Floor Statements

Throughout this month, students across my State, across Ohio, are reciting speeches by Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to commemorate Black History Month.

Dr. Carter Woodson started what was originally called Negro History Week in February between the birthdays of President Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Dr. Woodson initiated the weeklong tribute to incorporate the legacies, images, and historical contributions of African Americans into the greater American story.

Today, people throughout the United States celebrate African-American History Month to ensure all American stories are recognized. Ohio has been the scene for which many of these chapters were written.

In Mount Pleasant, OH, the first antislavery gazette newspaper in the United States, the Philanthropist, was published in 1817. The Ohio Anti-Slavery Society was founded in Zanesville in 1835. My home State has played a rich role in American history, as have so many Ohioans.

Every new U.S. passport includes the words of a formerly enslaved Oberlin College graduate Dr. Anna Julia Cooper. If you have a passport, you will see her words:

The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect,

a party or a class--it is the cause of humankind, the very

birthright of humanity.

In Yellow Springs, OH, a young music student at Antioch College, Coretta Scott, would later work alongside her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, for social and economic justice in our country.

Former Wilberforce University student Bayard Rustin was the lead strategist of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

The only living American with a Nobel Prize in Literature, Toni Morrison, was born and raised in Lorain, OH.

Akronite Rita Dove served as the Poet Laureate of the United States.

Today, in classrooms and communities across the State--and across the Nation--the next generation of Ohioans is starting to make its mark on American history.

Madam President, I rise in support of a great sport with a great tradition in our Nation, especially in Ohio. Unfortunately, the sport of wrestling may be put on the sidelines at the Olympic games.

Citing ``an effort to ensure the Olympic games remain relevant to sports fans of all generations,'' the International Olympic Committee-- the organization that controls the Olympics--voted to eliminate wrestling from the summer games after the 2016 Olympics. They want to end wrestling, one of the original Olympic games, while keeping other games that, frankly, lack the central role wrestling has played in its accessibility to all athletes wherever they live.

Many of these are young people who lack access. Many of them want and do compete in wrestling at the high school level, the intercollegiate level or perhaps at the Olympic level but lack access to fancy equipment or specialized training. They simply want to compete at a sport perhaps almost as old as humanity.

Wrestling has opened doors for working and middle-class youngsters from Ohio and around the country. That is why I recently introduced a Senate resolution opposing the elimination of wrestling from the Olympics beginning in 2020. On behalf of thousands of high school students and two 2012 Olympians with Ohio connections, I am asking the Olympics committee to reconsider putting a stranglehold on one of the original Olympic sports.

Wrestling has been a sport far longer than the International Olympic Committee has been in existence. In addition to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and Romans, our Nation has a long history with wrestling. President Lincoln was a wrestler, and two Ohio-born Presidents, Ulysses S. Grant and William Howard Taft, were wrestlers. One of our former colleagues--beloved in many ways--my friend Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was inducted into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame in 2000.

At the time of his induction, he said:

Wrestling has always been a big thing for me. I've had a

love affair with the sport for most of my life. It helped me

as a kid. I got in some trouble, then I found a sport I was

good at, and that transferred to better things in other

areas.

The same is true for some 11,000 high school wrestlers and students at 4 universities with 17 NCAA wrestling programs in my home State. From youth wrestling camps to high school meets such as the renowned J.C. Gorman Invitational in my hometown of Mansfield, to the NCAA tournaments, students from Ohio learn the strength, the discipline, and focus that allow grapplers to exceed both on the mat and beyond.

Wrestling is accessible for working-class athletes, unlike some of the sports protected in the IOC's decision. Wrestling has a proud tradition in my State, in the United States, and has a proud tradition around the world. The IOC should not ratify this preliminary decision by its executive board. It should continue its efforts to remain relevant for all athletes and communities around the world.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I was concerned when I saw a number of my colleagues are again trying to block the appointment of Ohioan Richard Cordray to the consumer agency. That agency has already played a significant role in saving tens of millions of dollars for consumers who have been wronged in a checking account transaction, who have been nickel-and-dimed, and then some by bank fees.

Former Ohio Attorney General Cordray has done an excellent job as the Director of that consumer bureau. But what troubles me is this is only the second time in the history of the Senate, at least as far as the Senate Historian can figure, when a group of Senators from one party has blocked the nomination of a Presidential appointee because they do not like the agency, because they oppose the construct of the agency itself.

The first time that ever happened was just a couple of years ago with Richard Cordray in this position. The creation of the consumer bureau went through regular order. It was passed by the Senate Banking Committee, on which I sit. It was part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, and it went to the House of Representatives. It went to conference committee. All that happened was regular order to create this agency.

Many people didn't like the agency. I submit I agree with that. I understand that. I don't agree that it is not a good agency. They don't like the agency in large part because it stood up to Wall Street, and it stood up to some of the bank abuses that put us in this financial situation as a country with the damage it did to our economy.

Even with that, if you don't like the agency, as I said, never before in history except these two times--with the same appointment process, the same appointee, the same designee, the same nominee of the President--has this happened whereby my colleagues said: Even though he is qualified, we are not going to vote to confirm Richard Cordray because we don't like the agency. If you are not willing to change the agency, we are not willing to support a director.

Imagine the kind of precedent that sets where if you don't like an agency, you are never going to let the President confirm a leader of that agency--in any agency of the Federal Government. If you don't like food safety, then you are going to block the appointment. If you don't like transportation, something in the Transportation Department, you don't like something else, you are going to vote against somebody taking the job to run the agency.

Government can't run that way. The government will be dysfunctional if this precedent is set and is ongoing, in addition to the fact that Cordray is right for the job. Also, this agency is important for the middle class, for working-class people, and for low-income people who need these consumer protections.

It sets a very bad precedent for this body. I am hopeful some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will think clearly about this and move ahead on the nomination and confirmation process.

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

Madam President, last week the House of Representatives passed a plan to prevent the risk of another credit rating downgrade. By ensuring that the United States will not default on its obligations, the House made the responsible decision to stop playing politics--at least for a while--with our Nation's creditworthiness and to prevent self-inflicted harm on our economy. Despite this effort, the House couldn't pass up the opportunity to

try, while doing the right thing, to score at least one political point. We are now considering the measure they passed.

This legislation, the No Budget, No Pay Act, coming directly off a campaign document, insists that congressional pay be linked with the passage of a budget by April 15. I am fine with that, that we should do that and if we don't, we don't get paid. But let's not forget that the Senate passed something even stronger than a budget for the past 2 years; we passed the Budget Control Act, which reduced the deficit by $2 trillion. Despite this, House Republicans have no problem misleading the American people with their language, preventing Senators from being paid until we pass a budget.

I have no problem with no budget, no pay, but why stop there? What about no jobs bills, no pay? In 2011 the Senate passed my legislation, bipartisanly cosponsored with Senator Graham and a number of other Republican Senators, including Senator Burr, and a group of Democratic Senators, we passed my legislation to punish China when it cheats, when it manipulates its currency. The bill could create more than 2 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing, knowing what happened in places such as the Presiding Officer's State of Massachusetts and in my State of Ohio with lost manufacturing jobs.

Despite the clear evidence that leveling the playing field with stopping currency manipulation would create jobs, despite the clear evidence of an overwhelming vote in the Senate and, 2 years ago, an overwhelming vote in the House on the same issue, this legislation has languished in the House for the past 2 years.

But why stop at the budget? Why not a no farm bill, no pay bill? Congress is obligated to pass a farm bill every 5 years. The Senate passed our bipartisan farm bill, which, among other things, saves some $20 billion of direct savings by eliminating the longtime-discredited direct payment program. It would save $20 billion, but, again, the House refused to act.

What about my legislation linking the age at which Members of Congress can collect their pensions to the age at which working Americans are eligible for Social Security? Some people, especially in the House of Representatives, want to raise the retirement age for Social Security, yet for themselves--ourselves, if we retire earlier-- collect pensions before that age. If people here are going to raise the eligibility age for Social Security, nobody here should be able to collect any retirement benefits until that same age.

Citizens in my home State of Ohio in places such as Middletown, where workers have watched paper factories get priced out of the market because of unfair competition with places such as China; in Cincinnati, where call center workers are watching their jobs get contracted to the Philippines; and in Worcester, where there are too many cases of shutdown plants, moving overseas, simply or mostly because of currency, not to mention tax breaks that encourage companies, that allow companies to deduct the cost of moving their plant overseas against their Federal tax, those are the kinds of things average Americans are waiting for the House of Representatives to act on, legislation that will make a real difference in their lives right now.

I am fine with the No Budget, No Pay Act. We should pass a budget. We should move forward on that. We need to raise the debt ceiling and stop playing politics with this, but let the House of Representatives get moving on the issues that affect everyday Americans. That is all about jobs. That is all about this economic recovery.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bryan Seeley,

a Department of Justice detailee on the Judiciary Committee staff be given Senate floor privileges for the remainder of calendar year 2013.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 14, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 20, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Madam President, I now 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 30, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 2 hours with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first hour and the Republicans controlling the final hour; further, that at 2:30 p.m. Senator Kerry be recognized for up to 30 minutes for the purpose of delivering his farewell address.

Madam President, I congratulate the Presiding Officer on becoming the senior Senator from Massachusetts in almost record time.

We hope to complete consideration of the debt limit legislation before the end of the week.

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

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

Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the career and the calling of a remarkable Ohioan and a close friend, the Reverend Dr. Linwood H. Chamberlain, Jr. Our Pastor Woody and his wife Peggy are important to Connie and me and to our whole community in Lorain.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, of which I am a member, embraces the motto, ``God's work, our hands.'' It means moral imperatives must be the concern of every citizen. In his 31 years of service to the First Lutheran Church of Lorain, OH, Pastor Woody has labored for love and for justice. He has been doing God's work, as has his wife Peggy, supporting those who suffer, celebrating our community's joys, and being concerned with every citizen.

Pastor Woody has been a counselor and a friend to many. His words, his attentiveness, his patient understanding, and his gentle encouragement have helped members of my home church tackle seemingly intractable problems with poise and with confidence. He supported the First Lutheran family through weddings and funerals, through baptisms and celebrations, and I am especially grateful for his prayers and wisdom over the years.

Pastor Woody has been so valuable to our church, and his leadership will be missed as he just retired. His retirement will be celebrated this coming Sunday.

My mother, whose faith was especially important to her, passed away 4 years ago, around this time of year. She was in hospice care in her final days. My wife Connie and I were at her bedside--and my brothers Bob and Charlie and their wives Anne and Catherine were at her bedside over the past 6 weeks--and one day when I was with my Mom I asked if there was anything I could do to comfort her. She was 88 years old. She was just a remarkable woman as a mother and as a wife and an activist in the community. She asked me to sing an old Lutheran hymn to her, which I did. The song was ``Beautiful Savior.''

She took my hand in hers as I sang. She said, ``That was very nice, Sherrod.'' She said, ``But you really do sound better in a group.''

My mom was right. We all sound better in a group, work better in a group, and that was exemplified in so many ways by Pastor Woody's leadership at First Lutheran. It is a lesson we all can learn in this body as we go about our daily lives.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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