Floor Statements

We will continue to debate the Defense authorization bill tomorrow. If Senators wish to offer amendments, they should come to the floor tomorrow. There will be no votes tomorrow. The next vote will be around 5:30 p.m. on Monday, November 28.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to Senator Rand Paul's resolution that would disapprove of the cross-State air pollution rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA's cross-State air pollution rule, also known as ``CSAPR,'' requires reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog and fine particle pollution in downwind areas. To minimize costs, EPA allows trading

of air pollution permits and also provides flexibility to States for implementing the rule.

The State of Michigan, in particular west Michigan, has air quality problems due to pollution from areas such as Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary. Poor air quality not only causes a variety of health problems, such as asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments, but also has a detrimental impact on economic development and job creation. It simply makes no sense for a region to be penalized with pollution and requirements that could limit economic growth when the source of pollution comes from outside of that region. For that reason, I support the goal of the EPA rule.

I am pleased that EPA's cross-State air pollution rule is expected to help some Michigan counties meet the national air quality standards for smog and fine particulate matter. However, I am concerned that the rule does not appear to adequately address a number of air pollution problems in west Michigan caused by out of State sources. In 2014, Allegan County is projected to not be able to meet the national air quality standard for smog, even though Allegan County is not the source of the pollution. In fact, a 2009 EPA study concluded that smog levels in Allegan County and other areas in west Michigan are primarily due to transport of smog and smog-forming emissions from other major urban areas outside of Michigan. It is unfair for Allegan County--or any other county--to be penalized due to pollution sources outside of their control. This rule fails to remedy the kind of unfair situation Allegan County finds itself in.

The Rand Paul disapproval resolution would not only overturn the EPA regulation but any substantially similar rule. The rule can be improved, e.g., establishing better linkages between the source of pollution and downwind poor air quality, and adjusting the upwind emission requirements accordingly, but enactment of this resolution would prevent that from occurring.

For these reasons, I will oppose the resolution.

Madam President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 6 a joint resolution of disapproval of the FCC rule regarding net neutrality.

This resolution of disapproval would overturn the FCC's rule that would codify and supplement existing Internet openness principles while maintaining the ability of Internet service providers to engage in reasonable network management. The rules would prohibit Internet access providers from preventing its users from sending or receiving lawful content over the Internet; prohibit Internet access providers from preventing users from connecting lawful devices to the network; and would require Internet access providers to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner. It also included additional provisions that will create an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assess and report to the FCC on developments in mobile broadband.

The Internet has become an indispensable tool that has spurred innovation, provided virtually unlimited access to information and commerce, and increased communication through Web sites, e-mail, and blogs. It has become difficult to imagine life without the Internet, a system both open and unrestricted.

The Internet plays a critical role in our society because it provides an equal platform for all users, allowing for the free exchange of ideas and information. It is important that the Internet remain free and open and not risk becoming a system with limited access for some of the smaller Web sites and their users.

Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to pass portions of the President's American Jobs Act that will boost the economy and put Americans back to work. The underlying legislation will repeal a 3 percent withholding on contractors that was designed to encourage contractors to pay their taxes; and the amendment offered by my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, will help veterans by providing hiring incentives to employers who hire our heroes and expanding education and training opportunities for older veterans.

The 3 percent withholding on contractors was enacted in 2005 and, because of implementation problems, has never been put into effect. I have heard from businesses in Michigan, universities in Michigan, mayors and countless others that this withholding provision is unworkable. Because Congress and the President recognize this problem, Congress has continued to delay its effective date.

The repeal of the 3 percent withholding requirement should be paid for by finding other ways to promote tax fairness and improving tax compliance. I have offered several of these proposals before. Unfortunately, rather than paying for this bill with measures to promote tax compliance and fairness, it is paid for by revising the way the modified adjusted gross income is calculated in determining eligibility for health care programs. According to the Joint Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, this means that somewhere between 500,000 and a million people receiving early retiree, disability, and other social security benefits will no longer be eligible for Medicaid. If changes in income eligibility for Medicaid need to be considered, then any savings from those changes should be reinvested back into Medicaid to strengthen our health care system. I believe it is unwise to take savings from health care programs to pay for the repeal of the 3 percent withholding requirement. This legislation does do some important things to help America's veterans who continue to face big challenges even after leaving the battlefield. Veterans comprise almost 10 percent of the U.S. population. While overall employment of veterans has been at or below the national average, those veterans who have served in the past decade have seen their unemployment rate rise to above the national average. Male veterans aged 18-24 had an unemployment rate of almost 22 percent in 2010. Almost 12 percent of all homeless adults are veterans. It is a national embarrassment that we are failing to serve those who have served us.

This bill will provide business tax credits for the hiring of veterans, including those with disabilities. The tax credit is scaled to increase depending on how long that veteran has been unemployed. The bill also helps unemployed veterans pay for school and provides Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits for disabled veterans. And finally, the bill allows active servicemembers to begin pursuing federal employment opportunities prior to separation from the military, easing their transition from the military to jobs at the VA, Homeland Security or other federal agencies that would benefit from the experience a veteran offers.

Because it will help to hire veterans, who have sacrificed so much to help our country, and repeals the 3 percent withholding requirement, I will vote for the bill although the health care eligibility changes are the wrong way to pay for.

Amendment No. 928

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the Rebuild America Jobs Act addresses two of our most fundamental responsibilities: first, the need to respond to the urgent jobs crisis and, second, the duty to create the physical framework for economic growth now and into the future.

There should be no debate about our duty to fulfill those two responsibilities. Yet, once again, we are in a situation where the refusal of our Republican colleagues to compromise, even on consideration of measures they have supported in the past, prevents us from acting on behalf of the American people.

I am encouraged by reports that perhaps finally the need to act has convinced some of our colleagues across the aisle to at least consider allowing the Senate to debate this legislation. I hope for the sake of millions of people in Michigan and in every other State who are waiting for us to act that at least some of our Republican colleagues will relent and allow us to at least debate this measure.

What would this bill accomplish? Simply put, it seeks to create jobs now and into the future. It does so by funding a wide array of infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, rail transport, mass transit, airport facilities, and updated air traffic control systems. These projects would put construction workers on the job immediately. They would, according to estimates by Moody's, boost economic growth by more than a dollar and a half for every dollar we spend. And the benefits would continue into the future as American companies and American workers benefit from the increased competitiveness that modernized infrastructure provides.

In my home State of Michigan, this legislation would result in more than $900 million going to infrastructure projects. It would create about 12,000 jobs. Residents of my State are keenly aware of the need to act, and to act now, on the jobs crisis, and they are

keenly aware of the terrible costs we pay if we allow our economic competitors to establish advantages over our workers. In my State, nearly one-third of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. More than one-third of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. About 40 percent of our major urban roadways are congested. The people of Michigan want us to act on jobs, and they want us to act now to maintain America's competitive edge.

These are not controversial ideas--at least they have not been in the past. Support for infrastructure is traditionally bipartisan. It was a Republican President--Dwight Eisenhower--who launched the Interstate Highway System. This bill includes an infrastructure bank based on a bipartisan idea once supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Every Member of this body, Democrat and Republican, fights for adequate infrastructure spending for their State. Why, when faced with the dual challenges of a jobs crisis and increasingly outdated infrastructure, would we hamper our ability to grow now and in the future by not allowing a debate on this bill and adopting this bill?

Perhaps some of my Republican colleagues object to the way this bill is paid for. As has been the case with previous jobs bills, this legislation would not add a dollar to the deficit. It would pay for these much needed infrastructure efforts by asking those with incomes of more than $1 million a year to pay a fraction of a percentage point of their income above $1 million a year in additional taxes. Again, outside the Halls of Congress, this is not a controversial notion. A strong majority of Americans, including a majority of rank-and-file Republicans, support the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute to solving our jobs crisis.

I might say, in terms of investing in infrastructure, a recent CNN poll shows that 72 percent of Americans support investing in infrastructure to create jobs. We know from this poll that a huge majority of Americans want us to invest in infrastructure. They want us to invest in infrastructure now to create jobs. That is mirrored by other polls which show a vast majority of Americans believe the fair way to pay for this investment is for the wealthiest among us to pay a small fraction of the income they make above a level such as $1 million, which is what is provided for in this bill. Now, make no mistake, if Republicans reject this legislation because of the funding mechanism, they are voting directly in opposition to the will of the American people and against the concepts of basic fairness that should guide our actions.

Finally, relative to this pay-for, there is only one group of Americans who have done well financially in the last few decades; that is, the wealthiest 1 percent. The rest of Americans, middle-income Americans, have either lost ground or gotten nowhere, but the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have done exceedingly well, and their proportion of the national income has grown dramatically. So to say income above $1 million should not pay a small fraction of a percent in a surcharge to help pay for what this country desperately needs and would create jobs flies right against the feelings and beliefs of the vast majority of the American people.

Finally, the vote we are going to take in the next couple days is not even a vote on the bill. This is a vote on ending a Republican filibuster on the motion to proceed to the bill. It is a motion which would allow us to begin to debate a bill.

I have been continually surprised at the lockstep opposition of Republicans to even beginning to debate on these matters. I would make a simple request, and a number of us have done the same. Let's debate this legislation. Allow us to debate the legislation. If the legislation can be improved, offer ideas to improve it. If there is a better idea, offer the better idea. I believe Republicans would have a very receptive audience if they propose ideas for which there is strong evidence of benefits and economic growth and job creation. But until we can get a job-creation measure to the floor of the Senate, we cannot even discuss those issues in a legislative setting; we can only really hear debate as to whether we ought to be allowed to debate those issues.

A bipartisan vote to begin the debate on jobs legislation would send an important signal to the people we all represent, a signal that we are ready to put aside partisanship and address the problems our people face. I hope Republicans will end their filibuster so we can adopt the motion to proceed to this jobs bill.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, John Bruce will retire as the associate director for the Support Equipment Product Support Integration Development on December 3, 2011, his 94th birthday. His retirement is particularly noteworthy because John enjoys the distinction of being the oldest and longest-serving employee of the U.S. Army. This momentous occasion will be fittingly marked by a celebration in his honor with his colleagues, family and friends in Warren.

John Bruce began his service in the U.S. Army in 1942 during World War II as a member of the Army Signal Corps. He was stationed in the South Pacific as an intercept operator. After being honorably discharged in 1946, John began his civilian career at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren, MI as a cost/price analyst. In the ensuing decades, Mr. Bruce has held a number of positions of increasing responsibility at the Detroit Arsenal. He was an integral contributor to the reorganization of the Defense Department and helped to consolidate and centralize the Military Services field activities, which later became the Defense Logistics Agency.

John Bruce has dedicated his life to serving our country and has accomplished much in his long and illustrious career. John's accomplishments throughout his career have been publicly recognized through a number of citations and awards, including the 1975 Secretary of the Army Award; 1983 Commanders Award for Exceptional Civilian Service; 1990 Meritorious Civilian Service Award; 1991 Achievement Medal for Superior Civilian Service; and 2002 Department of the Army Decoration for Exceptional Service.

I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating John Bruce and honoring his distinguished record of service to our country as he retires on his 94th birthday. John has left a lasting impact on our Nation's security, and he will be deeply missed by his colleagues. I wish him the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life.

Madam President, I am pleased that Senator Crapo has withdrawn his amendment, No. 814. I would have opposed this amendment because it would have brought to a screeching halt the financial reforms Congress recently enacted to end Wall Street abuses, because it would weaken capital and margin requirements to limit risk, and because it would add to the law multiple layers of complexity.

Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to put a cop back on the Wall Street beat. It ended the decades of deregulation that helped unleash the forces of self-dealing and conflicts of interest that thrust our economy into the recession from which we are still digging out.

The Crapo amendment would have forced the key Federal banking, commodities and securities regulators to stop issuing all regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank law until they issued a host of studies. It would have buried financial reform under an unprecedented regulatory procedure requiring piles of new paperwork. The new procedures and studies could have required years of additional delay, when Congress has already decided that financial reforms are needed now to protect the public from high risk financial activities. That was reason enough to oppose the Crapo amendment.

Second, the Crapo amendment would have weakened a key set of reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank Act, requiring capital and margin requirements to reduce risk in the shadowy market in derivatives. Now, just as rules requiring increased transparency and accountability are starting to become a reality, some have decided that they prefer the derivatives market the way it was before.

Some too quickly forget exactly why we need transparency, accountability, and reduced risk. So let me remind us all about AIG. A small unit, based in London and buried within the bowels of AIG, nearly brought about the collapse of the firm, and with it, the world economy. They sold a type of derivative called a credit default swap. Lots of them. While they got paid for taking on the risk behind those swaps, they had insufficient reserves to pay off the bets if they lost. Later, when all of those swaps went bad, they simply did not have the funds to pay off their bets. And only AIG knew how much it owed to whom, because the swaps market had no transparency. Federal regulators were prohibited by law from overseeing swaps.

Worse yet, Federal regulators could not just let AIG fail, because the losses to those on the other side of their bets could have brought them down as well. A global nightmare caused by one small unit of one company, allowed to run wild by selling a ton of swaps without the reserves to pay off the bets if they lost. So taxpayers bailed out AIG, and through them, the banks and companies that did business with AIG. If those banks had been allowed to collapse, the financial markets would have frozen. Companies would have been unable to get funds they needed to operate and grow. Families would have been unable to get loans to fund their educations, to buy cars and homes, and live.

The Dodd-Frank Act was designed to prevent that nightmare from happening again. It would institute new capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and other major participants active in the derivative markets. Yet just as we start to restore sanity and put the financial cops back on the Wall Street beat, the Crapo amendment would have stopped the cops from doing their jobs. The amendment would have fundamentally undermined Dodd-Frank in two principal ways. First, it would have delayed any new regulations as already described. Second, the amendment would have carved out vast amounts of derivatives trades from the new protections.

While the amendment was written in a complex way, it seems to prohibit the

CFTC from imposing capital and margin requirements for a whole host of swaps. Let me give you an example. As I understand the amendment, it could have prohibited the CFTC from using any of its funds to regulate derivatives involving at least one party that's a favored entity. Some of the favored entities are even investment firms.

Take, for example, the Hudson CDO that my Subcommittee on Investigations examined. It was a $2 billion synthetic CDO designed by Goldman Sachs and then turned over to a special purpose investment vehicle set up by Goldman Sachs in the Cayman Islands. That company issued the Hudson credit default swap that allowed Goldman Sachs to bet against the very instrument it had constructed. If one of the purchasers of this bet was a manufacturing firm or some other type of special entity, shouldn't they also be protected?

For the last decade, the CFTC couldn't do anything to regulate swaps because the Commodity Futures Modernization Act explicitly exempted swaps from all government oversight. The Dodd-Frank Act reversed that ill-advised policy by making swaps once again subject to federal regulation and oversight. The Crapo amendment would have restored some of those exemptions and done it in a way that is poorly designed, and could have engendered years of litigation over what it meant.

In short, the Crapo amendment would have delayed important financial reforms, reduced protections against taxpayer bailouts, and crippled the abilities of our regulators to set the new rules of the road. To me, the Crapo amendment had a pretty simple message: return to the financial deregulation that preceded, and contributed to, the financial crisis of the last few years.

I am of the opposite view. I think that the collapse of AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and countless other firms teach us a different lesson. The findings of the bipartisan investigation conducted by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations tell a different story. Our financial system needs a cop back on the beat. I am glad that the Crapo amendment has been withdrawn.

Mr. President, I am going to speak now against the pending amendment of Senator Ayotte, which would prohibit the prosecution of terrorists in Federal courts.

We need all available tools against terrorists, including the possibility of prosecution in Federal courts or before military commissions. While there is no doubt we have made use of military commissions in the course of previous wars, we have never enacted legislation closing the Federal courts to the prosecution of our enemies. We have always left it up to the executive branch to determine which tool best suits an individual case.

Indeed, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have repeatedly used the Federal courts to bring terrorists to justice. For example, the Bush administration successfully used the Federal courts to prosecute Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, in October of 2002. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to successfully prosecute Ahmed Omar Abu, who was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in 2005. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to prosecute and sentence Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called twentieth hijacker, convicted in 2006, and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

The Obama administration successfully used the Federal courts when they prosecuted Najibulla Zazi in 2009 for his role in the New York subway bombing plot; when they prosecuted Faisal Shahzad in 2010 in connection with the Times Square bombing; and when they prosecuted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, in 2011 in connection with the attempted Christmas Day bombing in Detroit.

If the Ayotte amendment had been law, these successful court prosecutions would have been thrown into doubt. In fact, prosecution might not have been possible in any forum, because if a court determined that a military commission lacked jurisdiction and if the Ayotte amendment precluded jurisdiction of a Federal court, there couldn't be prosecution in any forum whatsoever.

That could have actually been the outcome in the case of Ahmed Warsame, an accused member of the terrorist group al-Shabaab. He was indicted in Federal court earlier this

year on charges of providing material support to al-Shabaab and al- Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. In the Warsame case, our national security and legal teams determined that the Federal courts provided the best forum in which to prosecute Warsame for his alleged crimes.

This decision was reached for two reasons:

One, Warsame is alleged to have violated a number of Federal statutes, including sections of the criminal code prohibiting trafficking in explosives, use of dangerous weapons, acts of international terrorism, providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, and receiving military type training from foreign terrorist organizations. Only the Federal courts have jurisdiction to try violations of those sections. Those offenses are not listed as crimes under the Military Commissions Act.

There is a second reason why it was decided that Warsame was best prosecuted in a Federal court, which could not happen under the amendment of Senator Ayotte. Warsame appears to have engaged in acts of terrorism and material support to terrorism, both of which are crimes under the Military Commissions Act, but--and this is the problem--only if they are committed ``in the context of and associated with hostilities'' against the United States.

The administration concluded it would have been difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a military commission that Warsame met those jurisdictional thresholds. As a result, if the Ayotte amendment were law, it might be impossible for the United States to prosecute Warsame in any forum.

Our Federal prosecutors have a proven track record of prosecuting terrorists in Federal courts. Two years ago, the Justice Department informed us that there were 208 inmates in Federal prisons who had been sentenced for crimes relating to international terrorism, and an additional 139 inmates who had been sentenced for crimes related to domestic terrorism. Those were crimes which were prosecuted in Federal courts.

By contrast, only four enemy combatants have been convicted by military commissions since 9/11, two of them, by the way, as a result of plea agreements, sending them to Australia and to Canada.

Critics of the decision to try Warsame in Federal court apparently would prefer that he be tried before a military commission even though he might be less likely to be convicted there due to the jurisdictional issues.

The most appropriate forum for trial should be determined, as it was in Warsame, on the basis of the nature of the offense, the nature of the evidence, and the likelihood of successful prosecution. The executive branch officials who make these determinations are more likely to reach a sound conclusion after weighing those factors than would be the result of a one-size-fits-all legislative restriction that we would impose under the Ayotte amendment.

Yesterday afternoon we received a letter from the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General expressing their ``strong opposition'' to the Ayotte amendment. The letter states as follows:

Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III

court or before a military commission is a decision that

should be based on the facts and circumstances of the case

and the overall national security interests of the United

States. It is a decision best left in the hands of

experienced national security professionals.

The letter continues:

If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a

position to employ every lawful instrument of national

power--including both courts and military commissions--to

ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no

longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our

most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the

amendment would make it more likely that terrorists would

escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

This issue, as the Presiding Officer may recall, came up in the Armed Services Committee during our markup of the Defense Authorization Act. Our bill expressly allows the transfer of detainees for trial by a court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. The amendment of Senator Ayotte to delete that authority was defeated in the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 19 to 7.

The bottom line is that Congress has never before attempted to prevent the prosecution of terrorists in Federal court. We should not do so now. We should continue to use military commissions in cases where they are the best place for prosecution and for trial. We should not foreclose prosecution and trial in Federal courts.

Exhibit 1

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell: We write to express

our strong opposition to the Ayotte amendment to H.R. 2112,

which would severely curtail the ability of the Executive

branch to prosecute alleged terrorists in Federal court.

The amendment represents an extreme and unprecedented

encroachment on the authority of the Executive Branch to

determine when and where to prosecute terrorist suspects.

Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III court

or before a military commission is a decision that should be

based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the

overall national security interests of the United States. It

is a decision best left in the hands of experienced national

security professionals.

If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a

position to employ every lawful instrument of national

power--including both courts and military commissions--to

ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no

longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our

most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the

amendment would make it more likely that terrorists will

escape justice and innocent lives will be put at risk.

Leon E. Panetta,

Secretary of Defense.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Attorney General.

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. This is a very different amendment from the one we adopted in our Armed Services Committee relative to detention. This amendment was rejected on a strong bipartisan vote in the Armed Services Committee. The reasons are set forth in a letter from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta, who wrote us:

If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a

position to employ every lawful instrument of national

power--including both courts and military commissions--to

ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no

longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our

most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the

Ayotte amendment would make it more likely that terrorists

would escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk.

They have been successfully prosecuted. Recently in Detroit a terrorist was successfully prosecuted in an article III court. We should not deny the prosecutors this tool.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.

An inquiry. I will not object. Does that mean 60 votes are required under the current order and continue to be required?

I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I ask unanimous consent that immediately after Senator Vitter has completed his statement I be recognized for up to 30 minutes, and that I may yield time during that 30-minute period to Senators on this side as we control the 30 minutes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, more than 14 million Americans are without work. The American Jobs Act would help up to 2 million Americans get work or keep their jobs. It would prevent the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, firefighters, and other first responders. The jobs bill would give tax cuts to millions of small businesses. It would give incentives to those businesses to hire new workers. The American Jobs Act would provide a payroll tax cut to millions of American families. It would help our returning veterans find jobs. The American Jobs Act would put thousands of construction workers on the job repairing crumbling schools, building and repairing roads and bridges.

The chief economist for Moody's, Mark Zandi, estimates that this legislation would add 2 percentage points to economic growth and would reduce the unemployment rate by up to 1 full percentage point. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg believe this bill ``would help avoid a return to recession.'' Those are their words. That is what the majority of our economists say from both sides of the aisle, across the political spectrum.

How does it do this? The bill uses ideas that both Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past. It would not add a dime to the Federal deficit, and its provisions are overwhelmingly popular with the American people, according to all of the public opinion polls.

We should be debating this bill. We should be offering amendments, as the majority leader said we would be doing. We should be improving it. We should be preparing to vote on it so millions of American working families can get the relief they need. We should do this so we can demonstrate to our constituents and to the world that we will come together to act in the face of crisis. Yet here we are roadblocked again. Why are we roadblocked? Because our Republican colleagues last night voted not to allow us to even begin to debate legislation that has ideas so many of them have supported in the past.

Senate Republicans are once again walking down the filibuster road. The vote last night was not a vote on the American Jobs Act. Because the filibuster rules of the Senate require 60 votes, Senate Republicans last night were able to prevent the Senate from proceeding to a bill addressing the jobs crisis. We all know the rules of the Senate give the minority the power to stop us from holding this debate, but exercising that power, as they did last night, is profoundly mistaken. What they are doing when they do that is they are using a filibuster to prevent the Senate from even debating this bill. What that does in turn is elevate partisan interests over the good of the country.

A number of us are going to be speaking today because we are deeply concerned--concerned that Republicans once again have signaled to an anxious and skeptical nation that we cannot address a great challenge of the day. We are deeply concerned that the single most important need in this country--jobs--will not be debated and remedies will not be sought because the Republicans once again are walking down the filibuster road.

If Republicans oppose this bill, which is their right, vote against it. Better yet, if Republicans oppose this approach, for heaven's sake, offer an alternative jobs bill, offer a substitute, an alternative, something where the American public can compare what is in our jobs bill with what Republicans presumably favor. They oppose ours without saying what they favor, except vague references to less regulation. Everybody is in favor of eliminating wasteful regulations, but nobody believes you can do serious deficit reduction or create serious numbers of jobs by just freezing regulation.

By the way, the small business community does not believe that. The surveys which were taken of small businesspeople by their own organizations say the biggest problem small business has is not regulation, and it is not taxes; it is a lack of demand. This bill helps to create demand by putting dollars into the pockets of our workers. There is a tax cut here which is very important to help stimulate that demand.

So what is coming across to the American public loudly and clearly these days is that the Democrats here in the Senate have an alternative. The Republicans are filibustering that alternative without offering one of their own. Now, the majority could seek to break this filibuster by forcing the Republicans to sustain the filibuster and to try to wear them down. That process, however, at this time in this Congress is not a practical approach because it takes weeks or even months to break a filibuster. It is just simply too late in the session for us to practically be able to do that. And, by the way, the American people should not have to wait that long in any event for us to act.

But there is another way to overcome a filibuster. It is not just forcing the filibusterers to filibuster--that is one way to do it; it takes usually months in order to succeed, but it would dramatize where the obstruction is--but the other way to overcome a filibuster is for public opinion to wear down the Republican wall of obstruction. That is probably the only practical path available for overcoming this filibuster at this time of this Congress.

I hope the President will use his bully pulpit to make clear to the American people that it is the obstructionism of filibustering Republicans that prevents us from taking action on a jobs bill. The President has very effectively gone around the country supporting his jobs bill. I commend him for doing that. But what we need him now to do is to take that bully pulpit, which is unique to the President and to the Presidency, and use that bully pulpit to make it clear to the American people that filibustering Republicans are obstructing us from even taking up a jobs bill.

The majority leader has made it clear that this is open to amendment. If the Republicans have a better idea, they can offer a substitute. But what is going on here now is that, without any alternative of their own, they are preventing us from addressing the major issue of this country.

The Republican leader last night repeatedly asked unanimous consent to send this bill back to the calendar if we did not get 60 votes to proceed. The Republican leader wants this bill to go away. Well, this jobs bill is not going to go away. It should not go away. And the Republican leader is engaging in wishful thinking if he believes that because he and his colleagues on that side of the aisle are filibustering a jobs bill, that means the filibuster is going to succeed and this bill is simply going to be returned to the calendar.

The majority leader has said he is going to try again. Senator Reid said specifically he is going to bring this bill back again by using his rights, after he made it clear last night he is going to reconsider this bill. He has the right to do that because of the way in which he voted last night. He voted with the prevailing side at the end in order that he could reconsider this bill--a technical way that he could. He already had expressed his view very strongly supporting cloture, but he also, in order to bring this bill back under the same cloture motion, then filed a motion to reconsider as a Member of the prevailing side at the end, after he switched his vote so he could do so.

I commend the majority leader. I commend him for taking that action. I commend him for signaling to the American people, to the media, to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that he is going to try again. We are not simply going to fold our tent and go away. The majority leader is going to move to reconsider at a time he believes is appropriate, and then there will be another effort to break a Republican filibuster so we can at least debate this critically important legislation.

Madam President, I am going to read from an analysis on the jobs plan by Mark Zandi that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record. Mark Zandi is an economist at Moody's.

[From Economy.com, Sept. 9, 2011]

An Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan

(By Mark Zandi)

President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize

confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into

recession.

The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next

year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by

a percentage point.

The plan would cost abut $450 billion, about $250 billion

in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.

Many of the president's proposals are unlikely to pass

Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning

bipartisan support.

President Obama's much-anticipated jobs plan is a laudable

effort to support the struggling economy. The plan would go a

long way toward stabilizing confidence, forestalling another

recession, and jump-starting a self-sustaining economic

expansion. If fully implemented, the Obama jobs plan would

increase real GDP growth in 2012 by 2 percentage points, add

1.9 million jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate by a full

percentage point, compared with current fiscal policy.

The president's plan includes a wide range of temporary tax

cuts and spending increases. Among its widely anticipated

provisions are one-year extensions of this year's employee

payroll tax holiday and the full expensing of business

investment. Surprisingly, the plan would also increase the

size of the temporary payroll tax cut and creatively expand

it to employers. The president would also help state and

local governments pay teacher and first-responder salaries,

boost funding for unemployment insurance while meaningfully

reforming the Ul system, and launch several infrastructure

initiatives.

The plan has its drawbacks. It isn't cheap, costing

taxpayers an estimated $450 billion. Of that, approximately

$250 billion takes the form of tax cuts, while another $200

billion comes through spending increases. The president

proposes paying for his plan with additional deficit

reduction beginning in fiscal 2014, but he does not

explicitly say how this is to be accomplished. The plan also

results in weaker growth in 2013, as most of the tax cuts and

spending increases are temporary and fade during the year.

Presumably the economy will be strong enough to handle it by

then, but that is far from certain. Moreover, the plan fails

to address the ongoing foreclosure crisis and housing slump,

major impediments to the recovery.

In the current political environment, it is less than

likely that most of the president's plan will pass Congress.

Our current baseline outlook assumes that the payroll tax

holiday for employees is extended for only one more year.

There is a fighting chance that broader payroll tax cuts for

employees and employers could become law, but the odds aren't

high enough at this time to change our baseline assumptions.

Why more support is critical

There are compelling reasons why the Obama administration

and Congress should provide more fiscal support to the

economy. Most obviously, the U.S. is struggling to avoid

recession as confidence flags. To complicate matters, federal

fiscal policy is quickly becoming a significant drag on

growth; state and local governments are already a weight. The

Federal Reserve has resumed easing monetary policy, but with

interest rates near zero, the Fed cannot lift the economy by

itself. Moreover, with the government's borrowing costs as

low as they have ever been and no indication that public

borrowing is crowding out private activity, there is ample

room to fund more near-term fiscal support, particularly if

it is paid for with additional long-term deficit reduction.

The U.S. economy is on the cusp of another recession.

Businesses have stopped hiring and households are spending

more tentatively. Bankers are re-evaluating whether it makes

sense to continue easing credit standards and wondering if

instead they should be battening down the hatches again.

Declining stock prices and widening credit spreads suggest

investors are also losing faith.

Crisis of confidence

Recession risks are uncomfortably high largely because

confidence is low. The economy has fundamental problems,

including the foreclosure crisis, a surfeit of residential

and commercial real estate, and yawning government deficits.

But even more serious is that investors, consumers and

businesses appear shell-shocked by recent events.

Confidence normally reflects economic conditions; it does

not shape them. Consumer sentiment falls when unemployment,

gasoline prices or inflation rises, but this has little

impact on consumer spending. Yet at times, particularly

during economic turning points, cause and effect can shift.

Sentiment can be so harmed that businesses, consumers and

investors freeze up, turning a gloomy outlook into a self-

fulfilling prophecy. This is one of those times.

The collective psyche was already very fragile coming out

of the Great Recession. The dramatic loss of millions of jobs

and double-digit unemployment have been extraordinarily

difficult to bear. Businesses have also struggled with a

flood of major policy initiatives from Washington, led by

healthcare and financial regulatory reform. The lengthy

political battle over raising the nation's debt ceiling and

Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. debt eviscerated what

confidence remained. While the loss of S&P's AAA rating has

little real significance--Treasury yields have fallen since

the downgrade--it unnerved investors, judging by the plunge

in stock prices. Consumer and small-business confidence

gauges are as low as they have been since the Great

Recession.

Consumers and businesses appear frozen in place. They are

not yet pulling back--that would mean recession--but a loss

of faith in the economy can quickly become self-fulfilling.

Whether the current crisis of confidence produces a double-

dip recession depends critically on how policymakers respond.

Washington must act aggressively to stabilize sentiment and

lift flagging expectations.

If no changes are made to current federal fiscal policy,

the economic impact of that policy will shift from acting as

a small drag this year to subtracting 1.7 percentage points

from real GDP growth in 2012. For context, at the peak of the

federal fiscal stimulus in 2009, federal policy added 2.6

percentage points to real GDP growth. Yet as the impact of

federal policy shifts from a stimulus to restraint, the

private sector must grow faster for the economy to simply

grow at its potential. In 2012 that potential is estimated at

2.7%; to reach it, private sector GDP would need to grow well

above 4%. That seems unlikely given the weak pace of

recovery.

The biggest drag next year under current federal policy

comes from the scheduled expiration of two stimulus measures

at the end of 2011: the current 2% employee payroll tax

holiday and the emergency unemployment insurance program. Not

extending the programs will shave 0.9 percentage point off

2012 real GDP growth and cost the economy some 750,000 jobs.

The end of other fiscal stimulus measures enacted in 2009

will further reduce economic growth.

State and local government actions are already producing

serious drags on the economy. Spending cuts and tax increases

will shave an estimated 0.5 percentage point from real GDP

growth this year and almost as much in 2012. The impact can

be seen clearly in the job market. State and local

governments have cut close to 700,000 jobs since their

employment peaked three years ago and are continuing to shed

workers at a stunning rate, averaging nearly 40,000 per

month. Many of those losing their jobs are middle-income

teachers, police, and other first responders.

The need for more federal fiscal support is increasing as

the Federal Reserve's ability to respond to the weak economy

diminishes. The Fed recently took a bold step by stating its

intention to keep short-term interest rates near zero until

mid-2013. This has brought down long-term interest rates and

provided some support to stock prices. The Fed can provide

even more help by extending the maturity of the Treasury

bonds it owns and by purchasing more long-term bonds through

another round of quantitative easing. But these ideas are not

without problems, chiefly that they are becoming less

effective in stimulating the economy.

The Fed can't do it alone

Acknowledging this in his recent Jackson Hole speech, Fed

Chairman Ben Bernanke focused attention on fiscal

policymakers. Bernanke explained that Congress and the Obama

administration must follow through on plans for long-term

deficit reduction but also must provide additional near-term

support to the economy. Monetary policy alone may not be able

to prevent another recession.

Additional fiscal help for the economy wouldn't be

desirable or even possible if the federal government's debt

costs were rising or if government borrowing were tightening

credit for households and businesses. But there is no

evidence that such crowding out is occurring. Ten-year

Treasury yields have fallen below 2%, a near record. This is

in part because of the Fed's actions, but the U.S. also

remains the global economy's safe haven. Whenever there is a

problem anywhere, the investment of choice is a Treasury

bond--witness the current flight to Treasuries sparked by

financial turmoil in Europe. Borrowing costs for households

and businesses also remain extraordinarily low, with fixed

mortgage rates closing in on a record low of 4% and Baa

corporate bond yields (the lowest investment grade) nearing a

50-year low below 5.5%.

Assessing the plan's components

The president's jobs plan includes a wide range of

temporary tax cuts and spending increases. The plan would

cost close to $450 billion over 10 years, with slightly more

than $250 billion coming from tax cuts and $200 billion from

spending increases. For context, the plan's cost is equal to

about 3% of current GDP and just over half the $825 billion

ultimate price tag for the 2009 Recovery Act.

The largest tax cuts include an extension and expansion of

the payroll tax holiday for employees and a creative new

payroll tax holiday for employers. Employers would be able to

cut their payroll taxes in half on up to $5 million in

taxable wages annually. Small businesses, many of whom are

cash-strapped, would enjoy a sizable albeit temporary boost

in their cashflow. Businesses will also pay no additional

taxes on any wages that rise from the year before, up to $50

million. This would give firms a substantive incentive to

increase hiring and should result in a larger economic bang

for the buck--additional GDP per tax dollar--than previous

job tax credits such as last year's HIRE Act.

The president has also proposed a tax credit for businesses

that hire people unemployed longer than six months--a group

that, astonishingly, includes half the jobless. The longer

these workers remain unemployed, the harder finding work

becomes as their skills and marketability erode. Structural

unemployment thus rises as a long-term threat; it appears to

have already risen from around 5% before the Great Recession

to closer to 5.5% currently.

Doing infrastructure the right way

The Obama plan's most significant spending increases,

totaling more than $100 billion, are for infrastructure. Such

development has a large bang for the buck, particularly now,

when there are so many unemployed construction workers. It

can also help remote and hard-pressed regional economies and

produces long-lasting economic benefits. Such projects are

difficult to start quickly--``shovel ready'' is in most cases

a misnomer--but since unemployment is sure to be a problem

for years, this does not seem a significant drawback in the

current context.

More serious concerns are the expense of infrastructure

projects and their often political rather than economic

motivation. A creative way to address these concerns is

through an infrastructure bank--a government entity with a

federal endowment, able to provide loans and guarantees to

jump-start private projects. These might include toll roads

or user-supported energy facilities or airports. Private

investors and developers would determine which projects to

pursue based on what works financially rather than

politically. The infrastructure bank would take time to

launch, however, and thus would not produce quick benefits.

Unemployment insurance reforms

The president also proposes more funding for unemployment

insurance, but in combination with some much-needed reforms

to the UI system. One idea involves scaling up a Georgia

program that places unemployed workers at companies

voluntarily for up to eight weeks at no charge to the

businesses. Along with their unemployment benefits, workers

receive a small stipend for transportation and other

expenses, training, and a tryout with the employer that could

lead to a permanent job. Employers can potentially abuse the

program by recycling unemployed workers, but the program

seems to have had some success since it began in 2003.

Another idea to reform UI is to more broadly adopt ``work

share'' as an alternative to temporary layoffs and furloughs.

Instead of laying off workers in response to a temporary

slowdown in demand, employers reduce workers' hours and wages

across a department, business unit, or the entire company.

The government then provides partial unemployment insurance

benefits to make up for a portion of the lost wages. Work

share exists in 17 states and several countries overseas,

including Germany, where it is credited for contributing to a

relatively strong recovery.

Saving vital public jobs

Like the temporary extension of unemployment insurance

benefits, work share has a large bang for the buck, since

distressed workers are likely to quickly spend any aid they

receive. Work share's economic effectiveness even exceeds

that of straight UI benefits, because it reduces both the

financial and psychological costs of layoffs. Work share can

particularly help firms that expect reductions to be

temporary, by reducing their costs for severance, rehiring

and training.

Hard-pressed state and local governments would also receive

additional relief under the president's plan. While state

governments appear to be working through their near-term

budget problems, local governments are still struggling with

flagging property tax revenues. The biggest casualties are

teachers and first responders, and Obama's plan would help

with their salaries through the end of the 2013 school year.

From a headwind to a tailwind

The president's plan would provide a meaningful boost to

the economy and job market in 2012. Compared with current

fiscal policy, the plan adds 2 percentage points to real GDP

growth, adds 1.9 million payroll jobs, and reduces

unemployment by a percentage point. Federal fiscal policy

would go from being a powerful headwind next year to a modest

tailwind.

Of the 1.9 million jobs added in 2012 under the president's

plan, the largest contributor would be the extended payroll

tax holiday for employees, which adds approximately 750,000

jobs. The payroll tax holiday for employers is responsible

for adding 300,000 jobs, although this may be understated;

quantifying the impact of this proposal is difficult.

Infrastructure spending adds 400,000 jobs--275,000 jobs are

due to additional unemployment insurance funding and 135,000

jobs result from more aid to state and local governments.

One potential pitfall of the president's plan is that the

boost to growth and jobs fades quickly in 2013. Additional

infrastructure spending and aid to state and local

governments continue to support growth, but the benefits of

the tax cuts peter out. The hopeful assumption is that the

private sector will be able to hold up as government support

abates. While reasonable, it is important to acknowledge that

policymakers hoped for the same thing last year when they

passed the one-year payroll tax holiday and extended

emergency unemployment insurance through 2011.

Also needed: Help for housing

The president's plan is large, but in some key respects it

is not complete. Most notably, it does not directly address

the foreclosure crisis and housing slump, save for some added

funding for neighborhood stabilization. The President did

mention in his speech that he would be working with the FHFA

(Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's regulator) to facilitate more

mortgage refinancing; this would be a significant plus for

housing and the broader economy if he is able to break the

logjam in refinancing activity.

With some 3.5 million first-mortgage loans in or near

foreclosure and more house price declines likely, it is hard

to be enthusiastic about the recovery's prospects. A house is

most Americans' most important asset; many small-business

owners use their homes as collateral for business credit, and

local governments rely on property tax revenues tied to

housing values.

Most worrisome is the risk that housing will resume the

vicious cycle seen at the depths of the last recession, when

falling prices pushed more homeowners under water--their

loans exceeded their homes' market values--causing more

defaults, more distress sales, and even lower prices. That

cycle was broken only by unprecedented monetary and fiscal

policy support.

Other criticisms

The president's plan will be criticized for many other

reasons. Some will argue that he should have proposed massive

public works, like the Depression-era WPA. Others will say

the plan should have included broader reforms to corporate

taxes or even immigration. While these suggestions may have

merit as policies, they seem like steps too far given what

lawmakers need to do and how quickly they need to do it.

Given the current political environment, it is unlikely

that much of what the president has proposed will become law,

but nearly all the proposals have some bipartisan support. An

extension of the current payroll tax holiday for employees

seems most likely to pass and is included in the Moody's

Analytics baseline economic outlook. The proposed expansion

of the employee tax holiday and the new payroll tax holiday

for employers are also possible. The president's spending

initiatives, while worthwhile, seem like longer shots.

Policymakers need to work fast

The risk of a new economic downturn is as high as it has

been since the Great Recession ended more than two years ago.

A string of unfortunate shocks and a crisis of confidence are

to blame. Surging gasoline and food prices and fallout from

the Japanese earthquake hurt badly in the spring; more

recently, the debt-ceiling drama, a revived European debt

crisis, and the S&P downgrade have been especially

disconcerting. Confidence, already fragile after the

nightmare of the Great Recession and Washington's heated

policy debates, was severely undermined.

Whether the loss of faith in our economy results in another

recession critically depends on how policymakers respond.

Whether they will succeed in shoring up confidence is a

difficult call. The odds of a renewed recession over the next

12 months are 40%, and they could go higher given the current

turmoil in financial markets. The old adage that the stock

market has predicted nine of the last five recessions is apt,

but the recent free fall is disconcerting. Markets and the

economy seem one shock away from dangerously unraveling.

Policymakers must work quickly and decisively.

This is what Mark Zandi said about the President's job proposal:

[It] would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from

sliding back into recession.

[It] would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year,

add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a

percentage point.

The plan would cost about $450 billion, about $250 billion

in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.

Many of the president's proposals [may be] unlikely to pass

Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning

bipartisan support.

They deserve bipartisan support. Again, most of these proposals have been made by Republicans, not just by Democrats. But even if we cannot get the Republicans to support the proposal--because at least on the spending side it is the President's proposal; on the revenue side, it is now a Democratic Senate proposal in terms of the millionaires' surcharge--but if the Republicans will not vote for it, if they will not offer a substitute, an alternative of their own, if they will not seek to amend it to improve it, for heaven's sake, allow us to take up this bill.

I am happy to yield.

I wish there was an explanation which was satisfactory or an answer which was satisfactory to Senator Brown's question. I am afraid the only answer I can come up with is because this started off as President Obama's job bill. It has been changed. Now we have a different source of funding for it. We have a millionaire's surcharge in there which will fund these critically important programs, these job-creation programs.

I cannot think of any other reason, other than they think it will simply go away. What is an explanation? Maybe it was in the unanimous consent request of the Republican leader last night: I ask unanimous consent that this bill not be amendable--no amendments would be in order under his unanimous consent proposal--and then when it does not get 60 votes, which he knew it would not get, that it be immediately returned to the calendar.

That is what he asked twice last night--immediately be returned to the calendar. The Republican leader wants this bill to go away. It cannot go away. It should not go away. It will not go away. The majority leader has already said he is going to move to reconsider the vote last night. I expressed the hope, in my remarks, that the President use his bully pulpit not just to support the jobs bill, which is critically important--he is doing a good job as he goes around the country--but to make it clear where the obstruction is; that the Republicans will not allow us to consider a jobs bill, amend it if they want to try, substitute their own if they have one, which so far they do not. But let us debate this bill. I hope the bully pulpit of the President is used, not just to support a jobs bill, which is so critically important, but to point out where the obstruction is.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists and workers seeking to exercise their internationally recognized right to organize and bargain collectively. The International Trade Union Confederation reported that in 2010 Colombia had 49 union worker assassinations. That is more than the rest of the world combined. To make matters worse, a 2011 ILO report found that the majority of the cases of violence against workers in Colombia had not been investigated nor had the perpetrators been brought to justice. That is simply unacceptable and the United States should not enter into a free trade agreement with a country with such an atrocious human rights record.

The Colombian government has failed to enforce its laws, adhere to its international commitment on worker rights, or to prosecute those who commit acts of violence against workers. This repression of fundamental labor rights presents a threat to the lives of the workers in Colombia and a threat to the livelihoods of the workers in the United States who are forced to compete against a country that doesn't play by the rules.

I have written several letters to the administration expressing concerns about entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia until these worker rights abuse concerns are adequately addressed. The agreement before us does not adequately address them, and as a result I will oppose H.R. 3078, the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

The Obama administration recognized the need to address these concerns before the free trade agreement

could be submitted to Congress and reopened the Bush administration- negotiated U.S.-Colombia FTA to try to address them. That resulted in the action plan related to labor rights agreement reached between the U.S. and Colombia on April 7, 2011.

The action plan lists steps Colombia must take to improve its record on antilabor violence and, if rigorously implemented and enforced, could protect Colombian workers' internationally recognized rights. Unfortunately, we gave up any leverage we had to ensure this outcome would occur when we failed to link the action plan to the FTA or its implementing legislation. Both House and Senate Democrats during committee mark up of the bill proposed an amendment that would have created a link between the two, but Republicans blocked any reference to the labor action plan in the Colombia FTA.

I disagree with the administration's conclusion that Colombia has made enough progress on implementing the Action Plan to send the U.S.- Colombia FTA implementation act to Congress. Because this free trade agreement is being considered under fast-track procedures, Members of Congress like me, who would like to amend it to make improvements such as linking entry into force of the Colombian FTA to Colombia meeting its obligations under the action plan, cannot do so.

Yes, Colombia may so far have technically met its commitments under the action plan. But it has done this only in the narrowest sense, and not in a way that really tries to address the labor problem. For instance, in Colombia, only workers who are directly employed by a company or business can form a union and collectively bargain. To get around allowing workers to form unions and collectively bargain, Colombian employers have formed cooperatives, or made other arrangements to hire their employees as contractors rather than as direct employees. The action plan addressed these abuses by requiring Colombia to pass legislation and regulations to prohibit such misuse of cooperatives and contract employees. Colombia did pass legislation and regulations that looked good on paper, but they were undermined when Colombia decided to narrowly interpreted the new law and regulations as applying only to cooperatives. This is leaves plenty of ways for employers to continue the same practice under a different guise.

Given the lack of full implementation of the action plan to date, and without a provision explicitly inking implementation of the FTA to Colombia addressing anti-union violence, impunity and fundamentally deficient labor laws under the action plan, the legislation is fundamentally flawed and I cannot support it.

I recognize that we currently do not have two-way trade with Colombia because most Colombian exports enter the U.S. duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act. Some might say we should adopt the U.S.- Colombia FTA so U.S. exports can face lower tariffs in Colombia. But Colombia's market is small compared to the U.S. economy and as a result the ITC estimates the overall effect of the U.S. Colombia FTA on the U.S. economy is likely to be small. To me it is more important to insist that any country to which we enter a free trade agreement abide by internationally recognized labor standards and that plans to implement compliance actions be enforceable.

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of H.R. 3080, the United States- Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I will do so because the Obama administration has succeeded in improving the automotive provisions in the Bush administration-negotiated original agreement. The result is that U.S. made vehicles now have a better opportunity to gain access to the historically closed South Korean market.

For too long, trade with South Korea has been a one-way street. The American market has been open and South Korea's market persistently closed by using a combination of tariff and nontariff barriers constructed to keep U.S. products out. This was most pronounced in the automotive sector, which makes up the majority of our trade deficit with South Korea. For instance, in 2010 South Korea shipped 515,000 cars to the United States while U.S. automakers exported fewer than 14,000 cars to South Korea. In 2010, we ran a $10 billion trade deficit with South Korea. Our trade deficit with South Korea in the automotive sector accounted for all of that $10 billion. Correcting our deficit in the automotive sector would go a long way to fixing our overall trade deficit with South Korea.

The original 2007 U.S.-Korea FTA negotiated by the Bush administration was fundamentally flawed. The agreement called for significant concessions from the United States but would have perpetuated a skewed playing field that unfairly disadvantages U.S. automotive exports. It would have left in place the ever-shifting regulatory regime South Korea has used to effectively bar U.S. autos from the South Korean market. For example, South Korea has imposed so- called auto safety regulations that are unique to Korea and don't have anything to do with safety such as the location of towing devices or headlights or the color of turn-signal lamps. This means that no vehicle built outside of Korea can be sold in Korea without special and expensive modifications and testing to meet these Korean requirements.

The failure to address these and other arbitrary, ever-changing regulations was one of the main reasons the agreement was not brought before the Congress for approval for so long. I was opposed to that agreement and as cochairman of the Senate Auto Caucus I spoke out against it.

I am pleased that President Obama recognized the importance of the U.S. automotive industry and reopened the agreement to negotiate significantly improved terms for U.S. auto exports to South Korea.

Importantly, the revised agreement will prevent South Korea from relying on discriminatory, rotating safety regulations as it has in the past to keep out U.S. auto imports. It does this by requiring South Korea to recognize 25,000 vehicles built to meet U.S. safety standards per automaker per year as meeting South Korean safety standards. This is an increase from 6,500 in the 2007 agreement. The revised agreement also includes an auto-specific safeguard designed to protect against potential surges of South Korean cars and trucks once the applicable tariffs are eliminated.

Under the original 2007 agreement, almost 90 percent of South Korea's auto exports to the United States would have received duty-free access. But why should we have reduced our few remaining tariffs to South Korean auto exports unless we were assured greater access to the South Korean markets for our auto exports? For instance, the U.S. auto tariff is only 2.5 percent compared to the South Korean auto tariff of 8 percent. The revised agreement corrected this inequity by reducing Korea's 8 percent duty to 4 percent immediately and to zero in year 5 while delaying elimination of the duty on South Korea's auto exports until year 5, giving U.S. automakers the time to build a brand and distribution presence that will reverse decades of South Korean protectionism.

The 2007 agreement was flawed also in how it dealt with the growing field of electric vehicles. The 2007 agreement would have allowed for a 10-year phase-out of the 8 percent South Korean tariff on hybrid electric passenger vehicles and the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff. That was not a fair deal for U.S. electric car exports. It's bad enough that the current South Korean electric car tariff is more than three times the U.S. tariff. The 2007 agreement would have locked in place for 10 years South Korea's electric car tariff advantage. Why in the world would we agree to that? Thankfully the Obama administration did not. Under the revised agreement, the South Korean tariff on electric cars immediately drops from 8 percent to 4 percent. Then the 4 percent South Korean tariff and the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff are phased out over 5 years. Though the tariffs are still not completely symmetrical, it's a big improvement over the original deal. And importantly, this phase-out now tracks the EU-Korean FTA, so U.S. automakers will now not be disadvantaged compared to European auto makers in the South Korean market as they would have been under the 2007 agreement.

Stakeholders, including Members of Congress, the United Auto Workers and U.S. auto companies, pushed hard for improved market access in the U.S.-Korea FTA. Thanks to the improvements the Obama administration has

negotiated, the UAW, Ford, GM and Chrysler as well as the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, MEMA, among others, support the agreement. They think it will result in their being able to sell more U.S.-made vehicles in South Korea. Specifically, Chrysler has stated that as a result of the FTA it expects to sell 20,000 units per year in South Korea by the end 2014 compared to the paltry 2,638 passenger vehicles it sold there in 2010, and that the company plans to expand its dealer network to 30 outlets from the current 16.

These additional U.S. auto exports translate into badly needed American jobs. The 2007 ITC report on the expected impact of the U.S.- Korean FTA estimated U.S. exports to South Korea would increase by $10- $11 billion annually. The administration estimates that an additional $11 billion in exports would mean around 70,000 more jobs annually. In an updated ITC report requested by Senator Wyden to assess the impact on American jobs of the FTA tariff and tariff rate quota reductions on goods based on current economic conditions, the ITC concluded that the agreement has the potential to create about 280,000 American jobs.

The agreement also has strong labor and environmental provisions that were agreed to in May 2007 at the insistence of Democratic Members of Congress, led by my brother, Congressman Sandy Levin, the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee. They include the enforcement of a commitment to adopt and enforce internationally recognized labor and environmental standards and agreements.

It is high time we insisted on a different trade model that fights for a level playing field for American exports and American workers. I believe the revised U.S.-Korea FTA moves significantly toward that model and I will vote in favor of the legislation to implement it.

Mr. President, I will support legislation to implement the U.S.- Panama Free Trade Agreement. The Obama administration has taken important steps to address concerns about worker rights and environmental protections in Panama that represent a significant improvement over the original agreement negotiated by the Bush administration. And, after years of pressure from those of us concerned about the abuse of offshore tax shelters, Panama has finally removed a major impediment to this free trade agreement by agreeing to and beginning to implement a tax information exchange agreement.

For 6 years, the Bush administration failed to conclude a tax information exchange agreement with Panama. In 2009, I joined with Congressman Doggett in a letter to President Obama making clear that we could not support a free trade agreement with Panama unless that country upheld its international obligations under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's standards for transparency. The OECD found in September 2010 that Panama has ``potentially serious deficiencies'' in its laws on tax transparency. Thanks to pressure from the OECD, the Obama administration and those of us in Congress who oppose offshore tax haven abuse, Panama negotiated an information exchange agreement that took effect earlier this year.

Panama also agreed in negotiations with the Obama administration to uphold internationally recognized labor rights, making changes in its laws to protect collective bargaining rights. These changes have removed a major obstacle to approval of this free trade agreement.

With Panama's agreement to meet international standards for tax transparency and labor rights, I believe the agreement before us will protect workers in both countries, and the interests of U.S. taxpayers who are tired of seeing others dodge their tax obligations using offshore tax havens.

Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from Ohio for his leadership on this bill. This has been a long time in coming. It is a long battle that is being fought over Chinese unfair trade practices. One of the most significant and damaging unfair trade practices is the manipulation of currency by the Chinese. Senator Brown is taking the lead in getting this finally rectified. I commend him for it. I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Pennsylvania, is also a real fighter in this area, trying to correct the unfairness that has been allowed to exist

when the Chinese currency is manipulated. Senator Casey, I believe, has been a leader and is an original cosponsor. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill.

I have long supported the effort to take action against unfair currency manipulation by our trading partners. I think for at least the last 8 years we have had bills that have been introduced to address the issue of unfair currency manipulation. This is an unfair trade practice that contributes to large U.S. trade deficits and to job loss.

The reality is that when American companies do business in the global marketplace, they are not competing against companies overseas; they are competing against foreign governments that support those companies. That is especially true with foreign governments such as China and, in the past, Japan and other countries that manipulate the value of their currency to keep its value artificially low. Currency manipulation makes Chinese exports unfairly cheap and U.S. products more expensive in China, displacing U.S. production and jobs. This is nothing short, as Senator Brown has said, of a Chinese Government subsidy, and we should be fighting against it--hard.

Trade creates new jobs when we export. Trade results in the loss of jobs when imports replace goods that were once produced here. When trade deficits rise, we are losing jobs to imports. The reality is, we have been running massive, unsustainable trade deficits with China. Just in the first 7 months of this year, we had a trade deficit of more than $160 billion with China. That is four times larger than our deficit with any other trading partner. Last year, we exported $92 billion of goods to China, and we imported an astounding $365 billion from China. So there is a growing trade surplus, as illustrated by the charts Senator Brown has presented to us.

China's growing trade surplus with the United States and the rest of the world has been fueled by massive currency manipulation, subsidies, and other unfair trade practices. Estimates are, the Chinese currency is undervalued by up to 40 percent, which makes U.S. goods that much more expensive for Chinese consumers and makes Chinese goods artificially cheap in the United States and around the world. As a result, U.S. imports from China have increased, and U.S. exports to China have been suppressed.

Senator Brown has gone through some of the numbers, and I will repeat them because I think it is important that every American focus on these numbers and the growth of this trade deficit with China.

In 2001, our trade deficit with China was $84 billion. It grew to $278 billion in 2010. According to an Economic Policy Institute study, released in September, this deficit resulted in the loss or displacement of nearly 2.8 million U.S. jobs over that period. The report blamed part of our deficit with China on their manipulation of its currency, and it is simply long overdue that we enact legislation to end that unfair advantage because the tools we have to combat the problem have been, so far, unequal to the task.

The International Monetary Fund has what it calls articles of agreement. Those articles prohibit countries from manipulating their currency for the purpose of gaining unfair trade advantage. But the words are hollow because the IMF has no means to enforce that prohibition.

Our current laws give the administration, on paper, the power to act to combat currency manipulation. But those laws are easily bypassed and too easily ignored. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have failed to take action. The Treasury Department is required to issue a semiannual report on international economic and exchange rate policies, in which it could conclude--as almost every independent observer concludes--that China is manipulating its currency. To date, the Treasury Department has never made such a finding since the 1988 Trade Act mandated the report. Instead, what it does--the Treasury Department--is hint, suggests, and sometimes threatens, but it doesn't act.

A couple examples. The Bush administration's 2006 exchange rate report said the following:

China needs to move quickly to introduce exchange rate

flexibility at a far faster pace than it has done to date.

Given our strong disappointment [5 years ago] and the

importance of China to the world economy, the Treasury

Department will closely monitor China's progress in

implementing its economic rebalancing strategy, remain fully

engaged at every opportunity with China, and continue

actively and frankly to press China to quicken the pace of

renminbi flexibility.

That was the Bush administration 6 years ago. In May of 2011, under the Obama administration, here is what the exchange rate report states:

Treasury's view, however, is that progress thus far is

insufficient and that more rapid progress is needed. Treasury

will continue to closely monitor--

Those were the same words used 5 years ago. Maybe they took this from the computer and moved it from 2006 to 2011.

the pace of appreciation of the renminbi by China. It is a

high priority for Treasury--

Really? That is good news. The trouble is, the facts don't support the statement.

working through the G-20, the IMF, and through direct

bilateral discussions to encourage policies that will produce

greater exchange rate flexibility.

The failure of administration after administration to do more than closely monitor rather than take action is why Congress must act to pass legislation to require action against foreign countries that are unfairly manipulating their currency.

So the bill before us, S. 1619, the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Act, which is a bipartisan bill, combines several earlier currency manipulation bills. It clarifies that U.S. countervailing duty laws can address currency undervaluation, giving American companies and manufacturers stronger tools to fight back against these unfair trade practices. It would also replace the weak and flawed currency provisions in current law with a new framework, based on objective criteria that will require Treasury to identify misaligned currencies and require action by the administration if countries fail to correct the misalignment.

Under this bill, the administration would be required to take specific action if a country with a priority currency designation does not adopt policies to eliminate the misalignment within specified periods of time. For instance, if no policies are adopted after 90 days, the legislation directs the administration to, among other things, prohibit Federal procurement of goods and services from the designated country, unless that country is a member of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, of which China is not. After 360 days of failure to adopt appropriate policies, the USTR--the Trade Representative--is required to request a dispute settlement in the WTO with the government responsible for the misaligned currency.

Congress is on record in support of fighting currency manipulation. In 2007, a majority of Senators went on record supporting a currency manipulation bill that was brought up as an amendment to a State Department reauthorization bill. That bill would have imposed tariffs on Chinese imports to compensate for currency manipulation by China. But it was withdrawn by its sponsors in exchange for a promise to develop and vote on a WTO-compliant bill. The pending bill is a WTO- compliant bill. Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform For Fair Trade Act. That narrower currency manipulation bill made it clear that the Department of Commerce is to fight the illegal subsidization of foreign currencies by using U.S. countervailing duty laws. Unfortunately, the Senate ran out of time at the end of the session and we did not take up the bill.

So the bill before us, S. 1619, will allow us to deal with any country that is found to be manipulating its currency, not just China, which is at the moment the worst offender. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Japan manipulated its currency, and this was a major problem for our manufacturers and put them at an unfair competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis Japanese manufacturers. For instance, when the Japanese Government was intervening in currency markets to hold the yen at 116 yen to the dollar, that translated into an $8,000 subsidy for every large vehicle imported into the United States from Japan. The market share

gained by Japanese auto manufacturers was to a significant degree the result of the currency manipulation undertaken by the Japanese Government on behalf of its exporters. Because today the Japanese yen is at historic highs, Japanese currency is not an immediate concern. This could change at any time because Japan has recently indicated it is willing to intervene again in currency markets.

So, Mr. President, with both Chambers now on record supporting currency manipulation legislation, there is no reason we should not pass this legislation quickly and send it to the President for his signature. I hope our colleagues will support this bipartisan legislation because it will finally--finally, long overdue, years too late--address the very problematic and costly practice of our trade competitors who manipulate their currencies to create jobs in their countries at the expense of jobs here in the United States.

I again thank Senator Brown of Ohio for his great work on this bill. I know he and the Presiding Officer, Senator Casey, and others, including my colleague from Michigan, have been working hard on this bill, and hopefully in the next couple of days it will come to a fruitful conclusion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there are thousands of small and medium size counties across our country that form the backbone of our shared history and cultural heritage. These communities shape our political, economic, and social structure. Each has a unique history that defines its region and its citizens. Delta County, MI, set along Lake Michigan in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, is one such place, and since its inception 150 years ago, has contributed much to the rich and proud history of my home State.

While human life in this region dates back to at least 500 A.D. as evidenced by cliff paintings found in the area, the area was first surveyed in 1843, and in 1861, a triangle shaped section of this land was incorporated as Delta County. At one point in the early 1850s, the mouth of the Escanaba River was home to the largest timber producer in the world; built by one of the county's founding fathers, Nelson Ludington. Two years after the county's incorporation, the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad constructed Delta County's first iron ore dock. Over the ensuing decade, the residents of Delta County witnessed the construction of the first frame houses and a hotel, in addition to the Sand Point Lighthouse in Escanaba. The Delta County Historical Society restored this lighthouse in 1987, and it still stands today along Delta County's majestic coastline.

The years following Escanaba's establishment were prosperous, as Delta County grew as a transportation hub for iron in the north, powering the growth of the Great Lakes region's manufacturing prowess. In 1877, the city of Gladstone was incorporated at the end of the Soo Line railroad. Twenty-one years after its founding, Delta County constructed its first courthouse, and a year later, in 1883, the village of Escanaba, the county seat, incorporated as a city. Today, the county takes pride in its continued role in transporting ore, partnered with a diversified paper industry and its popularity as a destination for tourists visiting one of our Nation's most pristine regions.

The Hiawatha National Forest accounts for more than half of Delta County's land area. This beautiful natural resource stretches across Michigan's Upper Peninsula, touching three of the five Great Lakes and contains 413 inland lakes, making it a popular destination for campers and outdoor enthusiasts. A respect for the environment is a central part of the culture of Delta County residents, and in 1991, Delta County was awarded one of six statewide ``model'' program grants for a recycling and composting program.

Delta County's sesquicentennial marks a great moment for the countless citizens who have contributed much to the success of this region and have helped shape the cultural fabric of this area over the last century and a half. On June 22, Delta County held a ceremony reminiscent of its 100th anniversary celebration, raising a flag and exploring in depth the long, rich history of the county. I know my colleagues in the Senate join me and thousands of citizens across Michigan in wishing the residents of Delta County the best as they chart a course for another century of accomplishment.