Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate recess until 2 p.m. to allow for caucus meetings today.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on Sunday, we confirmed Carol Galante as the new Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, FHA. I want to thank my 19 Republican colleagues who supported her nomination. It was an important step forward for FHA. I give a special thanks to Senator Corker for his work, my colleague on the Senate Banking Committee.

My Democratic colleagues and I have cleared an important commonsense piece of legislation on our side. It was passed overwhelmingly in the House. But we have received little cooperation from some of our Republican colleagues because it does not include everything they want.

It is clear that FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund is facing significant financial issues. Two years ago, Senator Begich and I introduced an FHA reform bill. For a time we collaborated with Senator Vitter from Louisiana, who has worked with me on legislation with the GAO and other things, and with Senator Isakson on that effort, so I know many of my Republican colleagues are committed to these issues. Unfortunately, some of their conservative colleagues blocked the legislation that would have given FHA additional authority to protect taxpayers.

We should not wait any longer. This is technically the last full day of this Congress. We should not wait any longer to enact sensible measures that will put FHA back on a path to financial stability.

With limited time remaining in the legislative session, passing the House's FHA reform legislation, H.R. 4264, is a necessary and responsible step to give FHA additional authority to protect taxpayers. Passing this bill will not prevent us from doing more next session. That is what I want to do. I think most Members in both parties in the Banking Committee want to do that. I expect we will consider reforms very soon.

In the meantime, though, we should pass this commonsense, bipartisan reform measure. As I mentioned, it passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 402 to 7. So it has support all across the political spectrum, from people of all views and philosophies and ideologies. Unfortunately, a small number of people continue to stand in the way of these taxpayer protections.

I do not plan to ask unanimous consent today. I would like to do that; I will not do that. I am hopeful that those who oppose this might be willing to come to the floor and discuss this and see if we can move this legislation on the last full day of this Congress, so we can then take that step and then work this coming year in the new Congress on further reforms.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the senior Senator from Illinois, the assistant majority leader.

I concur in the remarks Senator Durbin just made, especially about the vote last night. The primary thing we did was we spared that $2,000 tax increase for so many families in California, Illinois, Ohio, and across this country. I remember the Presiding Officer telling a group of us last night how many hundreds of thousands of Californians would have lost their unemployment insurance if we had not acted last night the way we did.

My fundamental criteria on voting on this issue and voting for this issue was we were able successfully to stop cuts in Social Security to pay for some of this plan or raising the retirement age for Medicare or not doing the unemployment insurance in the way we did. So all those were victories last night.

I also concur with Senator Durbin that while adding 5 years to the earned-income tax credit, locking in one of the best poverty-fighting programs to be begun by Ronald Reagan, suggested, I believe, by Milton Friedman--supported by both parties for

many years--we are not seeing that the way we used to with the earned- income tax credit. It rewards families that work, a family making $30,000 a year. This is not a whole lot more than the minimum wage, $3 or $4 more, maybe, than the minimum wage but not a livable wage, and they get significant tax credits. This is sort of what Friedman called a negative income tax, and this works so well for encouraging work in this country.

We did that only for 5 years, while bringing the estate tax up to a $5 million exemption, which I thought was far too generous because it is only paid by far fewer than 1 percent of the American people. That was made permanent while the earned-income tax credit was only made for 5 years.

The tax credit for college students, for families, was so important in this legislation too. Much of what we did was simply ask the wealthy to pay a little bit more, to bring tax rates, as the Presiding Officer knows, back to the levels of the 1990s.

I think it is important to put this in a little historical perspective. In the 1990s, tax rates were a little bit higher for upper income people. We saw in those 8 years in the 1990s, from 1993 to 2000--the Presiding Officer's first year in the Senate, 1993, my first year in the House--we saw incredible economic growth. Wages went up for the average American, average Ohioan, average Californian, average American. We saw 21 million private sector net jobs created, and President Clinton left office with the largest budget surplus in American history.

We know what happened the next 8 years, where we saw very little economic growth, only about 1 million--being generous--only about 1 million private sector net jobs created in those 8 years.

In what hit my State particularly hard, we saw a real decline in manufacturing. From 2000 to 2010, we lost, in this country, net, 5 million manufacturing jobs--manufacturing jobs. Maybe people who dress like this around here don't think much about that. I know the Presiding Officer does because her State is the No. 1 manufacturing State in the country.

It is especially important in my State. We lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. While we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs nationally, tens of thousands--I believe 60,000 is the number--of manufacturing plants closed in those 10 years.

But the good news is that since the auto rescue, we have seen what is beginning to be significant manufacturing job growth, some 500,000 new manufacturing jobs since 2010. Almost every month--not quite every month but almost every month--an increase in manufacturing jobs. We know what a manufacturing job does in a community. For workers earning $20 or $25 an hour, that worker is spending money in that community. That worker is buying things, buying a home, buying a car, putting people to work creating jobs at restaurants and creating jobs at the hardware store. Those workers are paying property taxes to hire teachers and paying the local city income tax to hire firefighters and police. So we know what manufacturing jobs do as we see that increase.

In fact, since the auto rescue, in my State, the unemployment rate went from 10.6 percent soon after the auto rescue sort of took effect, if you will, and now the unemployment rate is under 7 percent. It is not what it ought to be, but I think that is what last night's vote, ultimately, was a recognition of; that the people here with this 89-to- 8 vote--89 votes yes, 8 votes no, with strong bipartisan support, which I hope we see this afternoon in the House--I think it was a recognition that we don't grow the economy by tax cuts for the rich and trickle- down economics. We tried that in the last decade. It didn't work. We understand, historical evidence shows--and I think we recognized it last night--by focusing on the middle class, tax cuts for the middle class, investments in schools, and investments in infrastructure and unemployment insurance for people who have lost their job, keeping Social Security and Medicare strong, investing in college credits, and rewarding work through the earned-income tax credit, we grow the economy from the middle class out. That succeeded in the 1990s. There were 20 million-plus new manufacturing jobs. Trickle down didn't do so well the 10 years after.

Now we are coming back and recognizing, with this overwhelming vote last night, both parties are recognizing we grow the economy from the middle class out.

I think that is why last night was a huge victory, surely, politically for the President. But what it was a victory for, truly, was a victory for the middle class and a victory for those who want to join, aspire to the middle class, and a victory for this country, for our economy, for our economic growth and for our future.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business for debate only be extended until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, who is a valued member of the Banking Committee. I thank him for his comments in support of Ms. Galante's nomination, and I appreciate some of the criticisms Senator Shelby offered. I wish to answer a couple of those but then move directly to Ms. Galante and concur in the support for Ms. Galante from Senator Corker.

Two years ago, Senator Begich and I introduced an FHA reform bill which, unfortunately, because of people on the other side, has been blocked, for whatever reasons.

Two weeks ago, we tried to pass the FHA Emergency Fiscal Solvency Act--a commonsense reform measure that came out of the House of Representatives, sponsored by a Republican from Illinois, Congressman Biggert. She is the chair of the relevant House Financial Services Subcommittee. It passed the House on a suspension, 402 to 7--an unusual demonstration of bipartisanship in the House of Representatives.

Passing that bill would not have prevented action next Congress. Yet some of my colleagues again stand in the way of these taxpayer protections.

Let me turn to Ms. Galante and the reasons I am supporting her nomination.

As an Ohioan, I am inclined to support an Ohio Wesleyan graduate who is married to an Akron native. Obviously, more important than that, she has shown deep interest in the challenges facing the housing market in northeast Ohio, a place that has been devastated by a hollowing out of our manufacturing base and preyed upon by unscrupulous subprime lenders--for a period of more than a decade, I might add.

She has met with the Cuyahoga County Land Bank, the Cleveland Housing Network, city officials to hear about all the great work people are doing in northeast Ohio to rebuild the city's housing market. Some of the most innovative ideas in the country have come out of Cleveland and the land bank and the housing network.

After I sat down with her and shared stories of big banks that were allowing FHA properties in Cincinnati to fall into decay, FHA updated its servicing rules to hold these banks accountable.

FHA has selected Cleveland, Akron, and Canton for its next round of note sales. This program allows for the sale of distressed and delinquent FHA mortgages to parties that will rehabilitate the loans in order to help stabilize these neighborhoods.

Because of her many years of experience in housing and real estate and her commitment to addressing the crucial issues facing today's hardest hit cities--big cities and smaller cities alike--and what has happened to these housing markets, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Galante nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

While the water levels are at historic lows in Lakes Michigan and Huron, Lake Erie, which my State borders, also has water levels below its long-term average. Because the Great Lakes navigational system is interconnected, with shipments often moving from Duluth to Cleveland to Buffalo, a problem in one harbor can have negative impacts across all of the 60 commercial projects in the Great Lakes system. The light-loading of ships has repercussions across our transportation system with very real impacts on jobs and our manufacturing and agricultural sectors. This year's drought across Ohio, Michigan, and other parts of the upper-Midwest has been nothing short of a natural disaster.

Yes.

Five minutes.

Mr. President, the bill extending permanent normal trade relations to Russia is a positive step for American business and American workers. I have been critical of both Democratic and Republican administration approaches to trade negotiations and enforcement in the past. I think the improved enforcement reporting requirements in this legislation are a step in the right direction toward monitoring and toward enforcement of Russia's commitments made as part of its new membership in the World Trade Organization.

For too long, both Democratic and Republican administrations have negotiated trade agreements that undermine rather than maximize American job creation. Too often these agreements have failed to demand that our partners follow the same rules we do. Too often our government has not held our trade partners accountable when they do not meet commitments to which they have already agreed. We have seen this in our trade relationship with China for more than a decade. From currency manipulation to intellectual property theft, to failing to offer reciprocal access to its government procurement market, to hoarding rare earth materials, the People's Republic of China has ignored its international commitments and obligations.

For more than a decade, American workers and manufacturers, especially in a State such as mine, Ohio, have paid the price. There were thousands of lost jobs, a trade deficit that grew from $83 billion in 2001 to $295 billion in 2011 and a deficit in auto parts alone that went from about $1 billion a decade ago to about $10 billion today.

More recently, though, President Obama stood up to China issues on steel, which led to a new steel mill in Youngstown, OH; more steel jobs in Cleveland and Lorain, OH; on tires, which have translated into more jobs in Findlay, OH; and on aluminum, which has meant more jobs in Heath and Sidney, OH. That is obviously good news in my State and around the country. But our experience in China proves we must more closely monitor our trade partners' commitments before workers and businesses are injured by them.

As part of its WTO accession, Russia committed to lower tariffs on manufactured goods to ensure predictability by capping quota levels and to meet international standards on intellectual property rights. I am pleased to see the legislation extending Russia PNTR includes enforcement measures much stronger than the China PNTR, several based on legislation I introduced earlier this year.

By requiring the U.S. Trade Representative to monitor Russia's compliance with its WTO obligations to publish an annual report and our actions to promote compliance and establish a formal and public process for workers to weigh in on Russia's progress in anticipation and before violations or failing to follow the rule of law might take place, we can ensure that our trade relations with Russia put our interests first to build confidence, that our government can enforce the rules. Again, prior to potential misbehavior--as we saw with China--we will likely not see this from Russia because of this. Similar to any trade agreement, commitments must be adhered to; otherwise, they are not worth negotiating.

As an additional measure of commitment, I appreciate the administration's response to my request. Senior personnel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, at USTR, who have served our government in Russia and are fluent in Russian are held accountable for monitoring Russia's compliance with its WTO commitments. Again, this is something we didn't do a decade-plus ago with the People's Republic of China.

Japan and Europe have already threatened to take Russia to the WTO over a number of unfair trade restrictions, including on autos. The United States will need to be vigilant on these issues as well. This work that Chairman Baucus did, that the House Ways and Means did, and the administration has done and will continue to do gives us that opportunity to be more vigilant and more effective.

Our workers, our farmers, our ranchers, and producers should have confidence that the trade deal signed will actually be enforced. For companies in my State, such as Proctor & Gamble, Goodyear or Alcoa, that stand to export more goods to Russia because of PNTR, enforcement of the rules matter. Whether economic opportunities for our businesses and our workers from Russia's PNTR, we can't ignore the Russian Government's consolidation of power and crackdown on political opponents, including the Russian media. Despite these challenges, though, we should not turn our backs as Russia continues breaking free from its totalitarian past. These are strong economic and democratic forces that are moving forward in Russia. These forces for change must be supported and must be allowed to grow. We must not forget how far Russia has come or how far it has to go.

About 40 years ago, Senator Jackson from Washington State and Congressman Vanik from my State of Ohio--the son of a Cleveland butcher--offered an amendment to a trade bill that used the leverage of the U.S. market to deny favorable trade status.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

This was to deny favorable trade status to countries that restrict immigration. Jackson-Vanik became antiquated more than a decade ago, but it proved that trade can be an instrument for improving human rights and the rule of law.

PNTR now includes the important Magnitsky legislation, which will impose travel and financial penalties on officials responsible for human rights abuses abroad. I commend Senator Cardin for his leadership on this issue, on this important amendment.

As the administration looks ahead to trade initiatives such as TPP and the United States-European Union Trade Agreement, Congress can take steps now, new steps, to assure the benefits of expanded trade reach workers, reach small manufacturers, not just large corporations. Several colleagues and I have proposed legislation updating our negotiating objectives on labor, on the environment, on import safety, and to restore congressional oversight to future trade negotiations to agreements and especially to their enforcement. It is time we practice trade so it achieves real results for middle-class families in promoting job creation.

While the Russia PNTR represents a positive step forward, we must build on this step to ensure that over the long term, promises made are promises kept.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to address an issue that concerns families and children and veterans and so many children in North Carolina and Ohio and around the country and around the world. I rise for millions of Americans, family members friends, loved ones, and colleagues who experience some level of disability.

People living with disabilities have long been isolated, pushed to the margins of society. An example of that is America's deaf community. The deaf community strongly supports this treaty. Gallaudet University is a university founded in 1864 by an act of Congress, the charter signed by President Lincoln. The university shows that people with disabilities are capable of doing so much more to enrich our culture. I sit on the board, the only Senator in this body who sits on the board of Gallaudet, this great university. It is the only one of its kind in the world. It is close to 150 years old. We know how important it is.

Many students at Gallaudet from other countries want to be able to go home to the same kinds of accessibility they have experienced while studying in the United States, but they do not have it in far too many places. A recent State Department report found that people with disabilities remain one of the groups most at risk of being trafficked. That should spur all of us to do what we can to ensure that every human being has the chance to reach her or his God-given potential.

Yet too many people with disabilities around the world and Americans abroad lack this protection. This includes being forced into low-wage employment, being forced to beg for meals, being less likely to have access to transportation and the justice system in whatever country they happen to be located.

In America, we fought to pass the Americans With Disabilities Act, and we lead the world in services and accessibility for disabled people. We passed it because democracy is only as vibrant as it is open to the participation of all citizens. That is why I was proud to cosponsor critical amendments to the ADA, the Americans With Disabilities Act, to make the definition of disability more inclusive. We fought hard for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 because access to a good-paying job, to public transportation, to public accommodation should be universal.

Some detractors say Americans are taken care of here at home; why should we worry about discrimination that disabled people in other countries might suffer? Dr. King wrote in ``Letter from the Birmingham Jail'' that:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

He explained that:

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied

in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one

directly, affects all indirectly.

If we are to maintain our global leadership, if we believe in American exceptionalism, and if we are to strengthen our moral leadership, then surely we must ratify treaty No. 112-7 in support of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a cause for people who fight for what is right. That is why some 300 organizations support ratification, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Wounded Warrior Project, the Hindu American Foundation, the Islamic Society of North America, the Jewish Federation of North America, the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Let me share a couple letters. Bernard from Franklin County, in the center of my State, wrote:

I am concerned about recent grumblings . . . I have a lot

of regard for the ADA and a keen awareness of discrimination

against people with disabilities.

When will the Senate take up this U.N. Resolution? What can

I do to help convince oppositional Senators that this is an

important and necessary resolution for people with

disabilities, especially our Nation's veterans?

Bernard, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator McCain, former majority leader Bob Dole, both of whom served our country honorably in the Armed Forces, and 21 veterans organizations agree with you. Senator McCain wrote: ``Ratifying this treaty affirms our leadership on disability rights and shows the rest of the world our leadership commitment continues.''

This should be an opportunity for all Americans to come together and show the world we are committed to ensuring the basic dignity of every human being.

An advocate for people with disabilities, Deborah Kendrick of Cincinnati, recently wrote that supporting the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is ``the good old-fashioned right thing to do.''

She is absolutely right. The CRPD is an antidiscrimination treaty, a civil rights issue, a human rights issue. It embraces the values of our own Americans with Disabilities Act.

It will not affect U.S. law and does not infringe upon U.S. sovereignty. Ratifying this treaty does allow us to reassert our leadership globally on disability rights. It will give us a seat at the table as parties to the convention grapple with how best to implement it. This treaty is important for Americans with disabilities, including soldiers and veterans when they work abroad, study abroad or simply travel abroad. That is why I urge my colleagues to join in ratifying this treaty, to stand up for people with disabilities in Ohio, throughout America, and around the world.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I rise to commemorate the grand opening of the David Betts Double Play Diamond, which will take place a week from today in Bryan, OH.

As the result of a community's commitment to working together, an unused farm field will soon cultivate the next generation of Bryan-area baseball players--nourishing friendships and supporting sportsmanship.

This new indoor field in Williams County honors the life of an extraordinary young Ohioan.

David Betts would have been 26 years old on December 10, 2012, the day that this field will open for members of the entire Bryan community to enjoy.

David, the beloved son of John and Joy, died in a March 2007 motorcoach accident along with other members of the Bluffton University baseball team in Atlanta, GA.

He was a graduate of Bryan High School.

After this tragedy, John and Joy Betts made a promise that David's death--and the loss of four other players and the bus driver and his wife--would not be in vain.

Out of the Bluffton bus tragedy--and other tragedies like it--Senator Hutchison and I introduced the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act--to help prevent the loss of life on our nation's roadways.

President Obama signed the bill into law earlier this year to ensure that tour buses are equipped with seatbelts, stronger roofs, safer windows, and drivers that are better trained.

This safety bill was written with the support of the Betts Family, the Bryan community, and a national community of people who have lost loved ones in motorcoach crashes.

Some 5 years later, this close-knit Ohio community also has a tangible monument in memory of one of their sons.

May the David Betts Double Play Diamond serve as a remembrance to this wonderful young man and help this community continue to heal and move forward.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Army and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; 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.

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 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 10 a.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; and that the Senate recess following the vote in relation to the Disabilities Treaty until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that all time during adjournment, morning business, executive session, and recess count postcloture on S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act.