions they make to create jobs. you know, our federal debt has reached of course a record high and it continues to grow every day. national unemployment is lingering around 9%. home prices have plummeted in almost every community in america. gas prices and health care costs have skyrocketed. the gas prices, the health care costs on the energy issue that my friend from vermont was talking about, the shortest path to more american jobs is more american energy and i'm not opposed to any of the green jobs he was talking about. i'd like to see us have all of those jobs if they can eventually be a competitive part of an energy environment and i think they can, but i think we should also focus on the jobs that power america today.

even if we knew what the country was going to look like energywise 30 years from now, it would would be -- it would take a long time to get there. and i'm for more american energy jobs of all kinds. for 50 years, we haven't met the marketplace need with what we could produce. but the marketplace need is always there. it's always there in a bad economy, always there in a good economy. let's meet that need and certainly that can mean more solar and more wind and more biofuels and more everything else we can think of. but mr. president, also needs to mean more shale gas and more shale oil, more using the fossil fuel deposits like coal that we have as we move toward a different energy future, and to do that in a way that allows to us continue to be competitive. if our utility bill doubles in the middle of the country where the president of the senate today and i are from, we're are not as competitive as we are and i don't think we lose the jobs

we lose to massachusetts or california. i think we lose those jobs to places that care a whole lot less about what comes out of the smokestack than we do. at the same time jump stating our economy will require bipartisanship and examine if we're going to compete in a global economy, we stroob willing to work together. this week we saw a long awaited but still a real example of that kind of bipartisanship when president obama submitted the three pending trade agreements. they've been pending for three years, and we've lost opportunities in those markets for three years, but in fairness to the president for at least the first two of those three years, the house of representatives wouldn't have passed these agreements. but they would pass them now and they will pass them now, and so will the senate, i'm hopeful as early as next week. and that creates opportunities in missouri where i'm from and across the country. i work closely with our

colleagues, senator portman and i put a letter together of republicans who told the white house we're willing to work on the trade adjustment assistance as part of the package, if that's what it takes to get these trade agreements sent to the capitol, and we did, and those trade adjustment agreements have now passed the senate and are ready to move forward with the trade bills. these three -- these free trade agreements would mean an additional $2.5 billion to $3 billion in agricultural exports of year, every billion dollars of agricultural exports is an estimated 8,000 new jobs. this -- these are the places where we can get the jobs. trade, travel, tourism, energy, this is not that complicated a formula, but the government can't continue to stand in the way of all those things moving forward. in missouri, exports accounted for 5.4% of our gross domestic

product in 2008. companies in our state sold products in nearly 200 foreign markets. since 2002, exports have increased three times faster than the rest of our economy. that's one state in the middle of the country working to be competitive in the world. the passage of these trade agreements will increase trade for soybeans, for beef, for corn, for pork, for dairy products, for processed food, for fish, all of which we produce in our state, plus all kinds of manufactured products that in south korea and colombia and in panama, given the choice of two products on the shelf, the american product is still a product the consumers in those countries will choose even with some disadvantage, imagine what will happen when we eliminate more of that disadvantage. now, this week the bill on the floor i think this bill that

concerns me about managing china currency but only if the president doesn't disagree with what the congress has passed, has much greater potential to start a trade war than it does to solve any given problem. now, i'm not here, mr. president, to defend the chinese or its leaders or its trade practices. in fact, one of those practices where you make a product in china and there's already a finding that that product is somehow unfairly being imported or exported in the w.t.o. agreements so you put another label on it that says it's from somewhere else, sometimes called transshipment, senator wyden and i have a bill, the enforce act, that would deal with that. and it deals with that specifically, directly, and actually will produce a result and i look forward to that bill

being on the floor. i'm proud to cosponsor senator hatch's alternative to the bill that's on the floor this week that in fact is multilateral, it involves other countries plus the w.t.o., plus the i.m.f., in a discussion that might actually produce a real result of what the various countries of the world including china are doing as they manage their currency in ways that may not be found to be fair in the foreign marketplace. but we need results. we just don't need legislation to talk about for purposes that use up time when we've got so many important things we could be doing. i've cosponsored the affordable footwear act with senator cantwell. that will ease the tax burden on american consumers who unknowingly pay up to 40% duties on retail costs that cover this

import duty or the shoe tax on shoes made outside the united states. all these bills represent ways we can level the playing field for american workers, for american job creators and spur economic growth right here at home. another topic that we should be focused on is federal regulation and regulation that just simply doesn't make sense. i've met lots of job creators in missouri, even this year, and certainly in past years but this year more than any other they want to talk about the regulators. they want to talk about the air rules, the utility mac rule, the cross state air pollution rule that could cause as much as 15% of our coal producing energy plants to shut down. now, when they shut down that means the price goes up, and i know that it's a philosophy of many in the current administration that our problem is that our energy isn't spent

expensive enough but i don't find any missouri families sitting down at the kitchen table looking at their utility bill and saying the problem here is, this bill just isn't high enough. what we really need to do to solve our energy problem is raise this. nobody is saying that. even though the cap-and-trade legislation that passed the house in 2009 would have doubled the you utility bill in missourn about 12 years. a lot of things work at today's utility bill that don't work later. under the new e.p.a. regulations on cross-state air pollution, one electric company announced they'll be forced to close two of their coal-fired plants by the end of this year. not modify, not redo, just close. the only thing that makes sense is to close those plants and the people that get the utility bill will know those plants are closed because they are going to be paying a higher price.

electric rates could rise 20% in some areas by just in a very short time. fugitive dust. there's actually a rule that the e.p.a. is talking about where farmers can't let dust from their farm go to another farm. i was raised on farms and around farms, and you can't farm without dust. you can't harvest a crop without dust. you cannot farm in the mud. you can't contain the dust that is part of farming. and it's the kind of rule that just simply doesn't make sense. there's a rule on boilers that would impact universities and hospitals as well as saw mills and other facilities that generate their energy from industrial boilers. there's a cement regulation. we're not going to have the kind of recovery we want in this country without a recovery in housing. and the house recently passed a bill that would require the administration to evaluate the economic toll of the new e.p.a.

rules on cement and other industries. the house also is set to take up a bill that would delay the cement rules for at least five years. you're not going to have a construction industry if you don't have access to products that make sense to build things out of. i've said for some time that we ought to have a moratorium on all these regulations and in fact, i'm cosponsoring senator collins' bill to call a time-out on new major regulations and give employers the certainty they need to create new jobs in an environment that they understand what it's going to be like as those jobs have a chance to become permanent jobs. this is an easy solution to help job creators. but instead, we're talking about the jobs bill. and the president's almost all of speeches on the jobs bill are in politically competitive states. i'm wondering if that's not