Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his remarks. In a few minutes, we are going to vote on a bill that could actually change the course of how we trade with China. For a decade, getting worse every year, China has taken advantage of America in every way. Currency is at the top of the list, but it has been the theft of intellectual property, it has been the subsidy of indigenous Chinese businesses, it has been monopolizing things such as rare earth, and it has been excluding American products from China when those products would have a competitive advantage. For the first time, this body, in a bipartisan way, has the ability to say enough is enough. Uncle Sam is no longer Uncle Sap. We are going to create fair trade with China.

This relates to our future because it no longer is competition over shoes or clothing or furniture--labor-intensive businesses. It is competition over the most high-end things we do. Our companies can win and create jobs here in America if China plays by the rules and plays fairly. But everyone who has been up close and seen the way the Chinese operate know that will not happen by persuasion, by multilateral talks, by wishing it were so or even by the healing of time. It will only happen if America stands up for itself--for fairness, for equal treatment. For the first time, we have the opportunity to get that to happen.

Some say this is a symbolic bill. It is not. If we pass this bill by a bipartisan majority, I will tell everybody what will happen. The House will vote on something--hopefully strong--and we will have a conference committee with something going to the President's desk. Long before that occurs--long before that occurs--the Chinese will begin to step back from their unfair trade policies. So we can indeed win the trade argument with China.

Some say it will create a trade war. We are already in a trade war, and we are losing. We are getting our clocks cleaned. But we can stop it, and this is the opportunity.

Mr. President, every one of us has spoken to companies that make high-end products throughout our States, and that China competes unfairly and takes jobs and wealth away from America, we know that. No one disputes that. No one disputes that they manipulate currency. No one disputes that they take jobs and wealth unfairly from America. The issue is what to do about it.

Some say talk to the Chinese. We have done that for 7 years. Some say have multilateral agreements. We have tried that; China just doesn't listen. The only way to get China to change its policies is by requiring them to do so by putting in place a system that says: If you don't, the consequences will be worse for you than if you do. That is how China operates. Unfortunately, my belief is the new leadership in China, without any reformers on the executive committee of the Politburo, will get worse, not better, unless we, together, Democrats and Republicans, say to China: Enough is enough.

American workers have said enough is enough. American businesses have said enough is enough. When is the Congress, when is this government going to say enough is enough instead of just twiddling our thumbs and hoping and praying China might change out of the goodness of their hearts? Well, the time is now. This is a unique opportunity not simply to have a symbolic vote. Believe me, this is not at all political to me. Senator Graham and I have tried to keep this a bipartisan issue religiously for 7 years. To me, this is something that relates to the very future of our country, like educating our kids, like creating jobs so that the next generation has a better opportunity than this, like the greatness of America itself.

We are in a tough world. We know that. But America always wins in a tough world. We compete and we survive. The only way we won't is if the deck continues to stay stacked against us. My colleagues, even up the playing field. This legislation will start us on the road to doing that so that our children and our grandchildren will have a better future than they will if we continue the present policies and let China take industry after industry unfairly away from us.

I yield the floor.

Just for a clarification, Mr. President, are we in morning business or are we on the bill?

Is 1 hour of time equally divided?

So time is equally divided up to that point?

Thank you, Mr. President.

First, I would like to make a comment on the Republican leader's comments on the tax bill. Just make note, American people, the leader says: Do not raise taxes. But he does not mention what our proposal actually does. It imposes a 5.6-percent surcharge only on those whose incomes are above $1 million. In other words, 99 percent-plus of the American people will not have their taxes raised, nor should they.

Average middle-class people are struggling. Their incomes are declining. We should not be doing that. But for those who are the very wealthiest--and this is no aspersion to them. 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 is great. But they are the one segment in society whose income has actually increased significantly over the last decade.

The one consensus we have in this place is that we have to reduce the deficit and reduce the budget. The one consensus we have is that we have to do that. Well, you are asking middle-class people to chip in by making it harder to pay for college because student loans are not as good or cutting back on somebody who has been unemployed. They worked their whole life, lost their job, and now are unemployed.

So how do we have the top 1 percent--the one part of society doing the best--chip in? Well, the only way is through the Tax Code because they do not need help getting their kids to college. They do not need health care help. God bless them. They have enough money to do that on their own. So this is the only way to do it. If you say no taxes on anybody, even the millionaires--which is what, I assume, the Republican leader is saying--you are saying the best off in society, who have done the best in the last decade, should not contribute to this deficit reduction we have to do.

I believe--and I will say this again and again--the only way we are going to get real deficit reduction is by raising revenues as well as cutting spending. The only real way we are 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 would like to go to the bill at hand, which is S. 1619, the currency act. I know my colleagues have heard me on this all week. It is passionate for me. It is passionate not as a Democrat or not against Republicans. In fact, we have religiously tried throughout--Senator Lindsey Graham and I, throughout the history of this bill, which is a long one, and the bills before it, their predecessors--we have 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 was the Republican President Bush or the Democrat President Obama--with equal vigor because we think administrations get too caught up in that highfalutin diplomatic world to understand what American companies, particularly middle-sized companies, go through when China does not play fair.

I am on the Senate floor on this bill many times, more often than I usually speak, because I believe passionately this is about the future of America. 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 WTO rules, against the rules of free trade--we may never recover as a country.

This is serious. This is not to gain political advantage, although most Americans agree with it, of course. But I would do this if most Americans did not, and if editorialists did not, business leaders of multinational corporations did not. I do this because when we 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 in our market and in the Chinese market--we are giving away our seed corn.

Take solar cells. China usually uses a one-two punch to hurt us unfairly. First, they will use some trade law to get that business in their country, whether it is rare earths, and they will say: You want these rare earths? You have to manufacture in China. Whether it is intellectual property, they just take it regardless of patent laws and other laws. Or in the case of solar cells, whether it is unfair direct subsidies to companies, they say: You make the solar cells here--the Chinese companies--you will get deep subsidies.

But that alone would not 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-percent discount using currency manipulation. Our American companies--and I have spoken to company after company in manufacturing businesses, in service businesses, and things in between--say: I can't compete. My product is usually better, but not against a 30-percent currency disadvantage. So the price of the Chinese good is 30 percent cheaper.

There is a window manufacturer I just visited, I think it was last Friday. He makes high-end windows for these buildings in New York and elsewhere. The window he makes is better than the Chinese window. This was not a theft of intellectual property. He would not use the Chinese windows because he is a contractor as well. He makes the windows, and then he installs them.

He said: I wouldn't use the Chinese product, but because it has a 30- percent advantage in currency, it undercuts me in price and lots of other people use it.

Now, who would have thought that we are talking about windows? The Chinese are competing against us everywhere. High end, middle end, and low end. On the low end, frankly, we will never get the businesses back. Toys or clothing or shoes, maybe even furniture--except high-end furniture--is not coming back.

The argument that some of these editorialists use, well, they are going to go to Bangladesh or somewhere else if China has to raise its currency is true, but that is not what we are fighting for

here. We are fighting for high- and middle-end companies that have great products--solar panels, in which America has a future; jobs that if China played fairly we would win because we make a better product, and it does not have to be exported. Yet we somehow sit here and twiddle our thumbs.

What I was saying about the window guy is, not only now does China compete in manufacturing the windows, Chinese companies come here and install them. Again, it is still a 30-percent advantage because they are paying the Chinese company and workers the yuan, which is undervalued by 30 percent over there.

So this is serious. It is about the future of America, about the future of American jobs. We are all concerned about jobs. There are very few jobs bills that are, A, bipartisan, and, B, do not cost money. This is one of them. It has been a bipartisan bill all the way. The votes showed it.

I see my colleague from Alabama who has been a great partner. I saw my colleague from South Carolina who has been a great partner. How else in this deadlocked, gridlocked situation can we help American workers in a bipartisan way--that does not cost money--in a big way? This is it. There are not many others.

So I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Leader Reid said on the Senate 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 am sure if we could move on cloture, Senator Hatch's amendment--he is the ranking member of the Finance Committee-- which deals with trade would be debated. We would 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 issue, China was a much smaller economy. Now they are huge, the 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. That deals with the Chinese market. But then, with trade currency, when the businesses go there, with currency manipulation they are able to undercut us and send the goods here.

Again, to me--and I am just one person and, obviously, I feel this issue more passionately than 99 percent of Americans because I have been involved in it so long--if we could do five 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 our children and grandchildren know that they are going to have better lives than their parents and grandparents, and it is 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 are so many challenges we face as a country. At this time we cannot shrug our shoulders and be benign like maybe 20 or 25 years ago when we were in a different situation, saying: China cheats; so what. Let's not risk any change. Let's not get them mad.

We cannot afford that anymore. The future of America is at stake. To those who say it will 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 the are ones who benefit from all of these rules, we do not--all of these manipulations. They will not retaliate. Yes, they may do a little thing here and there, but they will not retaliate big time because it will do even more damage to the Chinese economy.

What they will do--Senator Graham and I have seen this, and Senator Sessions and Senator Brown--when they are faced with the hard reality that they will no longer be allowed by legislation or, I wish, by administration action, but that has not been forthcoming from either President Bush or President Obama, they then adjust and play fairer. That is what has happened every single time, and that will happen again.

I want to first compliment my colleagues on this legislation. I want to hope and pray--I 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 remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) The Senator from South Carolina.

Madam President, what is the time status for the majority and minority?

They are much better at this than we are.

All four of us have spoken. Again, I make a plea to my colleagues. We have had 8 months talking about debt, and many have said that is the future for our children and grandchildren. I think there is a consensus on both sides that is true. I argue that 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 10 years--as they will be if China continues its predatory practices--the future for our children and grandchildren in this country will not be bright. Our seed corn, our family jewels are being decimated by a plague of unfair competition that has been allowed to continue. It is as if we have a plague and some of the leaders of this country, whether political or economic, shrug their shoulders and say: That is that. We cannot do that much about this.

In a bipartisan way, we have said we can do something about this plague. We are at the moment of decision. It is my belief that if we pass this in a bipartisan way--as we have to; it is the way the Senate works--the House may not take up our bill exactly, but they will do something. We will have a conference committee, and we can get something done. The odds are quite high that when China sees the train heading down the track, when their ability--I have seen the articles-- and I wanted to read some of them into the record--of China urging American companies with plants 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 with their multinational allies to stall this bill will not succeed, they will adjust and correct themselves, not just on currency 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.

I yield the floor.

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, in the form of a question to the majority leader and also the Republican leader--we are all frustrated. The Senator from Tennessee and I talked about that frustration at the beginning of the session, and it hasn't worked terribly well to try to straighten this out. You are frustrated, and we can talk about the specifics here.

The one point I make is that the majority leader, isn't it true, offered on the floor yesterday to allow amendments on this bill? And the only amendment that was sent to us was the amendment to have a vote on the President's budget, is that correct?

But it was not widely known on this side. The majority leader had offered amendments on this bill. The question I ask is this--and I will make a statement and lead up to a question. You are frustrated because you feel the tree is filled all the time and you cannot make amendments. But we are frustrated because the 60-vote rule--which has always been used here--is now used routinely, which never has been done before. Judges--district court judges--I have been here in the Senate 13 years, and I was in the House 18 years and followed the Senate and cared about judges. It never happened before. Routine appointees--assistant secretaries of this, deputy secretaries of that--60 votes. And on bill after bill after bill, the procedure of this place works that somebody has to object. That is why you file cloture; otherwise, we could proceed.

In the past, the motion to proceed was not routinely blocked. And almost every single bill--important bills, obviously--and nobody thinks the health care bill should have passed by 51 votes. But on minor bills--we had a filibuster on technical corrections to the Transportation bill, where 287 was written down by mistake instead of 387. It was filibustered--60 votes. So our defense is to fill the tree.

But what we ought to try to do here--and, as I said, the Senator from Tennessee and I futilely tried earlier this year to maybe calm things down--is to maybe use this flashpoint to try to come together and work that out again. Maybe the minority would not routinely filibuster everything--appointments, judges, minor bills--and can save it for the major bills. In return--and I agree with the minority leader that the deal around this place is the majority sets the agenda and the minority gets to offer amendments. That has been the rule since I got here and one of the reasons--he is correct, I say to my friend from Kentucky-- why I left the House to run for the Senate.

But it has gotten to the extreme. While my colleagues on the other side would say it got to the extreme because we always fill the tree, we would say it got to the extreme because you filibuster everything and require 60 votes on everything--we only have 53, we know that-- including judges, appointments, and minor bills. If we are going to bring this place back to order, if we are going to bring this place back to a place where we can legislate, both sides have to back off, and we are going to have to figure out how to do that, which we haven't done adequately yet.

One other point before I ask my question. The Senator from West Virginia had a few of us on his boat this week. A number of the freshmen Senators from the other side of the aisle were on the boat, as I was. We began to talk, and they were asking, why is this place so mixed up? I explained that some of the greatest joys I have had in the Senate and the House were conference committees, and offering amendments, and things such as that. We all said, together, why can't we get back to that?

Let me say that it is not simply filling the tree and preventing amendments that caused this problem. It is routinely requiring 60 votes before the Senate can get a drink of water.

My question to the majority leader is this: Would he be willing--we need a little bit of a cooling-off period--to sit down with the minority leader and others in an effort to try to figure out how we can get back to somewhat more of a regular order in regard to what I said?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform Options: Incentives for Homeownership.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Internet Infrastructure in Native Communities: Equal Access to E-Commerce, Jobs and the Global Marketplace.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 6, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct and executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Children's Health and Environmental Responsibility of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2011, in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing on Federal Actions to Clean Up Contamination from Legacy Uranium Mining and Milling Operations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Peace Corps, the Next 50 Years.''

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

Mr. President, I would like to talk on the bill that we are debating on the floor about China currency. Let me say a few things. To me and to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, very little we could do could be more important in both the short term and the long term than to require China to pay a price if they continue to flaunt international trade rules and manipulate their currency, causing their imports to America--their exports to America, our imports, to be much cheaper than they should be, and causing American exports to China--their imports of our goods--to be more expensive than they should be.

In the short term, it has been estimated by EPI that 2 million jobs could be created over 2 years if we pass this legislation and China's currency were no longer misaligned. But there is a long-term issue, and that is this: The bottom line is, what is our future in this country? It is good, high-paying jobs. It is companies, large and small, that create high-end products, products that take a lot of know-how, products that take a lot of skill to create, products that basically are the high end in terms of both manufacturing and services. That is our future.

Those are our crown jewels. When I ask--as many of us have asked the question--how in a worldwide economy can America compete, the answer is those companies. I admit that most of those companies are not large; they are smaller companies. They are small business people with great ideas for new ways of providing a service or creating a product. They are the people who employ about 65 percent of the new jobs in America. They are our future. Some of them will grow into very large companies. Many will stay employing 100, 200, 300, or 400 people. But they are on the front lines of world trade.

What have we found over the last decade? In almost 10 years, since China joined the WTO, we have lost 2.8 million jobs, simply due to the Chinese

Government's manipulation of currency. We have lost thousands more jobs elsewhere, because China steals our intellectual property. China has a mercantilist policy of taking an industry and nurturing it with local subsidies and making products so cheap that they export and overwhelm our market. That is what happened with solar cells, solar panels. They can take an advantage such as rare earths and oppose WTO rules and say to companies, if you want these rare earths, which you need for your products, you have to make it in China.

They do this over and over. Why do Senator Brown and Senator Graham and I and many others feel so strongly about this? Because we know if the present trend continues, as Robert Samuelson, the economist, noted in an op-ed in the Washington Post the other day, basically it is a disaster for America. If, when a young entrepreneur creates a product or service, that entrepreneur is overwhelmed by a Chinese product that has unfair advantage, we don't have a future. That is it. Many people worry about the budget deficit as the biggest problem America faces. It is a large problem and I hope we solve it. I will work hard to solve it. But, to me, the No. 1 problem America faces is how do we become the production giant we were over the last several decades but no longer seem to be. We are indeed a consumption giant. We consume more than anybody of our own products and other people's. But you cannot be a consumption giant for many years on end if you are not also a production giant.

What is a major external factor that contributes to making us a consumption giant rather than a production giant? It is the Chinese manipulation of currency, because it discourages production in America and encourages consumption of undervalued Chinese goods at the same time. The anguish that many of us feel about the future of this country translates directly into this legislation. I know there are lots of academics who sit up in their ivory towers, editorial writers, who love to look at this legislation and without even examining its consequences say that is protectionism. This is not protectionism. In fact, this legislation is in the name of free trade, because free trade implies a floating currency. That is what was set up at Bretton Woods. That was the equilibrium creator when things got out of whack. But it doesn't exist for China. A lot of countries have pegged their currency in the past and we paid no attention, because if you have .01 percent of GDP, and you are worried your tiny little currency will be overwhelmed, to peg it by world trends, that doesn't create much trouble. When you are the second largest economic power in the world, largest or second largest exporter in the world, to peg your currency totally discombobulates the world trading system.

Given the danger to the future of our country, and given the danger to the continuation of world trade by China continuing its currency manipulation, why isn't there more of an outcry? That is the question I ask myself. I don't have a good answer. Perhaps it is because those editorial writers and big thinkers don't talk to the manufacturers of high-end products in New York State I talk to, who see they cannot continue against China unfairly because of currency manipulation. Whether it is a ceramic that goes into powerplants, which I talked about yesterday, or even a high-end window that is used for major office buildings and museums, China uses its currency manipulation to gain unfair advantage over our companies up and down the line. Maybe those in the ivory towers don't talk to the manufacturers on the ground as so many of us do because that is our job and that is our living. Maybe it is because global companies have fought our provision in the interest of their shareholders.

I don't begrudge the big companies. Their job is to maximize their share price. If firing 10,000 American workers and moving them to China, and creating those 10,000 jobs in China gives them more profitability, in part because of currency manipulation, yes, that is what corporations are supposed to do. But that is not in America's interest. It may have been in General Electric--a company that has lots of New York presence and that I like very much--it may have been in their interest to sign a contract for wind turbines and give to China intellectual property in return. But it sure wasn't in the interest of the workers in Schenectad, even if it might have been in the overall interest of the GE shareholder. Maybe it is because the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce, which is dominated by the larger manufacturers and service companies and the larger financial institutions. They don't care about American wealth and jobs; they care about their own profitability and sales and share price, and if China has an unfair advantage, so be it. That is not their job. Maybe that is the reason. That is beginning to change, by the way.

When I last visited China, I met with the heads of the China divisions of many of our largest companies, and I had met with the same people several years before--and intermittently some of them in between--and their tone has totally changed. They are exasperated with China's mercantile policy. One of the manufacturers, who had been one of the leaders in saying don't touch China, because they exported a ton of goods there, had a different tone. He said: We can only export certain of our goods--the ones China doesn't make--and the rest we have to make in China and in certain provinces. That is a large, huge multibillion dollar U.S. company.

Another company, a major retailer, told us they cannot run their stores the way they wish in China because China dictates what they can and cannot have on their shelves. Half of the products on their shelves in American stores cannot, by Chinese Government dictate, be on the Chinese store shelves. Some of our large companies are sort of realizing that letting China get away with all of these violations of free trade, all these violations of WTO, no longer serves their interests, though, admittedly, they have not come around to support our bill.

Then there are those who are fearful that the Chinese will retaliate. That one drives me the craziest. I grew up in Brooklyn. When there were bullies and you didn't stand up for yourself, they bullied you and bullied you some more. If you stood up to them, yes, there was going to be some retaliation, but it was a lot better than giving in. That is what we have done with China. Will China retaliate if this bill becomes law and hundreds of American companies grow to have countervailing duties imposed? Yes. But the Chinese know they have far more to lose in a trade war than we do. Their economy is far more dependent upon exports--just look at the percentage in terms of GDP--than ours. They are far more dependent upon the American market than we are on the Chinese market, as important as it is to many of our companies.

While China will retaliate in a measured way, they will not create a trade war. It is not in their interest; they cannot afford to. I have news for those who are worried about a trade war: We are in one. When China manipulates its currency, steals intellectual property, and uses rare earths to lure businesses and takes our intellectual property and brings it to factories in China, subsidizes them against WTO rules, and then tries to export the product here, as they are doing with solar panels, that is a trade war, as millions of Americans who have lost their jobs realize. So we are in the war. We may as well arm ourselves so that we might win.

The bottom line is very simple: I hope this bill moves forward. I hope it goes through the House. A large vote in the Senate tomorrow will be a message to the House--Senator Brown's bill and, of course, his and ours have been combined. But Senator Brown's bill passed in the House a few years ago, and I hope the President rethinks things and signs it, because if he does, my prediction is that China, which never backs off when it is in their own economic interest, will, because it will no longer be in their economic interest because penalties will be imposed and equality will be imposed upon them once this bill is law. So they will let their currency float--maybe not as quickly as we want but far more quickly than it happens now, once this bill becomes law.

In my view, the arguments that have been raised against America taking action to deal with unfair Chinese currency manipulation are outdated, wrong, and ineffectual. I have been arguing the other side, our side, for 5

years. When Senator Graham and I first started talking about currency manipulation, imposing a tariff, both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times editorial boards--one very conservative and one very liberal--said China should be allowed to peg its currency. We have made progress in the strength of our intellectual arguments. We have to take that strength and translate it into action. Millions of American jobs, and ultimately trillions of American dollars of wealth, and nothing less than the future of our country are at stake.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my main purpose is to address the China currency bill, particularly in regards to the remarks of Speaker Boehner and Chairman Bernanke. But there are two other points I wish to make on previous speakers' comments. First, Senator Webb's amendment.

It is a very important amendment. What it says, of course, is that in cases where commercial technologies are developed with the support of U.S. taxpayers, it prohibits companies from transferring the technology to countries that force proprietary transfers as a condition of doing business. We have seen this over and over.

China, which does not play fair up and down the line, basically gets away with economic murder. One of their techniques is to say to a big American company: We will allow you to sell a ton of stuff to us. You will make lots of money. But in return you must give us your proprietary technology--basically your family jewels.

It is outrageous, and in the long run it weakens America's ability to grow and create jobs. The companies do this because in the 5- or 10- year period in which they have signed the contract, they get a lot of revenue. But it certainly hurts American workers, and it certainly hurts these companies in the long run. But the CEOs probably figure they will be long gone before that money is made. So I want to support Senator Webb's amendment.

In regards to my good friend from Utah who proposed an alternative, I would say this: We have tried for a decade to get multilateral action. That involves getting China's acquiescence. It is not going to happen. Multilateral action--like saying to the Chinese: Please--has not worked. It will not work. Our legislation is much stronger. It can pass. It got a large vote here this week. It has bipartisan support.

I know Speaker Boehner--I will talk about this in a minute--has said he will not take up our bill. But there is going to be huge pressure for him to do so, as I will elaborate later.

So to my good friend from Utah--and I have tremendous respect for him, and I do not doubt for a minute his good intentions, his integrity, his hard work and desire to see things happen. To say to the Chinese: Please negotiate, is a strategy for weakness, is a strategy for failure, and multilateral action will not succeed. The Chinese understand only one thing--I will yield in a brief moment to my colleague for a question or a comment, whichever he prefers.

But the Chinese only understand one thing: being tough; telling them, if they do not discontinue these actions we are going to take action unilaterally on our own. I have been doing this for years. I can tell you, China's policies get worse and worse and worse. As one of my constituents said to me: Uncle Sam, when it comes to China, is Uncle Sam.

To have a policy that involves large multilateral actions and says to the Chinese: Come and negotiate with us, makes no sense at all.

I yield for a brief moment on my time to my colleague from Utah--for a minute or so.

I thank my colleague, and I understand his good intentions and desire to get to the same place, which is to get China to behave fairly. I certainly will look at his bill.

I simply say this: Growing up in Brooklyn, we had to deal with a lot of bullies. The only time bullies give in is when you stand up to them. The proposal my colleague has made does not stand up to China.

The nations of the world have made their opinions clear. Recently, Brazil did. China doesn't care. They will only

care if there are sanctions, tough sanctions that give consequences to their unfair--and usually illegal by WTO standards--action.

Now I want to talk about Speaker Boehner's remarks and Ben Bernanke's remarks.

Last night was a milestone in the Senate. For years, the Government of China has been willfully breaking the rules of free trade without provoking a formal response from the U.S. Government--until yesterday. The full Senate for the first time went on record that it wanted to consider formal action to confront China's currency manipulation. It was a lopsided vote, a bipartisan majority of both parties, with 79 Senators in favor. We will spend the next few days debating the particulars, but make no mistake about it, when it comes to China's unfair trade practices, there is a consensus to act in the Senate.

It can be hard at times here to get 79 votes to turn the lights on. When the majority leader and the minority leader vote together to move forward on a major jobs-boosting measure, we should not delay in moving forward. But then today, less than 24 hours after the Senate saw the overwhelming vote in favor of moving forward to finally confront China with real action, the Speaker of the House of Representatives suggested he would not take up the bill if it passes the Senate. He called it dangerous. The Speaker's argument is behind the times. The only thing that would be dangerous would be to continue turning the other cheek while China mounts its assault on U.S. jobs, U.S. wealth, and U.S. manufacturing. Up and down the line, they oppose fair practices. They are mercantilists, maximizing their wealth at the expense of American workers, American companies, and American jobs.

Critics like the Speaker say the bill could start a trade war with China. Well, I have news, Mr. President: We are already in a trade war with China, and it is not going that well. American companies are fighting for survival in the United States and around the globe, battling subsidized Chinese exports with a built-in price advantage of 20 to 40 percent.

We cannot raise the white flag on American jobs, American wealth, and American manufacturing. We can compete successfully against Chinese competition at home and in China and around the world but only--only-- if we level the playing field. Our bill helps level that playing field.

There is already a trade war going on, I say to the Speaker. China is cheating to gain unfair advantage. It is about time we do something about it. As Mr. Samuelson said in his article in the Washington Post, the only thing worse than a trade war--and I believe that won't happen because China has more to lose in a trade war than we do, and if they are one thing, they are smart, and they won't cut off their nose to spite their face. They may take a few sanctions, but they won't create a trade war. The only thing worse than even a trade war is continuing our present policies where, 5 and 10 years from now, America cannot get up off the ground because of unfair Chinese policies.

The House Speaker seems to want to sit out this fight. He seems to want us to take a hands-off approach to China. He says, ``This is well beyond what Congress should be doing.'' I am aghast at that notion, that the Speaker says that fighting for American jobs against unfair practices China foists upon us is well beyond what Congress should be doing. What should we be doing? There is nothing else Congress should be doing except rising to defend American jobs.

If he doesn't believe these practices are unfair, he should just listen--the Speaker should--to Chairman Bernanke. This is what he said this morning:

The Chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a

more normal recovery process in the global economy. It is . .

. hurting the recovery.

He is the top economist in the land. It is hurting the recovery, I say to the Speaker. That is what Ben Bernanke said. Does the Speaker really think it is beyond what Congress should be doing--to confront something that is hurting the recovery, that everyone who studies it says is unfair, that nobody has come up with a solution to? Multilateral negotiations? Give me a break. China won't budge. We know that.

I find it ironic that the Speaker wants a hands-off approach on China's unfair currency practices considering he, along with the rest of the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate, just sent a letter a couple weeks ago seeking to meddle in U.S. currency policies. Just 2 weeks ago, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate sent a letter to Chairman Bernanke trying to influence his handling of monetary policies in a highly inappropriate way. It was nothing short of a breach of a protocol that has long been observed, which is that you don't put political pressure on the Federal Reserve because they need to handle monetary policy in an economic way, not a political way. A former Fed official called that attempt to politically meddle in the Fed's independent policymaking outrageous. Politico wrote that the letter was ``an audacious move against a central bank that prizes its political independence.'' A leading economist said that ``it crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed.''

Let me get this straight. The Speaker and the House leadership feel it is OK to cross the line and try to strong-arm the Fed but it is not OK to have the will to stand up to China. This is totally inconsistent, and it is hard to figure out how you could do one thing one week and say another the next week--unless, of course, the House leadership's goal is to hold back our economic recovery. I fear to think that. I fear to think their goal is to make sure the economy is so bad that they might do what our Republican leader said was his No. 1 goal: unseat President Obama. I shudder to think that the millions of American households without jobs, with people looking and searching to find a way to provide some dignity for their families, have to be political fodder for a goal to hold the economy back. I don't want to embrace that conclusion, but it is hard to see another explanation for, on the one hand, trying to twist the arm of the Fed when it comes to U.S. monetary policy but when it comes to fighting back against China, to say: Hands off. That is totally inconsistent.

I also find the Speaker's position on this China currency measure strange because if he blocks this measure, he is effectively thwarting the will of his own Members in the House, where there are 225 cosponsors--61 Republicans at last count--for a measure similar to the one being debated in the Senate right now. It is clear there is a consensus in the House very similar to the one here in the Senate. So I urge the Speaker to heed his own Chamber and put this bill on the floor. Don't thwart your own Members who want to support this measure. Give it an up-or-down vote. Even if the leadership doesn't want to vote for it, they should at least allow the will of the House to go forward. They should not suppress the collective will of their Chamber because at the end of the day you have to ask yourself which side you are on.

Two major candidates for President on the Republican side support this legislation. John Huntsman, who just got back from China--hardly known as a radical--said he would sign this bill. I haven't talked to him, but I can tell you, having worked on this issue for 6 years, I am sure that former Ambassador Huntsman is totally frustrated with the Chinese, and he knows that, unfortunately, the legislation introduced by his fellow Utahan doesn't address it and that the Chinese don't react when you ask nicely. They don't react when you ask, period. They only react when there are consequences that are harmful to them if they continue the unfair, anti-free-trade policy.

For some inexplicable reason, the Republican leadership in the House is siding with the Chinese Government. This is not the time to go soft on China. The top economist in the country tells us China is holding back the recovery. Many other economists say that China, in its currency policies, is thwarting and distorting world trade. I have seen some list it as one of the causes for the international recession we have. We know--we know--it costs America in jobs.

I want to relate what I did yesterday. Just one company in upstate New York--and I remind some of the editorial writers and pundits who say this will just move jobs from China to Bangladesh, that they are 5 years behind

the times. We are not talking about jobs that are in labor-intensive industries such as toys, clothing, or furniture. Those are gone, and they are not coming back. They are talking about top-end, middle-size, and smaller size American manufacturers and producers who have to fight with one hand tied behind their back because of Chinese currency.

This company, which makes a ceramic that is put in generators, electric generators, prevents pollution. They have a great ceramic tool. They are doing fine. But a few years ago, China stole it; they just took it. The head of the company told me he didn't mind because his growth was so large just from selling these in the United States and Europe that if China wanted to sell them in China, where they are building lots of powerplants, so be it. But now China is not only producing them for consumption in China--his product--it is producing them to export to America, and this gentleman said he cannot compete with them head to head. But when China gets a built-in 30 percent advantage on intellectual property that they stole, how is he going to survive?

That story can be repeated over and over. Of course China is holding back our recovery. Of course China's policies lose us millions of American jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of American wealth. And finally this body, in a strictly bipartisan way, with five lead Republicans and five lead Democrats as cosponsors--and we have criticized both Presidents Bush and Obama for their failure to act-- this body gets some resolve, and the Speaker says no.

Do you know what, I don't believe his ``no'' is going to stand. This is an issue the American people know has to happen. This is something they care about--Democrats and Republicans. Look at the polling. There is no partisan divide; it includes both liberals and conservatives. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in economics to know that China is cheating us and playing unfairly with us.

I believe the pressure from Members on both sides of the aisle in the other body and, more importantly, from the American people and manufacturers all over the country could work, could get the Speaker to reconsider his view. And I plead, pray, and hope that it does because there is no greater step we can take to restore jobs in America than to pass this important bill, get it enacted into law, and see, for once, our top-notch American companies be able to compete evenly--a fair fight--with Chinese manufacturers.

I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask we move from morning business to the pending legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1619, the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act. First, I want to say this bill is the culmination of years of hard work and collaboration between Democrats and Republicans. I thank Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He and I have been partners in this endeavor for over 5 years. We have traveled to China together. We have worked long and hard to try to gain some fairness in the way China treats American industry, particularly in regards to currency.

I thank Senator Sherrod Brown and Senator Debbie Stabenow. Both made very valuable additions to the proposal on the Senate floor today. In fact, Senator Brown is the lead sponsor of this legislation because of the strong and good work he has done. They both have worked long and hard, realizing the industries in their States are at such a competitive disadvantage.

I thank my colleague, Jeff Sessions, as well, who has been one of our partners and leaders on this legislation over the last several months, and lead sponsors in addition: Bob Casey, Olympia Snowe, Jeff Sessions, Kay Hagan, and Richard Burr, as well as dozens of other cosponsors on this bill for their work on this issue for many years.

I also want to particularly express my appreciation to Chairman Max Baucus and former ranking member of the Finance Committee Chuck Grassley for their leadership and work on currency manipulation. We believe our bill is WTO compliant, and it is in part because Senators Baucus and Grassley looked at our original bill and worked with us on suggestions as to how to change it to make it just as effective but within the rules of WTO.

Today we have an opportunity to help put middle-class Americans back to work and, amazingly enough, in a bipartisan way. Today we stand together to defend American jobs against market-distorting, job-killing exchange rate policies that subsidize foreign manufacturers at the expense of American manufacturers. These currency policies artificially raise the price of U.S. exports and suppress the price of Chinese imports into the United States, undermining the economic health of American manufacturers and their ability to compete at home and around the globe.

China is by far the biggest exploiter of predatory currency practices, but our bill does not target China or any one country. Our bill, rather, says there will be consequences for any country that engages in currency manipulation to gain an unfair advantage over American businesses.

It has been 10 years since China joined the WTO. In those 10 years the Economic Policy Institute estimates that 2.8 million American jobs were lost or displaced in manufacturing or other trade-related industries as a result of increased trade with China and the Chinese Government's manipulation of its currency. My State of New York has suffered some of the biggest losses, with over 161,000 jobs lost or workers displaced since 2001. Accession to the WTO was supposed to bring China's policies in line with global trade rules meant to ensure free but fair trade. Instead, China has single-mindedly flouted those rules to spur its own economy and export-oriented growth at the expense of its trading partners, most of all the United States.

Our economic relationship with China needs a fundamental change. It is not just in currency, although that is the No. 1 issue. On issue after issue, whether it is poaching intellectual property, unfairly and illegally subsidizing Chinese businesses, monopolizing rare earths, not allowing American companies to compete in China--on issue after issue China is mercantilist, plain and simple. They use the rules of free trade when it benefits them and spurn the rules of free trade when it benefits them. For years Americans have grimaced, shrugged their shoulders, but never done anything effective to in large measure stop the Chinese pursuit of unfair mercantilism.

Six years ago I was in upstate New York and a steel manufacturer told me they could compete against Chinese steel just fine, even with labor costs being lower in China, except for the fact that China manipulated its currency and gave Chinese steel imports a 30- to 40-percent advantage. The owner of the company, providing 300 good-paying jobs, pleaded with me to do something. I happened to speak with Senator Graham, and he was finding the same situation with industries in his State of South Carolina.

We began our crusade to get China to behave fairly. At first, people did not even accept the fact that currency manipulation was wrong and harmful to America. I remember at one point, within a short period of time, both the New York Times editorial page--a decidedly liberal editorial page--and the Wall Street Journal editorial page--a decidedly conservative editorial page--said China should not have to let its currency float, even though it is a tenet of free trade since Bretton Woods that said the way to correct large imbalances in trade is to let a currency readjust by floating.

We spent years convincing America, convincing our colleagues that this manipulation of currency dramatically hurt America and was unfair and against all tenets of free trade. We have achieved that goal. Now the editorials may pick reasons they do not like our particular bill, but they say: Oh, yes, we have to deal with Chinese currency manipulation.

But when we ask people who say: Don't do your bill, deal with it a different way, we say how? No one has another answer. It was true that our initial bill introduced 5 years ago was a blunt instrument to bring attention to the issue. It was our hope then not to pass the legislation--in fact, we allowed cooling off period after cooling off period in the legislation--but, rather, simply to get the Chinese to act. But about after 3 or 4 years, Senator Graham and I became convinced that China would not act. When there was real pressure they might move the currency a little bit, but then they would back off.

The same proved true in other areas where China unfairly treats American industry, so we came to the conclusion that legislation was the only answer, no one having a preferred or even seemingly possibly effective alternative. So we worked, as I said, with Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and came up with a proposal we believe meets WTO rules.

Then, because Senator Stabenow had worked long and hard on this issue along with Senator Collins, we combined her proposal and our proposal. Hers was mainly focused on the Banking Committee, Commerce Department, ours on Treasury. Then a year or two ago, Senator Brown and Senator Snowe had an additional proposal, and we have combined all of these proposals into one workable bill that will finally get fairness for American companies.

Over the past 6 years we have been sending a message to the Chinese Government about their exchange rate policies. Every Treasury Secretary since we began this crusade said: You know what. Let me just talk to the Chinese. I can bring reason to them.

They did it with the best of intentions and the best of hopes, every Treasury Secretary--casting no aspersions on any of them because the fault was China's, not ours--and could not get progress at all.

So it is down to this. If we want American companies to have a fair chance of competing, this is the solution. Not everyone will agree with every jot and tittle in this bill, but I think the vast majority of my colleagues will agree with its thrust and the need to do more than we have been doing. For that reason I am hopeful that large numbers on both sides of the aisle will vote for this motion to proceed so we can begin debating this measure and listen to some amendments if people have ideas as to how to change it.

Let me go over our bill. Our bill is intended to give the administration additional tools--this administration or any--to use if countries fail to take steps to eliminate currency misalignment. The bill would prohibit Federal procurement of products or services

from a country that fails to adopt appropriate policies or to take identifiable action to eliminate currency misalignment.

Our bill also uses U.S. trade law to counter the economic harm to U.S. manufacturers caused by currency manipulation. The artificially low value of the yuan--economists estimate it is anywhere from 20 to 40 percent less than what it should be--amounts, as is well known now, to a subsidy on Chinese exports and a tariff on imports from the United States and other countries to China.

Under existing trade laws, if the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission find that subsidized imports are causing economic harm to American manufacturers and workers, the administration must impose duties on those imports to offset or countervail the benefit conferred on foreign producers and exporters by government subsidies. Commerce already has the authority under U.S. law to investigate whether currency undervaluation by a government provides a countervailable subsidy, although it has failed to do so despite repeated requests by industry after industry to investigate.

Our bill specifies the applicable investigation initiation standard so Commerce can't just turn its back on these companies, and it will require Commerce to investigate whether currency undervaluation by a government provides a countervailable subsidy if the U.S. industry requests the investigation and provides the proper documentation.

Our bill also clarifies that Commerce may not refuse to investigate a subsidy allegation based on the single fact that a subsidy is available in circumstances in addition to export.

Our bill also uses the term ``currency misalignment,'' but it is not just a term. Administrations, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, have, to the amazement of many Americans, refused to label China a currency manipulator. But manipulation is a subjective standard involving intent. What we do is refine that concept and go for misalignment. We believe misalignment is the appropriate standard. That is not subjective. It is not saying why the currency is misaligned or how or who did it. It is simply saying that it is. It is a narrower standard. It is a standard that is harder to wriggle out from under if anybody, any government official is intent on not enforcing the rules we think necessary to get the Chinese to act. So the bill is carefully thought out. The decimation of our middle class, our manufacturing sector, and the American economy as a whole is due in part to developing countries such as China employing currency manipulation and other aggressive mercantilist tactics to tilt the field in their favor. In the absence of action by the administration, we have a responsibility to protect the interests of American workers and companies.

One of the questions that is raised is, Is our bill WTO compliant? We believe it is. We have worked hard to ensure this. The bill provides the President with flexibility to waive any consequences that might have an adverse impact on the U.S. economy. The bill also continues to allow the U.S. Government trade officials to do their job and make the decisions on the basis of facts argued before them. We have talked to many experts in the field. They too believe our bill is WTO compliant.

What do the critics say? No one criticizes the idea that China has manipulated its currency. No one criticizes the thought, the actuality that China manipulates its currency. Almost everybody thinks not enough is being done. The main argument against our bill is not the bill itself, but critics of the bill worry that maybe this could start a trade war with China. Well, I have news for them: We are already in a trade war with China, and we are losing. China, by its mercantilist policies on currency above all but on rare earth and intellectual property, unsubsidization of homegrown industry, on exclusion of American exports where we might have advantage, is already engaged in a trade war, and the result is that millions of Americans do not have jobs who should. The result is that hundreds of billions of dollars flow out of America and into China. If we do not do anything about this, our country will be hurt badly, perhaps irreparably.

Some argue, as did the Washington Post today, that it will not have much of an effect because the industry of China has to revalue its currency; these industries will go to places such as Bangladesh. They are making an argument that is 5 and 10 years old and stale. We are not arguing about labor-intensive industries such as clothing or shoes or toys. Those are going to Bangladesh already, with the cost of Chinese labor going up. China uses its currency manipulation against our top- notch manufacturers. The large companies say nothing because most of them have plants in China, so they can get around it, but middle- and small-sized manufacturers are up against this wall and are desperate for our help.

One manufacturer in upstate New York makes a very advanced product that deals with cleaning pollutants as they go through a power system. It is a top-notch product. This manufacturer, who employs a couple hundred people in upstate New York, said to me: China's stealing my stuff even though I have patents and other things on it. They are stealing the method by which we do this. He said: I could live with that if they just sold the stuff in China. We are not big enough to export all around the world. Instead, what they do is steal our intellectual property on this, and then they come back and sell it in America at a 30-percent discount because of currency manipulation. How am I going to compete with that?

There is story after story just like that. When American companies are fighting for their survival and battling subsidized Chinese exports, including high-end exports, this is no longer an argument about labor-intensive industries alone.

I, for one, am not prepared to raise the white flag on American manufacturing and on American jobs, and neither should anybody else. I know American manufacturing can compete successfully against Chinese competition at home, in China, and around the world but only if the playing field is level, and our bill helps to level that playing field.

Critics of our bill say that while currency manipulation is an important issue, legislation to address it would ignore the many and growing challenges we face in China. The critics are wrong. We have no intention of ignoring the range of China's market-distorting practices, the ones I mentioned before. In fact, because China was emboldened on currency, which the whole world--Brazil, just a week or two ago, asked China to stop manipulating its currency. The European Union feels the same way we do. Nobody does anything, so China is emboldened to pursue mercantilist policies in other areas. Just recently, they have become involved in rare earths. They tell American manufacturers: If you want rare earths, you would be a lot better off sending your plant to China. It is just unheard of.

Critics of our bill say it is unlikely to create any incentive for China to modify its exchange policies. The experience Senator Graham and I have had is that when China thinks something might be done, they begin to let their currency rise. Because nothing permanent is done, they go right back to their old habits as soon as the pressure is off. This idea that if we pressure the Chinese, they won't do it makes no sense. If we pressure them, they do nothing, and if we don't pressure them, they do nothing. The only answer is concrete legislation.

What would those who oppose this bill have us do? What is their suggestion? They do not really have one. Should we continue to sit back and watch while American jobs and American manufacturers and even large chunks of American wealth just drift away? Should we continue to, as one of my constituents put it, be not Uncle Sam but Uncle Sap? Well, there are too many of us in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle who will not sit back and continue to let mercantilist trade practices continue to decimate American manufacturing and American jobs--middle, low, and high--nor will my colleagues here in the Senate. Democrats and Republicans are united on this issue. We must take decisive action against China's currency manipulation and other economically injurious behavior. The fact that they manipulate their currency imbalances the whole world trading system. Many

economists list it as one of the reasons we had the decline in global trade in the worldwide recession. We simply have no choice but to right the wrong China is committing.

Any retaliation by China would be further evidence of their unwillingness to meet their obligations under the WTO and the global trade community. By the way, China has a lot more to lose with retaliation than we do. If there is one country that gains the most by exporting to the United States by international trade, it is China. They are very smart, and they are not going to cut their nose to spite their face.

I wholeheartedly support the President's goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next 5 years, but that cannot be done if we do not take concrete action to address the protectionist practices of foreign governments that concede tariff reductions only to replace tariffs with massive currency manipulation, border taxes, and a variety of state subsidies. We will not do it unless we get to the root cause.

China's currency manipulation would be unacceptable even in good economic times. At times of high unemployment, we can no longer stand for it. There is no bigger step to create American jobs that we can take than to confront China's currency manipulation. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue. Every one of us has manufacturers, companies that are struggling to compete at home and abroad with Chinese exports with a built-in price advantage. It is not China bashing. It is about fairness and defending American jobs.

Many of us and most Americans are worried about how things will be in 10, 20 years from now. Will America stay the leading economic power of the world? Will our children have a better life than we do? The No. 1 thing we have to do is change things at home to make that better, there is no question about it. Very high on the list as well is making sure China no longer unfairly sucks millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of American wealth to its shores. What China does will make our job of keeping America strong, of having the next generation live a better life than this generation far more difficult unless we force them to change. They will not change on their own.

Passage of this legislation will lead to real consequences for countries that unfairly manipulate their currency. We have waited a long time. We have declined to move the legislation at the request of two administrations. Patience--not of us but of the American people-- has worn out. I ask my colleagues to stand with us on S. 1619. Stand up for American manufacturing, for American jobs, for American wealth. Stand up so our children can have an even brighter future than we have.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I know our time expires shortly. Senator Hatch has concluded his remarks, so I wish to speak on two other subjects until Senator Leahy arrives.

SSI Extension

Mr. President, I rise in support of a bill to be introduced along with Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Menendez, Franken, and Klobuchar, called the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act of 2011.

This bill, which the Senate is considering passing today by unanimous consent, is truly unique because it accomplishes three incredibly important objectives at the same time.

First, it ensures that approximately 5,600 disabled refugees will not lose critical life-sustaining benefits that are their only safety net, protecting them from homelessness, illness, and other effects of extreme poverty.

Some of the disabled refugees this bill helps are people who have aided American troops overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan--and risked their lives for America's cause. Others are victims of torture or human trafficking, whose injuries are so severe that they are now unable to sustain themselves without these benefits. The bill continues the Bush administration policy of making sure this vulnerable group does not lose its benefits.

But, unlike past bills, the second key fact about this bill is that it is fully paid for. It is paid for by imposing a $30 fee on individuals applying to enter the country through the diversity visa lottery program. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people apply to be one of the 50,000 individuals allowed to emigrate to the United States. The program has had great success. I have been very supportive of it. It has also enriched the American fabric with immigrants from countries that are not traditionally represented in the immigrant pool.

But, unfortunately, because applying for a ``lottery ticket'' has been traditionally free, the program has recently been compromised by third parties filing applications on behalf of unknowing foreign nationals, who then turn around and try to extort money from these foreign nationals if the ticket turns out to be a ``winning ticket.'' That is wrong and unfair. The State Department has told us that by charging this $30 fee, we can eliminate this misconduct. So it is a win-win. We get some money to pay for these refugees who we all agree should be admitted here. As I said, many helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, at the same time, it does not cost us a nickel and eliminates a scam that involves a very worthy program, the diversity visas.

Finally, the third great thing about this bill is, by setting the fee at $30, the CBO projects we will actually reduce our deficit by $24 million. So it will help, in a small way, reduce the deficit. So the bill hits the trifecta: It helps a very small, targeted group of the most vulnerable and needy disabled individuals whom we traditionally have not abandoned, it virtually eliminates misconduct in the diversity visa program, and it reduces the Federal deficit. Because it is a win- win-win for all sides, I ask that my colleagues in the House take up and pass this bill immediately.

The benefits for these folks already expired on October 1. If we do not act soon, we will not be able to repair the irreparable harm that will be done to those most vulnerable individuals. I wish to thank my cosponsors and chairmen and ranking members of the relevant committees governing this bill: Senators Leahy, Grassley, Baucus, Hatch, Conrad, Sessions, and Cornyn. I would also like to thank Senator Coburn for working with me to have this bill pass and address his concerns to make the bill better.

We have done something very good. I thank all my colleagues who have joined in the work on this bill.

Nomination of William F. Kuntz, II

Mr. President, William F. Kuntz, II, is the nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. I wish to describe to my colleagues the extraordinary qualifications of Dr. Kuntz, the nominee to the bench of the Eastern District, whom hopefully we will confirm later today.

Dr. Kuntz has exactly the skills, temperament, and experience to be a perfect addition to one of the busiest U.S. district courts in the country. Dr. Kuntz, currently a partner in the New

York office of Baker Hostetler, is a native of Harlem. He grew up in what was then called the Polo Grounds projects and went to high school at Fordham Prep in the South Bronx.

He earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, followed by a master's degree in history, a law degree, and a Ph.D. in American legal history, all from Harvard--I hope no one will hold that against him--and all within 11 years of arriving in Cambridge, from Harlem.

What an amazing man. What an American dream story. I would venture that throughout this country, Dr. Kuntz has few peers, in terms of education and training. But he did not use his degrees to go on to teach and write, a valuable career path, to be sure, but possibly not one that would have put his skills as an advocate and his commitment to the people of New York to their highest and best use.

Instead, Dr. Kuntz went on to log 33 years of litigation experience in some of New York City's finest law firms. Most impressive to me, he served for 23 years as commissioner on the City Civilian Complaint Review Board. This independent agency oversees the investigation of citizens' claims of misconduct by New York City police officers. By all accounts, Dr. Kuntz staked out an admirable middle ground, informed by hard investigative work and careful consideration of all the 5,000 cases that came before the board every year.

When my legal committee looked into his work there, he was praised by both the police side and those who brought cases before the board. In that kind of tempestuous situation, that is rare indeed. Dr. Kuntz's commitment to public service is long and impressive. He served in leadership positions on the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Legal Aid Society, the New York Bar, and PLI, among others.

I will note that Dr. Kuntz will be filling a judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of New York, a court that adjudicates a large share of critical cases, such as terrorism and terrorism financing, organized crime and mortgage fraud.

Dr. Kuntz is sorely needed and more than up for the task. I look forward to Dr. Kuntz's service on the bench. I congratulate him and his family.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff and the committee staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1619: Jane Beard, Sarah Babcock, Danielle Fidler, Sara Harshman, Madeline Forbis, Laura Jaskierski, Stephen Simpson, Jonathan Goldman, Cosimo Thawley, and Miranda Dalpiaz.

First, Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Florida. He knew I was waiting, and I know he cut short his remarks, so I appreciate that. But more importantly than that, I appreciate his insight, his articulation of our situation, and his desire to help the people of Florida. Nobody works harder for the people of Florida than the Senator from Florida. They know disaster just about better than anybody else, given their geographic situation. So his fight for FEMA dollars is a fight for every citizen of that great State of Florida, where I must say many of my former constituents now reside, so I have a special care about Florida as well. I thank him for both his courtesy and his insightfulness.

FEMA runs out of money very soon. Already, recovery projects in more than 40 States have been halted so FEMA can focus their last dollars on responding to the latest disasters. To have FEMA not working in Joplin, MO, where we all saw the pictures, and because of the dangers that Hurricanes Irene and Lee created, is unheard of in this country. It is unheard of.

The Senate has already passed the bipartisan bill to replenish FEMA's coffers, providing $7 billion in immediate relief, not just for FEMA but the Army Corps. I can tell you that in my State we need Army Corps relief as well as FEMA relief because so many of our rivers have changed course. They have flooded. I think I mentioned earlier the Erie Canal--the locks--are no longer by the river because the storm's force changed the course of the Mohawk, so the river is here and the locks are here--the great historic Erie Canal. So we provided this $7 billion.

A reasonable person might say--all our constituents are saying--to get government to work, the most logical thing to do would be quick passage by the House so we could begin to get those dollars out the door. Instead, House Republicans decided to take emergency disaster aid and leverage it to force cuts to a jobs program they themselves used to support. If there has ever been a case of playing politics, that is it. If they don't like this jobs program, fine, fight it out in the regular course of business, but don't hold FEMA dollars hostage to cut jobs. The American people don't want that choice. Help those who are in the middle of a disaster. Is the only way we can help them to cut jobs in Michigan or Louisiana or other States, at a time when our country is hurting for jobs? That is not America, and that is not what our constituents have asked us to do. The jobs program they want to end, before they are willing to provide more disaster aid, is not some radical program. It was started under the Bush administration. It was passed with a bipartisan majority.

I understand their anguish. We have to cut funding. But we don't have to do it like this. We don't have to do it on the backs of the people of Schoharie County, whose homes have been blown away, or the people of Binghamton, who are in shelters because there is no rental housing for them. We don't have to do it on their backs. That is not fair. If our Republican colleagues want to have a fight over a program they used to support but now say the circumstances have changed, fine, we should have that. That is what we are here for. But don't hold disaster aid hostage.

I want to say this, lest people think the Democratic stand is some way-out-there, leftwing stand. Guess who supports us. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Because they know what we are doing is right. Those are groups that are almost always supporting Republican initiatives. So when they say we are right, doesn't that send a shot across the bow to my colleagues to back off this ideological, narrow, my-way-or-the-highway position?

Most importantly, the House Republican approach would require that we kill 40,000 jobs in order to help our fellow Americans put their lives and businesses back together after this year's record disasters. That is not right, it is

unprecedented, and I would say it is not the way we have done things in this country in the past.

The CR we will vote on this afternoon is a fail-safe measure. It is a bill that will keep the government running at funding levels agreed to by Democrats and Republicans in the debt ceiling negotiations. It is a good-faith effort to compromise and contains the same amount of disaster relief funding House Republicans supported.

It falls short of fully funding FEMA, as we did in the bipartisan bill passed 2 weeks ago, with 10 Republican votes, but we are working to meet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the middle in order to break the impasse. Will they move a little to the middle to meet us, or will they insist the only way to go is a bill that failed in this Chamber with a bipartisan vote against it of 59 to 36? Is Speaker Boehner saying to us a bill that fails in the Senate 59 to 36 is the only way to go, when it is so wrong and not supported by the Chamber of Commerce; when it is pitting jobholders, and the future of this country in terms of energy independence, against each other versus disaster assistance? That is not fair. The only difference between our bill and the House bill is it doesn't require the job-killing cuts the Chamber of Commerce opposes and that our fragile economy can't afford right now.

We know there has been a lot of pressure on the 10 Senate Republicans who joined us 2 weeks ago to fight full disaster funding. I hope they do not cave in to the pressure exerted by the extreme minority in the House that demands job cuts as a precondition for disaster relief. I would urge them not do it. If they can't resist that pressure, what is their solution? They know the House bill is a dead letter here.

The path forward is clear. The Senate has already spoken on the political bill sent to us by the House. We must pass this commonsense, middle-of-the-road compromise measure that is now before the Senate. It will provide disaster aid to hard-hit communities across the country immediately and prevent an unnecessary government shutdown.

We shouldn't even be talking about shutdown. Why are we? Because the other body decided to attach disaster relief to government funding. We are not just holding jobs hostage, we are holding government funding hostage in a my-way-or-the-highway presentation take it or leave it or your government shuts down, take it or leave it or 40,000 people lose their jobs. That is not fair and that is not right.

Every aspect of our plan has already received major bipartisan support. Voting for it is the right thing to do. We must put politics aside at a time when the economy of this country is so fragile. We must avoid even coming close to a government shutdown. We must do what is right for our country. And what is right for our country is to pass the compromise measure that has had bipartisan support in the past and vote for it on the floor of the Senate in the next half hour.

One other comment. My great colleague from Louisiana has done an incredible job. She has been showing this, but in case people missed it over the last hour, it is a great little cartoon. There is a nice lady with a gray bun and little glasses talking on the telephone. There is her TV on the roof of her house, which has, obviously, been flooded. This cartoon is humorous, but I have seen flood levels up to this level on house after house after house across large parts of the eastern part of New York. She is on the phone, saying: ``Welcome to the Republican disaster relief hot line. At the tone, please tell us the emergency and how you plan to offset the cost of your rescue.''

When the next disaster comes and people are struggling, are we going to have to debate how much to cut education funds? In the next disaster, when people have experienced an earthquake, are we going to have to debate how to help those people while we talk about how much to cut Border Patrol funds? In the next disaster, when fires are ravaging across Texas or New Mexico or California, are we going to debate how much we have to cut food safety inspectors? That is not our way, and that is why we need to support this bill which has bipartisan elements and has been supported by Members of both parties. That bill is a compromise bill. It is the middle-of-the-road bill that is on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield my time, and I thank my great colleague from Louisiana for the great job she has done.

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

Madam President, first, I would like to talk a little about the upcoming FEMA bill. As I understand it, the House intends to send us a CR with FEMA funding only at the level of $3.65 billion, which is a level that is completely inadequate to meet FEMA's needs. They intend to put $1 billion in for 2011, which is more than is actually needed in 2011, but then they ask that it be paid for with $1.5 billion, which is not the way mathematics is supposed to work.

The real problem is that the total amount of $3.65 billion is inadequate given the terrible tragedies we have had over the last several months and years. We are still rebuilding from Katrina, the Joplin tornado was devastating, and, of course, the storms that hit the Northeast, including my beloved State of New York, were just awful. Just in New York State alone, it is estimated that cleanup costs will be closer to $2 billion. So you can imagine that $3.65 billion is not even close to enough.

The good news is what we intend to do here under the leadership of Majority Leader Reid, which is to take the CR they send us and add to it the very bill that passed last Thursday night, which adds approximately $7 billion to FEMA. That is the amount of money that is needed. It adds some money to the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other places the Governors of the States have told us are needed. And given the fact that 10 Republicans voted for it, we have every expectation that amendment will pass and we will send it back to the House. So the House should understand there will be a measure to adequately fund FEMA, and we will do that this week. Again, we have every expectation that the 10 Republican Senators who voted with us last Thursday night will cast the same vote on the same exact measures because the disasters in their States are not any less this week than they were last week.

Budget Deficit

I also wish to address the President's proposal on the budget deficit, particularly on the tax side, and the many arguments being tossed around by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Yesterday, the President put forward a blueprint for the joint committee to consider this fall, and it included a very commonsense principle; that is, those very few among us who are fortunate enough to make over $1 million a year should pay the same effective tax rates at the end of the day as middle-class households.

A number of Republicans rejected the President's plan before he even announced it. As soon as it was suggested that we should ask the wealthiest few among us to pay their fair share, many on the other side began labeling it class warfare. Apparently, they think they can slap that old label on the President's proposal and be done with it. But their refusal to address the proposal on the merits is revealing. They know they will lose any argument about the policy itself because it makes sense economically and because the American people support it. Even Republicans in the country--59 percent in a recent poll I saw-- support the wealthiest among us paying a fair share and support not giving them the continued Bush tax breaks at a time when we have record deficits and we are asking everybody else to sacrifice.

This is, emphatically, not class warfare. It is not class warfare to fight for the middle class, that is for sure. It is not class warfare to say we need funding for roads and bridges and teachers and that the wealthiest among us should pay their fair share to do it. Let me ask a question, Madam President. Is it class warfare when Republicans advocate tax cuts for the wealthy? Do we call that class warfare?

The debate about the progressivity of the Tax Code has existed for over 100 years in this country, and there are different policy prescriptions. Most Democrats and most Americans believe the wealthy don't pay their fair share. That is not to begrudge the money they have made. There are a lot of wealthy citizens in my State, and I am proud of them. I am proud they made a lot of money. And many of them believe they should pay a fair share. It is not just Warren Buffett. It is not class warfare to ask that. It is not class warfare to advocate tax cuts for the wealthy or tax increases for the middle class. That is not class warfare. To try to call it this name is unfair.

Let me make a second point. We have a need to do this. The President is not proposing things such as the Buffett rule out of vengeance. He said yesterday: ``It's not because anybody looks forward to the prospects of raising taxes or paying more taxes.'' But we do have a consensus that has been reached here--it is one of the few--that we should reduce the deficit. We all know we have to. There are two ways to do it. One is by cutting spending, and when we cut spending, it hurts middle-class citizens. Middle-class citizens need help to pay for college; wealthy people don't. So if you cut student loans or Pell grants or Stafford loans that go to the middle class, it is not going to affect wealthy citizens--they can afford college themselves--but it does affect the middle class. When you cut Medicare, it doesn't hurt the wealthy. They can afford any doctor or hospital they want. God bless them. They have earned their money, and they deserve that. We don't have a system that mandates everyone must have the same. But it sure hurts the middle class.

So the bottom line is very simple: If everyone has to pay their fair share so we can get the deficit down, the only way the wealthy pay their fair share is by making sure their tax rates are at least the same as average Americans, and perhaps they should be a little bit higher. So there is a choice.

We don't do this because we want to raise taxes and certainly not because we think the wealthy have gotten an unfair advantage. That is a different argument, and I don't believe that. I am proud when New Yorkers or Americans climb the ladder and make a lot of money due to hard work and their ideas. We do it because we don't want to lay off more teachers, because we don't want to see our infrastructure crumble, because we don't want to say we can't create jobs, and yet we don't want to increase deficit spending. If we want to keep the deficit down but keep our schools good and our infrastructure good and our basic research good, the only way to do it is to ask the wealthy to pay a fair share. That is why we do it. And that is not class warfare; that is a policy debate which we welcome.

To sum up that point, either we ask big oil companies to give up special subsidies or we gut education or medical research. Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share or we will have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can't do both if we want to keep the deficit in line. America's middle class knows this. We know their median income is declining. We know the only place on the economic spectrum where incomes are going up is at the high end, and we know the right policy is to make those folks at the high end pay their fair share.

My colleagues are in for a rude awakening. I have talked to a couple of the people who study the polling data and what the average American thinks. And let me tell you, they think the phrase ``class warfare'' means war on the middle class. They think it means the wealthy get away with what they do not. So when our colleagues talk about class warfare, maybe it resonates with a few on the hard right among the very wealthy who don't want to pay any taxes at all--and Lord knows we have heard enough from them in this place--but to the middle class, it means the middle class is being beleaguered, not being helped, and even being attacked by circumstances beyond their control. So when we say the wealthiest should pay their fair share, middle-class Americans will not see that as class warfare. They will not. They will understand what we are doing.

I am so glad the President has decided to take this fight to the American people. It is a fight where we are on their side. That is what all my experience shows when I go around New York, and that is what the polling data shows. We are doing what is right for the future of this country and for our children and grandchildren.

So let's have the debate and let's dispel this idea that simply because we want the wealthy to pay a fair share, we dislike them and it is class warfare, that it is negative toward them. It is not. It is the right way for all Americans to make the pie grow in America and not have the various parts of America fight with one another because Medicare is being cut, because teachers are being cut and the deficit is going up and hurting our children and grandchildren.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I compliment him on this outstanding speech. The hour is late and many colleagues have gone home, so I hope he will send this to every one of our colleagues. It has been a joy for me to stay and listen.

The only question I wanted to ask--and we talked about this last night at dinner--here is another interesting fact amid so many that my colleague brought up in this great speech.

If we look at that chart, from 1999 to 2007, before the recession hit, median income didn't go up.

That is a question we have to ponder. We need great minds like the Senator's to figure out the answer. If we just blame the recession and think it will come back up, it won't. The kinds of structural changes my colleague talks about are so needed if we are not going to have a continually declining middle class, even in a period of growth. Am I right about that assumption?

I thank my colleague.

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

Mr. President, there has been a promising new tone in Congress since our return from the summer recess. It has taken some by surprise. But even more striking than the new tone is that it has brought with it a few modest signs of a new spirit of cooperation.

The House this week sent us the highway extension and an aviation extension that are clean. During August, there were clamors from some corners in the other party to mount a fight over the gas tax or insist on harmful cuts to road and bridge repair, even if these demands risked a shutdown of road construction projects. As recently as last Friday, Republicans were planning to insist on a 5-percent cut to the FAA budget--a move that could well have threatened another shutdown of that agency like we saw in August. But both fears, fortunately, have receded. Barring a setback in the Senate, we should be able to extend both the FAA and highway measures on time and without controversy.

This is a very positive sign. There was a sour taste left in everyone's mouth at the end of the debt ceiling debate, and that is causing a change in behavior. It is actually bringing us together. That process was made unnecessarily difficult because of the extreme tactics of a bloc within the House. The political process broke down and the public noticed.

In the aftermath of that debate, it seems everybody finally realizes there is a premium on reasonableness. The public does not want to see more of the ``my way or the highway'' approach that has been exhibited by some in the House. That is why there was head scratching earlier this week to hear a new rumor in the Capitol that the House Republican leadership might consider seeking to reopen the debt ceiling fight, ignoring the agreed-upon spending level for the 2012 fiscal year. As you know, the deal included a top-line budget number of $1.043 trillion for the fiscal year that begins October 1. This was a significant cut, an actual cut from the fiscal 2011 level of $7 billion. This agreement was ratified by all of those who voted for the final debt ceiling agreement. It was hailed as one of the better aspects of the overall debt ceiling deal because it would mean a lesser likelihood of another budget fight on September 30.

However, since this number was agreed to, some extreme Republicans have started looking to cause trouble. They have tried to see the $7 billion in cuts represented by the $1.043 trillion figure as a floor, not a ceiling. This would be a violation not just of the spirit of the debt limit deal but the letter of it.

The public will not stand for another budget fight. Republicans should understand that more brinkmanship on

the budget at the end of September is not in either side's interest. Some, thankfully, in the House leadership seem to realize this. Majority Leader Cantor, in a memo to the House Republican caucus sent in August, warned against picking another budget fight on the CR. Leader Cantor wrote:

While all of us would like to have seen a lower

discretionary appropriation ceiling for the upcoming fiscal

year, the debt limit agreement set a level of spending that

is a real cut from the current year. I believe it is in our

interest to enact into law full-year appropriation bills at

this new lower level.

Leader Cantor affirmed these remarks earlier this week:

I say to my Republican colleagues, a deal is a deal. It's

hard to imagine you would go back on the debt limit

agreement, but if you are even considering it, please stop.

We already will likely need to take time next week resolving what level of FEMA funding we should appropriate for fiscal year 2012. Earlier indications are that some House Republicans may want to shortchange the level of funding FEMA says it needs for next year. I can't imagine why anyone would want to play games with disaster relief. But if they want to debate that, they should not also be tying it to another budget fight that we have already resolved and that nearly caused a default for the first time in American history. We should not go back over those pages. We have had enough debates on the docket without reopening the ones we have already done.

The public is tired of these fights, and the public understands who keeps instigating them. To the House Republicans I say: Don't go back on your word on the CR. Leader Cantor was right when he said in August you should abide by the level agreed to over the summer. Stick with that decision and let's move on to other issues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sarah Babcock and Danielle Fidler from Senator Baucus's staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the pending Burma and disaster relief bill.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for her poignant, eloquent, and appropriate words. I thank the chair of our Homeland Security Subcommittee which handles FEMA disasters for the great work she has done.

Mr. President, I spent several days, both this week and last week, visiting the places in upstate New York that were so badly damaged. Upstate New York is a large community. Without New York City and the suburbs we would still be about the eighth or ninth largest State, and the eastern half of upstate New York has been unexpectedly devastated not once but twice--first by Irene and then by Lee.

It comes on top of an awful season. Because we have had so much rain and the ground has been so wet when these

torrential rains occur--one a hurricane, one a tropical storm--no groundwater could be absorbed and it made things worse. Let me tell you a few of the things I have seen, just to share with my colleagues.

We went to a small village in Schoharie County. Schoharie County is a beautiful agricultural, dairy county, and it is dotted by small towns like much of upstate New York. We have the third largest rural population in the country. Only Pennsylvania and North Carolina have larger rural populations than New York. We went down a beautiful street, a nice typical street. It could be a street you might see on an Ozzie and Harriet-type TV series. Every single house, street after street, had all its belongings piled in front. The water from Schoharie Creek had so overflowed its banks that the entire town was flooded, not by a foot of water but by 3, 4, 5, 6 feet of water. Out front you see the lives of the people whose lives have been so turned inside out by the torrent of water. They have lost thousands of dollars worth, each family, at a time they can ill afford it, but it is beyond that. It is the picture of grandma and grandpa at their wedding, the only one left. That is gone. It is the chair dad loved and sat in every night when he came home from work. It is their lives wiped out in a few sheer moments.

In this town in Schoharie County and in most of New York State, almost all, the evacuation plans were amazing. We lost very few lives. In some counties, with huge amounts of devastation, no lives were lost in most. That is because of the great emergency work of our relief workers. As bad as Schoharie County was, because years ago FEMA had installed their warning system and warning sirens, people were able to get out of their homes and avoid being drowned. A dam that again we had provided some dollars for, Federal dollars, didn't break. Had it, it would have been even worse. But FEMA money to prevent disaster has helped strengthen the Gilboa Dam. So the creek went over it and around it but not through it, and that saved lives.

I visited a place in Ulster County. These are vignettes. The town of Shandaken is beautiful, in the foothills of the Catskills. There is a major road that connects one part of Shandaken to the other, a county road. As you are driving along, it is newly paved macadam. All of a sudden you see the yellow strips to prevent you from going further and there is a 30-foot gash in the road, totally gone--30 feet. But what is astounding is it is 20 feet deep. At Esopus Creek, the waterway there changed its course, went through not just the macadam, not just the underlay that holds the road, not just the dirt fill of a foot or two, but through the bedrock, through 10 feet of bedrock. It will take years to bring this road back, and it is a cost the town of Shandaken can't afford. Our little towns, our little villages, our cities, even our counties of some significant population, can't absorb the millions and millions of dollars of damage. The total estimate by our Governor is we have suffered more than $1 billion of damage from Irene alone, and of course Lee moved slightly further west than Irene.

I visited a lock in the Mohawk Valley and the city of Amsterdam. It had been very damaged. On a dam that a bridge went over, the metal of the bridge, the steel girders were twisted out of shape. But locks 9 and 10 a little further downriver are no longer functioning because the torrent of rain created such swells that the Mohawk changed its course. So the locks are here and the river is here.

The Erie Canal, one of our great pieces of history, is damaged so that it can't function. It won't function for quite a long time, even with Federal assistance--I don't know without Federal assistance what would happen--for months and even years.

Then I went to Binghamton. Maybe that was the saddest of all. Binghamton is a city that has struggled. It had IBM in its early days. IBM was founded there. Nothing is left of IBM there, and the city is struggling. It is at the confluence of two river valleys, the Susquehanna and the Shenango, and it had been terribly flooded in 2006. Senator Clinton and I visited. It was awful--hundreds of homes, the sewage plant, the hospital, Lourdes Hospital. Incidentally, Lourdes Hospital wasn't damaged because, again, FEMA, with remediation money after 2006 helped supply some of the money for a wall that prevented the Shenango River from damaging the hospital. So it, thank God, is functioning.

But then we went to the shelter, with 500, 600 people who had been there for days and have nowhere to go because they lived in rental apartments in downtown Binghamton, which was totally flooded. Every hotel and motel room in Binghamton is taken. There are very few rental apartments. They have nowhere to go--nowhere to go. Maybe FEMA will come in and bring trailers, as they did for your great State of Louisiana, Madam President. But without FEMA, I don't know what these people will do.

They have food. The Red Cross is doing a great job. But they have nothing else. Their homes are gone, their belongings are gone, their clothes are gone. One gentleman came over to me and said, I would just like to try to get to my bank--which is closed and flooded--so I can take a few dollars out so I can buy some slippers. It is awful.

What does this mean policywise? It means America cannot ignore these people. The people of New York, when Louisiana had trouble, didn't say: Our tax dollars shouldn't go to Louisiana. The people of New York did not say, when there were terrible tornados in Joplin: Our tax dollars should not go to Joplin. And I hope that the people in the rest of the country, represented by so many here on both sides of the aisle, will not say we are not going to step to the plate. America has always stood for disaster relief--always--because we are one Nation. We all have known that when God-given disasters, way beyond the powers of mankind, come, no single community can take care of it themselves, and that is why the Federal Government has traditionally stepped in and regarded it as an emergency and we have stepped in. We haven't had strings attached or conditions, or: Put it in this bill and we will give you a little money now and we will see what you need later.

FEMA, by the way, has done a great job. I want to tip my hat to the people of FEMA who did such a wonderful job. But they are basically out of money. Right now in Missouri, none of the relief work continues despite the devastation in Joplin, because they only have money to deal with the immediate emergency of Lee and of Irene that hit New York State. The FEMA workers are doing great, and the people, the volunteers I saw everywhere, everyone is pulling together. Why can't this Senate and this Congress pull together the way the people of our communities pull together when a disaster hits?

We had one gentleman whose house was gone but he hadn't even been able to tend to it because he was a skilled worker and he was tending to the homes of others for 5 days. I saw him and his sisters, and they even had some humor about it. They were wearing shirts, ``Goodnight, Irene.''

We have to pull together. We pay on an emergency basis, without looking for setoffs, for the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. We build bridges there, we build roads there, we give aid there. Now we are saying, When it comes to our American citizens, we are not going to do that any longer? What is going on?

This afternoon we will vote simply on a resolution. To those of you not schooled in the arcane ways of the Senate, it is called a motion to proceed. It simply allows us to put legislation on the floor so we can aid these victims. And it can be amended. If some of our colleagues think this is wrong or that is wrong, they can debate it. But today's vote will say whether we should even begin to move to cover this, and we are getting it blocked. On last night's vote, six of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle joined us, but not enough.

And so here it is. This is not me speaking, this is the AP, almost universally regarded as a nonbiased news source: Republicans block Senate disaster aid bill.

What is going on? They don't block bridges and money for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, to help rehabilitate those communities, and they are blocking this, for help in Missouri and Louisiana and New York and Vermont and the Missouri River Valley up through the Dakotas, the State of Missouri?

What is going on here? This has never been a partisan issue.

Republican Governors whose States have been hard hit have called for help. Chris Christie, hardly a wallflower, hardly someone who doesn't relish a partisan battle when he thinks it is right, but to his credit, when he thinks it is wrong:

Our people are suffering now and they need support now. And

they, Congress, can all go down there and get back to work

and figure out the budget cuts later.

That is Governor Christie.

Governor Bob McDonnell, a well-known conservative:

My concern is that we help people in need. I don't think

it's the time to get into the deficit debate.

Are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle listening? Let us begin to debate this bill. Let us move forward, and let us fund FEMA fully. Let's not put something in the CR and say, Well, in a month from now we will debate it. We all know CRs get tied up. FEMA has run out of money now--now. So this vote will be a vote that determines whether we keep the American tradition of helping one another in a time of disaster here in America; and a vote no says, no, I don't want to do it. A vote no says I am not going to proceed to even debate the bill. A vote no is against the greatness of America, in my opinion, because we always have stood for helping people, being one Nation, under God, indivisible. When a part of the country desperately needs help, we all pull together to help them, knowing that if, God forbid, it happens to us down the road, the Nation will be there for us.

I was just at the 9/11 memorial service, the tenth anniversary. It was a time when we all pulled together. George Bush did not ask, when we were in the Oval Office and said New York desperately needed $20 billion, Is it a blue State? How are we going to pay for it? He stepped to the plate. He was a patriot and he said: This is what America must do.

That was a manmade disaster, an awful disaster. Far more lives were lost than now. But it is not a different issue. This is a disaster, and people are hurting and people need help. The attitude of President George Bush hopefully will be the attitude of our colleagues across the aisle, that they won't block the bill, that they won't find seven excuses, or say, We will give you a little of the money a month from now in a continuing resolution, when the money is desperately needed now.

In conclusion, this vote is a crucial vote that says: Are we the same American people we have always been, who look out for one another, who help one another in a time of need, regardless of party and regardless of bickering and everything else? This vote will determine it. I urge a strong bipartisan vote for the resolution that we will vote on in an hour.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.