Floor Statements

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority the final 30 minutes.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for our weekly caucus meetings.

We hope to begin consideration of a number of matters, including the surface transportation bill, during today's session.

Mr. President, in this country, owning a home means more than a roof over your head. It is the centerpiece of the American Dream.

For many responsible Americans, the dream of home ownership has become a nightmare. When Wall Street greed collapsed the economy in 2008, the housing market also collapsed. That meant free-falling home prices and a staggering number of foreclosures.

No State in the Union was hit harder than Nevada, but California was hit extremely hard, Michigan, Arizona, and Florida. But for 5 consecutive years, Nevada has led the Nation in foreclosures. The foreclosure rate in Nevada is 400 percent of the national average.

Behind those statistics are people. Whether it is Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, or anyplace else in the country, statistics are people--families who bought homes where they could raise their families and enjoy life. Many Nevadans, like other Americans who worked hard, saved money and shopped responsibly, are now so far under water they can't see a way out.

So who is responsible? There is plenty of blame to go around. Brokers sold loans that could never be repaid, buyers bought houses they couldn't afford, and banks bought bad loans to sell to investors. Regardless of who is at fault, millions of homeowners who did everything right are still on the hook for a financial crisis they didn't cause. Many of them have never missed a payment.

Unlike some Republicans, I don't believe the answer is to throw up our hands and do nothing. Homeowners who have watched their equity evaporate don't have time to watch the market hit rock bottom, as one Republican candidate suggested. The President and Congress have taken action to ease this crisis. Not everything we have done to ease the crisis has worked, but we need to continue programs that are working and fix the ones that aren't. I support the President's efforts to reduce the hurdles to financing, and refinancing, for sure. Nearly 15 million Americans could benefit from refinancing their loans at today's historically low interest rates.

We must keep those who have lost their jobs from losing their homes as well. This proposal will help them reduce their monthly payments and save thousands of dollars every year. And for families who owe more than their house is worth, it will help them rebuild the equity they lost because of the collapse in the housing markets.

Redtape should no longer keep responsible homeowners from refinancing their loans and restoring their futures.

Redtape, I repeat, should no longer keep responsible homeowners from refinancing their homes and restoring their futures.

There are some who advocate a do-nothing policy. There is nothing we can do to help. They couldn't be more wrong. Here is one example. My Nevada offices have posted several foreclosure workshops. More than 2,000 people have taken the opportunity to sit down and face their lenders--often for the first time. Several thousand more have gotten help from caseworkers in my office. Caseworkers and owners have worked together literally to save homes from the auction block. I am hosting another workshop in Las Vegas this Saturday.

We can't help everyone, but we must do more to help those we can. It is time for more Federal action. It is time to give homeowners in every State the tools they need to hold on to their homes and to hold on to the American Dream.

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

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 311,

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived; further, that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1813 occur at 2 p.m., Thursday, February 9.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 545; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 369.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading.

Mr. President, I ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, February 9, 2012; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the surface transportation bill.

Mr. President, the next vote will be at 2 p.m. on Thursday.

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

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 3 p.m. today. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of the conference report on the FAA Reauthorization Act. At 5:30 p.m., there will be a rollcall vote on adoption of that conference report.

Mr. President, S. 2064 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased the Senate will pass the aviation jobs conference report. This measure is the first long-term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration in almost 5 years. The FAA has worked under 23 short-term extensions since 2007. In fact, the FAA was shut down last year. That is right, workers were furloughed and construction at airports terminated.

The 4-year compromise we will pass this evening doesn't give everyone everything they want, but that is the way legislation is. It will, however, finally give the FAA the ability it needs to properly maintain a world-class air travel system.

The aviation jobs bill will also create thousands of jobs--about 300,000--and it will protect airline workers and improve safety for travelers. This legislation will create badly needed jobs and it will give the FAA the ability to finally upgrade the country's air traffic control system.

Today, America relies on World War II era technology to track aircraft and to guide them to safe landings. An upgrade to modern satellite technology is long overdue. The aviation jobs bill will finally make that critical investment possible. It will invest more than $24 billion in airports and runways across the Nation and on modern air traffic control equipment.

I am very happy that Democrats and Republicans were finally able to reach this compromise. I wish the spirit of compromise would also extend to ongoing conference committee negotiations on a year-long payroll tax cut. I was dismayed to read this morning that rank-and-file Republicans in both Chambers are on the fence over whether we should extend this break for working families. More than 160 million Americans will benefit, with an average family savings this year of $1,000. That is taxes they won't have to pay.

Republicans are questioning whether Americans need that extra cash, and they are once again playing politics and putting our economy at risk at a crucial time when we need to work out a compromise. Democrats have offered

to meet them halfway--even more than halfway--but Republicans will not take yes for an answer. In exchange for extending this middle-class tax break, Republicans are insisting, among other things, that we pass an unrelated ideological piece of legislation that will make our water less safe to drink. This would allow mercury and other carcinogens to be put in our water supply.

That is a pretty stark compromise: We will give you a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans if you will let us continue to put things such as arsenic and mercury in the water of the American people. That is not a very good deal.

Not only that but they are refusing to close tax loopholes, such as giveaways to oil companies making record profits. Instead, they insist on more handouts to millionaires and billionaires before they will do anything that will benefit the middle class.

The American people have spoken and spoken clearly. Working families need this money. They need this thousand dollars to put food on the table and gas in the car. And they won't tolerate Republicans holding their money hostage to extort a political payback.

They did this last December. In fact, I thought Republicans got the message in December when they took a beating for opposing this tax cut. I hope they won't pick this losing fight a second time. But time is running. If they do choose to fight, as we try to put more money back in the pockets of 160 million working Americans, the outcome will eventually be the same. Democrats will not give in when it comes to protecting the middle class. That is why we will prepare a fallback plan in case Republicans refuse to cooperate. Our legislation will prevent a tax hike on middle-class families, extend unemployment benefits, protect seniors on Medicare from losing their doctors, and extend expiring tax provisions. And it will be free of unrelated ideological legislation designed to please the radical right.

Stopping a $1,000 tax increase on virtually every American family is too important to be bogged down with sweeteners for the tea party. Senate Democrats will be prepared to act with or without Republican cooperation. Republicans must make a choice. They can force a thousand dollar tax increase on American families to strengthen the tea party or they can compromise to strengthen the middle class. The choice is theirs.

Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I agree, and reaffirm our strong support for National Mediation Board's decision in this matter. The Senate bill would, however, modify the Railway Labor Act in a few minor ways. One of these changes would modify the agency rules governing the showing of interest that is a precursor to a representation election for either a new certification or a change in certification. We modified that standard to require a 50 percent showing of interest for all elections. This percent was chosen to recognize the longstanding primary statutory goal of the Railway Labor Act, which is stability

in labor relations through peaceful collective bargaining. A 50 percent showing of interest will ensure that elections only occur when there is a sufficient and substantial indication of employee support.

Absolutely not. In considering the amendments, we relied on and had no intention of disrupting the Supreme Court's decision in the Switchmen case. Codifying the standard in statute was not intended to alter the longstanding deference that must be accorded to the National Mediation Board as it makes factual findings in the representation context. In fact, the language was included in a new section of the Act, rather than incorporated into the existing Section 9, based on a consensus among all parties involved in the conference negotiations that the new showing of interest should not enable an employer to manipulate the election process by demanding court review of the showing of interest.

The purpose of the amendments was very limited. It was not intended to alter judicial review; in fact, there was agreement among Democrats and Republicans negotiating the agreement that there would be no expansion of judicial review. And I would also like to explain that it is not intended to apply to the unique situation in mergers. The text of the amendments apply to all applications for representation elections, but not to the entirely different circumstance where a labor organization or employees petition the National Mediation Board for a determination as to whether a merger or other transaction has altered an existing representational structure as a result of a creation of a single transportation system. In those cases, it is our intent that the National Mediation Board's existing merger procedures, as modified from time to time by the National Mediation Board, shall determine the percent of the craft or class to establish a showing of interest. Otherwise, employees could lose their representation simply by merging with a slightly larger unit without even having the opportunity to vote, which is unacceptable.