Tip: Highlight text to annotate itX
NETWORKS AND, OF COURSE, IN OUR
VIDEO LIBRARY AT C-SPAN.ORG.
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THIS NOW
AND TAKE YOU LIVE TO THE U.S.
SENATE.
TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS BILL
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY POOR
PUBLIC POLICY.
I KNOW
THAT BACK HOME IN ALL OF OUR
STATES PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE FUTURE, I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT THE FUTURE.
PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
MANUFACTURING JOBS, I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT MANUFACTURING
JOBS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WE OUGHT TO
FOCUS SON THOSE THINGS THAT WILL
BE.
TAKE US TO THE PLACES WE WANT TO
I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE'RE
HAVING THESE TYPES OF ECONOMIC
SITUATIONS, THE COUNTRY TURNS
INWARD, THE COUNTRY TRIES TO
LOOK FOR OTHER THINGS TO BLAME
THE CAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE ON.
AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
THIS BILL IS DOING.
AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT, HERE WE
HAVE A SITUATION WHERE OUR
ECONOMY IS SLOW, WE HAVE A
FINANCIAL CRISIS IN EUROPE WHICH
IS CREATING TREMENDOUS FEAR IN
EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, AND
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IN
THIS UNITED STATES SENATE IS
CREATING A TRADE WAR WITH THE
SECOND LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE
WORLD, ONE THAT'S GROWING
RAPIDLY, ONE WHERE OUR EXPORTS
TO THIS COUNTRY GREW TWICE AS
FAST IN THE YEAR 2010 AS IT DID
ON AVERAGE TO THE REST OF THE
WORLD.
SO MR. PRESIDENT, THIS TO ME IS
ONE OF THOSE BILLS WHERE YOU CUT
YOUR NOSE OFF TO SPITE YOUR
FACE.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE BILLS WHERE
YOU TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE
THAT YOU'RE DOING
CONSTRUCTIVE -- SOMETHING
CONSTRUCTIVE BACK HOME WHEN WHAT
YOU'RE REALLY DOING IS HURTING
THE U.S. ECONOMY.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE'VE GOT THREE
FREE TRADE BILLS COMING TO THE
FLOOR THAT HAVE BEEN HELD UP NOW
OVER 900 DAYS THAT I THINK ARE
GOING TO PASS AND THIS BODY IS
THEM BECAUSE WE
KNOW THAT THIS COUNTRY IS LOSING
MARKET SHARE IN THE THREE
COUNTRIES THAT WE'RE REACHING AN
AGREEMENT WITH.
WE'RE LOSING MARKET SHARE IN
SOUTH KOREA, WE'RE LOSING
MARKET SHARE IN COLOMBIA, WE'RE
LOSING MARKET SHARE IN PANAMA.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE
MANUFACTURERS IN TENNESSEE AND
VIRGINIA AND ALL ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY HAVE LESSER ABILITY TO
SELL THEIR GOODS INTO THESE
THREE COUNTRIES BECAUSE THESE
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT IN
PLACE AND IT'S MY SENSE THAT
WE'RE GETTING READY TO DO
SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE AND IN A
BIPARTISAN WAY APPROVE THESE
BILLS.
SO MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT IS
STUNNING TO ME IS THAT WE'D BE
TAKING UP ANOTHER BILL THAT
WOULD ACTUALLY LIKELY HURT TRADE
WITH THE FASTEST GROWING OTHER
ECONOMY AND THE BIGGEST OTHER
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD.
SO MR. PRESIDENT, LOOK, TO ME
WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE FOCUSED ON
CHINA AND BY THE WAY,
CHINA DOES MANIPULATE ITS CURNZ.
IT DOES THAT DO THAT.
IT HAS SOMETHING CALLED A
MANAGED FLOAT.
THEIR FINANCIAL SYSTEM IS
ANTIQUATED, IT IS BEING
LIBERALIZED.
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT
THEY'RE DOING WITH THEIR
CURRENCY HAS TO CHANGE.
AND BY THE WAY, OVER THE LAST
FIVE YEARS, THE CHINESE
CURRENCY HAS ACTUALLY
APPRECIATED RELATIVE TO OUR
DOLLAR BY 30%.
CHINA KNOWS THAT IT HAS TO DO
EVEN MORE OF THAT AND THE FACT
IS AS PEOPLE'S STANDARD OF
LIVING IN CHINA IMPROVES,
THEY'RE GOING TO WANT EVEN
GOODS.
GREATER ACCESS TO AMERICAN
SO MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WE OUGHT
TO BE DOING INSTEAD OF TRYING TO
CREATE A TRADE WAR WITH AN
ECONOMY, A COUNTRY THAT WE WANT
TO CREATE BETTER RELATIONSHIPS
WITH, IS WE OUGHT TO BE
FOCUSING ON THE REAL PROBLEMS
THAT EXIST IN CHINA.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
CHINESE GOVERNMENT, THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO OPEN UP
PROCUREMENT POLICIES.
AS A GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE A
PURCHASER OF GOODS.
AND RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE LAWS
IN PLACE THAT CAUSE THEM TO
PURCHASE THOSE GOODS FROM
COMPANIES THAT EXIST IN CHINA.
WE NEED TO CAUSE THEM TO OPEN
UP.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OR THE
PERSON THAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE
NEXT LEADER OF CHINA IS GOING TO
BE HERE IN JANUARY AND THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT OUR PRESIDENT
OUGHT TO TALK WITH HIM ABOUT
WHEN HE COMES, AND CREATE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS, FOR
OUR COMPANIES HERE IN AMERICA TO
BE ABLE TO SELL GOODS TO CHINA.
SECONDLY, WE SHOULD FOCUS ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT
CHINESE COMPANIES TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF U.S. COMPANIES BY STEALING
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
IT EXISTS IN ALMOST EVERY AREA
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
CERTAINLY SHOULD BE TALKING TO
CHINA ABOUT.
THIRDLY, WE OUGHT TO BE TAKING
ABOUT CHINA INVESTING IN THIS
COUNTRY.
I MEAN THE FACT IS THAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO SEE MORE PLANTS CREATED
IN THIS COUNTRY.
MANUFACTURING OCCUR.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE MORE
SO YES, WE SHOULD BE TALKING TO
CHINA ABOUT MAKING INVESTMENTS
IN THIS COUNTRY AND THEN
LASTLY, CERTAINLY WE SHOULD BE
CREATING AVENUES FOR CHINESE
CONSUMERS TO HAVE GREATER ACCESS
TO AMERICAN GOODS.
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IS THE TYPE
OF SOLUTION OR THOSE ARE THE
TYPES OF SOLUTIONS WE OUGHT TO
BE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY CAN BE DEALT WITH,
CERTAINLY, AT THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH LEVEL.
THERE ARE W.T.O. VIOLATIONS.
WE OUGHT TO BE BRINGING TO THE
W.T.O.'S ATTENTION.
BUT THIS BILL, THIS BILL IN MY
OPINION IS GREAT IN OPTICS, IT
ALLOWS SENATORS TO GO BACK
HOME -- BY THE WAY, THE SENATE
IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE COOLER
PLACE.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE, THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE WHERE
YOU MIGHT EXPECT A BILL LIKE
QUICKLY, A HOT
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, THE
LEADER OF THE HOUSE HAS ALREADY
TALKED ABOUT WHAT BAD POLICY
THIS IS.
SO HOPEFULLY THIS BILL WILL NOT
GAIN TRACTION IF IT PASSES THE
SENATE IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
BUT THE FACT IS THIS IS NOT THE
KIND OF THING THE UNITED STATES
SENATE OUGHT TO BE TAKING UP AND
CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THE
UNITED STATES SENATE OUGHT TO BE
PASSING.
MR. PRESIDENT, AGAIN, HERE WE
ARE, WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE
WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN,
THE MARKETS CONTINUALLY GET
WORSE AND HAVE BEEN,
ESPECIALLY, SINCE AUGUST 2.
WE'VE GOT A FINANCIAL CRISIS IN
EUROPE WHERE CONTAGION,
CONTAGION WITH THOSE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS IS POTENTIALLY
SPREADING AROUND THE WORLD AND
HERE THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN
ITS WISDOM IS CONSIDERING
CREATING A TRADE WAR TO ADD TO
THAT.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF
REACTION AND BEHAVIOR THAT TOOK
PLACE IN THE 1930'S.
ALMOST AS IF WE
CANNOT LEARN FROM THE PAST.
MR. PRESIDENT, I UNDERSTAND
THAT NUMBERS OF SENATORS VOTED
TO PROCEED TO THIS BILL AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE
DEBATES ON THESE KIND OF THINGS.
SENATE IS FOR.
THAT'S WHAT THE UNITED STATES
BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE THAT DON'T HAVE AN
INVESTMENT IN THIS BILL -- AND
AGAIN, I REALIZE THERE ARE
NUMBERS OF COSPONSORS BUT I
WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE TO STAND UP, TO REALIZE
THAT THIS IS TERRIBLE POLICY.
I KNOW THAT BACK HOME IT MAY
SOUND GOOD, BUT I THINK WHEN
AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT
WE'RE REALLY DOING IS PURSUING
THE WRONG ISSUES IN THE NAME OF
TRYING TO MAKE OURSELVES LOOK
GOOD BACK HOME.
HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY THIS BILL
WILL NOT SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.
HOPEFULLY THIS BILL WILL NOT --
WE WILL NOT HAVE THE 60 VOTES TO
HAVE CLOTURE ON THIS BILL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
YOU KNOW, I HEAR THIS OVER AND
OVER AND OVER IN THIS BODY AND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THAT, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER
ANYBODY TALKS ABOUT WHENEVER THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TALKS ABOUT INCREASING TAXES ON
MILLIONAIRES, JUST MAKING THEIR
TAX RATE THE SAME AS
MIDDLE-CLASS TAXPAYERS, THE
OTHER SIDE YELLS CLASS WARFARE,
CLASS WARFARE, CLASS WARFARE,
AGAINST THE RICH WHEN WE KNOW
THE CLASS WARFARE IN THIS
COUNTRY HAS BEEN AIMED RIGHT AT
THE MIDDLE CLASS.
THAT'S WHAT'S COST SO MANY
MIDDLE-CLASS JOBS, CAUSED SO
MANY PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS
TO SEE THEIR INCOMES FLAT THE
LAST 10 YEARS.
WHEN I HEAR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
TRADE, I ALWAYS HEAR
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF
PROTECTIONISM OR TRADE WAR.
AND MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE IN A
TRADE WAR.
LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT
WE'VE LOST TO CHINA IN THE LAST
TEN YEARS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK VERY FAR
TO KNOW EVERY TIME YOU GO TO THE
STORE AND BUY SOMETHING, IT
SEEMS THAT DARN NEAR EVERYTHING
IS MADE IN CHINA.
AND IT WASN'T THAT WAY TEN YEARS
AGO, SURE WASN'T THAT WAY 20
YEARS AGO.
WHEN MANY OF US OPPOSED THIS,
SOMETHING CALLED PERMANENT
NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH
CHINA, LETTING CHINA JOIN THE
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, IN
THOSE DAYS THERE WAS A
RELATIVELY SMALL TRADE DEFICIT
WITH CHINA.
A TRADE DEFICIT MEANS WE BUY
MORE FROM THEM THAN WE SELL TO
THEM.
TODAY, THAT TRADE DEFICIT WITH
CHINA IS ABOUT $750 MILLION
EVERY SINGLE DAY.
EVERY DAY, WE BUY $750 MILLION
WORTH OF PRODUCTS FROM CHINA
CHINA.
MORE, MORE THAN WE SELL TO
AND IF YOU HAVE -- IF YOU'RE
BUYING THAT MUCH MORE THAN YOU
SELL, DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY,
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, 52 WEEKS A
YEAR, YOU END UP LOSING JOBS
PAWS THESE ARE THE THINGS WE
WERE MAKING IN THIS COUNTRY.
NEVER -- NEVER IN OUR HISTORY,
MR. PRESIDENT, DO I REMEMBER
THAT I CAN -- LOOKING BACK I'M
NOT A PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN BUT
I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY SAY
OTHERWISE ON THIS THAT COMPANIES
IN ONE COUNTRY WILL SHUT THEIR
PRODUCTION DOWN, STOP PRODUCING
STEEL IN STEUBENVILLE OR STOP
PRODUCING OTHER PRODUCTS,
CHEMICALS IN CLEVELAND OR STOP
PRODUCING CARS IN DAYTON OR STOP
PRODUCING GLASS IN TOLEDO,
THEY'LL SHUT DOWN A PLANT,
THEY'LL MOVE IT TO ANOTHER
COUNTRY, OFTEN CHINA, AND THEN
THEY'LL SELL THE PRODUCT BACK
INTO THE HOME COUNTRY, INTO THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT'S NOT A
TICKET TO THE MIDDLE CLASS FOR
MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS ANYMORE,
AMERICANS.
FOR MESSENGERS MIDDLE-CLASS
IT'S NOT GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY,
SO WHICH WHEN I HEAR THE
OPPONENTS TO THIS IDEA OF
LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD
SAYING, OH, MY GOSH THE SENATE
WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO COOL THE
SAUCER WHATEVER THAT GEORGE
WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON
WAS, COOL THE HOT TEA OF THE
SAUCER, HOWEVER HE SAID THAT,
AND SAY THIS IS A TRADE WAR,
THAT OUR DOING THIS, OUR SAYING
SIMPLY LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD
AS A TRADE WAR IS JUST
UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT.
THE CHINESE UNDERSTAND WHAT A
TRADE WAR IS ABOUT.
LET ME GIVE YOU ONE STORY REAL
QUICK, ONE EXAMPLE.
I WAS TALKING TO A GENTLEMAN WHO
WORKS FOR PAPER COMPANIES IN THE
UNITED STATES, INCLUDING PAPER
COMPANIES, WE HAVE A LOT OF --
STILL HAVE SOME PAPER
MANUFACTURERS IN OHIO.
IN CHILLICOTHE AND WEST CARROLL
AND DAYTON AREA AND BUTLER
COUNTY NEAR CINCINNATI AND OTHER
PLACES AROUND THE STATE.
HE SAID THE CHINESE WHICH DIDN'T
EVEN HAVE A COATED PAPER
INDUSTRY 15 YEARS AGO, THE KIND
OF PAPER, THE GLOSSY MAGAZINE
TYPE PAPER, THAT THE CHINESE
STARTED THIS INDUSTRY 15 YEARS
BUY THEIR WOOD PULP
IN BRAZIL, THEY SHIP IT TO
CHINA, THEY MILL IT IN CHINA,
AND PAPER IS EXPENSIVE TO
TRANSPORT, IT'S HEAVY FOR
COST, FOR THE COST OF IT AND
IT'S BULKY FOR THE COST OF IT.
THEY TAKE THE WOOD PULP FROM
BRAZIL, THEY SHIP IT TO CHINA,
MILL IT IN CHINA, SELL IT BACK
HERE, THE LABOR COST OF MAKING
PAPER IS ONLY 10% OF THE COST,
YET THEY CAN UNDERCUT PRICES
HERE.
WHY IS THAT?
WELL, THEY -- WE ASSUME THEY
SUBSIDIZE WATER AND CAPITAL AND
LAND AND ENERGY.
WE ALSO KNOW THEY GET A 25%
ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY BECAUSE OF
CURRENCY BECAUSE THE CHINESE
GAME THE CURRENCY SYSTEM.
THEY DEVALUE THEIR CURRENCY,
THEY UNDERAPPRECIATE IT IF YOU
WILL, THEIR CURRENCY, MEANING
THEY IN A SENSE GET A BONUS.
WHEN THEY SELL ANYTHING TO THE
UNITED STATES, ANYTHING, THEY
GET A 25% DISCOUNT.
SO THEY CAN UNDERCUT AMERICAN
MANUFACTURERS THAT COULD BE EVEN
MORE EFFICIENT THAN THEY ARE.
OR IF THE UNITED STATES SELLS
INTO CHINA THEY GET A 25% --
WE -- OUR SELLERS, OUR
PRODUCERS GET A 25% PENALTY.
BUT LOOK AT THE JOB LOSS,
MR. PRESIDENT.
THIS IS THE WHOLE STORY.
THIS REALLY IS THE WHOLE STORY.
AND WHEN I HEAR MY COLLEAGUES
SAY THE TEN COSPOSHES, WE HAVE
FIVE DEMOCRATS, SENATOR SCHUMER
AND I, SENATOR HAGAN, SENATOR
STAB KNOW AND CASEY, SENATORS
SNOWE AND COLLINS OF MAINE,
SESSIONS ALABAMA, BURR OF NORTH
CAROLINA, GRAHAM FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.
THIS IS A BIPARTISAN EFFORT THAT
GOT 79 VOTES OUT OF 98
YESTERDAY.
WHEN I HEAR THEM SAY THE OTHER
SIDE SAY WE'RE STARTING A TRADE
WAR, LOOK AT THIS.
CALIFORNIA IN THE LAST TEN YEARS
SINCE PNTR, WE SET UP THIS
RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA AND
ALLOWED CHINA INTO THE WORLD
TRADE ORGANIZATION, LOOK AT THE
JOB LOSS.
CALIFO CALIFORNIA
LOST ALMOST A HALF A MILLION
JOBS.
MOST OF THESE ARE MANUFACTURING.
TEXAS LOST 232,000.
MY STATE LOST 103,000 JOBS.
THESE ARE 103,000 PEOPLE,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT SAW THEIR
PLANT CLOSED.
WE HAVE LOST 50,000
MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THIS
COUNTRY IN THE LAST DECADE OR
SO.
THESE ARE 103,596 PEOPLE THAT
ARE PEOPLE.
THEY LOSE THEIR JOB AT $16 AN
HOUR IN MANUFACTURING, THEY
OFTEN LOSE THEIR HEALTH
INSURANCE, THEY OFTEN LOSE THEIR
HOME.
IMAGINE, IT'S EASY FOR US TO
TALK NUMBERS AND EASY FOR US
DRESSED LIKE THIS AND GETTING
PAID WELL-TO-DO THESE JOBS.
IT'S -- PAID WELL TO DO THESE
JOBS.
IMAGINE -- IMAGINE,
MR. PRESIDENT, IF YOU -- IF --
YOU KNOW, JUST IMAGINE A FAMILY
IN RICHMOND OR A FAMILY IN
COLUMBUS WHERE THEY LOST THEIR
JOB AND THEN THEY LOST THEIR
HEALTH CARE, THEN THEY LOST
THEIR HOME.
THEY HAVE TO GO TO THEIR
12-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER AND SAY
HONEY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
MOVE, WE'RE LOSING OUR HOUSE, WE
CAN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE.
THESE ARE TERRIBLE HUMAN
PROBLEMS.
AND TO DISMISS OUR EFFORTS TO
TRY TO COME TO AN EVEN, LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD SO WE CAN COMPETE
IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO, NOT
CALLING NAMES OF TRADE WAR AND
PROTECTIONISM AND CLASS WARFARE
AND ALL THAT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'LL CONCLUDE MY
REMARKS, THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE
IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS DEBATE ON
THESE ISSUES.
I WOULD SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
--
CALL:
THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE CALL OF THE QUORUM
BE TERMINATED.
UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, ALL POSTCLOTURE
TIME IS YIELDED BACK.
THE MOTION TO PROCEED IS AGREED
BILL.
TO AND THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE
CALENDAR NUMBER 183,
S. 1619, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR
IDENTIFICATION, MISALIGNED
CURRENCY, TO CORRECT THE
MISALIGNMENT, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
THE BILL HAVING BEEN
REPORTED, MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE
AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE SENATOR FROM
NEVADA, MR. REID, PROPOSES AN
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 694.
I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND
NAYS ON THAT AMENDMENT.
IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
I HAVE A SECOND-DEGREE
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE SENATOR FROM
NEVADA, MR. REID, PROPOSES
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 695 TO
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 694.
I HAVE A MOTION TO
COMMIT THE BILL WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
THAT'S ALSO AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE SENATOR FROM
NEVADA, MR. REID, MOVES TO
COMMIT THE BILL S. 1619 TO THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE WITH
INTRUCKSES TO -- WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO REPORT BACK WITH
THE AMENDMENT NUMBERED 696.
I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND
NAYS ON THAT AMENDMENT.
IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE INSTRUCTIONS.
THE CLERK
INSTRUCTIONS.
WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT TO THE
THE SENATOR FROM
NEVADA, MR. REID, PROPOSES
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 697 TO THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AMENDMENT
COMMIT.
NUMBERED 696 TO THE MOTION TO
I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND
NAYS ON THAT.
IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED.
I HAVE A SECOND-DEGREE
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK
AMENDMENT.
WILL REPORT THE SECOND-DEGREE
THE SENATOR FROM
NEVADA, MR. REID, PROPOSES
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 698 TO
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 697.
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE
OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE QUORUM CALL BE
TERMINATED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.
MR. PRESIDENT,
FOR THREE WEEKS PRESIDENT OBAMA
NOT HAS BEEN TRAVELING AROUND
THE COUNTRY CALLING ON CONGRESS
TO PASS WHAT HE CALLS HIS JOBS
BILL RIGHT AWAY.
HERE'S WHAT HE'LL SAY IN TEXAS
TODAY IF HE'S NOT SAID IT
ALREADY: AT LEAST PUT THIS JOBS
BILL UP FOR A VOTE SO THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY KNOWS EXACTLY WHERE
EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS STANDS.
WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, I AGREE
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK HE'S ENTITLED TO A VOTE
ON HIS JOBS BILL.
THE SUGGESTION THAT SENATE
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT INTERESTED
IN VOTING ON HIS JOBS BILL IS
NOT TRUE.
I THINK HE'S ENTITLED TO A VOTE.
IT WON'T SURPRISE ANYONE TO KNOW
I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD
APPROACH, A WAY THAT'S LIKELY
TO CREATE JOBS, BUT HE'S ASKED
FOR A VOTE.
AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO
ACCOMMODATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ON A MATTER THAT
HE HAS BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT
FREQUENTLY OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS AND GIVE HIM HIS VOTE.
IN FACT, THEY'VE BEEN CALLING
FOR THIS VOTE WITH GREAT
REPETITION.
IT ON
OCTOBER 3, DAVID PLUF, THE
SENIOR -- DAVID PLOUFF SAID THE
SAME THING SEPTEMBER 27.
DAVID AXLEROD, HIS TOP
STRATEGIST CALLED FOR US TO HAVE
THIS VOTE ON SEPTEMBER 13.
AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, LET
ME COUNT THE NUMBER OF TIMES,
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR,
FIVE, SIX, SECRETARY OF,
EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12
TIMES THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS HAS CALLED ON US TO HAVE
THIS VOTE AS HE PUT IT, I WANT
CONGRESS TO PASS THIS JOBS BILL
RIGHT AWAY.
WELL, I HOPE THAT IT WILL NOT
PASS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S
THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THE
COUNTRY TO TAKE TO BEGIN TO DEAL
WITH THE JOBLESSNESS ISSUE BUT I
DO THINK THE PRESIDENT MAKES AN
IMPORTANT POINT THAT HE IS
ENTITLED TO A VOTE.
SO IF I WERE TO BE GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY BY MY GOOD FRIEND,
THE MAJORITY LEADER, BY OFFER
THE PRESIDENT'S JOBS BILL,
WHICH WE THINK WOULD BE MORE
ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS STIMULUS
2, SORT OF A REDUX OF THE
APPROACH AND THE BILL THAT WE
APPROVED BACK IN 2009 AFTER
WHICH WE'VE LOST 1.7 MILLION
JOBS.
SO THEREFORE, I WOULD ASK
CONSENT TO SET ASIDE THE PENDING
MOTION AND AMENDMENTS IN ORDER
TO OFFER THE AMENDMENT WHICH I
HAVE JUST DESCRIBED AND HOLD IN
MY HAND AT THIS MOMENT.
THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO
OBJECT.
I'M NOT GOING TO DO A LONG
DISSERTATION ON STIMULUS 1, THE
JOBS BILL, THAT WE DID, TO IN
EFFECT DO SO MUCH GOOD FOR OUR
COUNTRY.
I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE OTHER 49
STATES BUT I CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT
THE RECOVERY ACT DID FOR THE
STATE OF NEVADA.
IT BASICALLY SAVED THE STATE OF
BANKRUPTCY.
NEVADA FROM GOING INTO
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
TO HELP STATE GOVERNMENT STOP
MASSIVE LAYOFFS OF TEACHERS AND
CREATE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS
IN AREAS LIKE RENEWABLE ENERGY.
THAT'S ENOUGH ON THE AMERICAN
RECOVERY ACT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT FOR NEVADA.
OTHER SENATORS CAN COME AND TALK
ABOUT WHAT THEIR OWN STATES,
HOW IT BENEFITED.
MR. PRESIDENT, RIGHT AWAY IS A
RELATIVE TERM.
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CALLING
FOR A VOTE ON HIS JOBS BILL AND
RIGHTFULLY SO.
WHY DID HE START CALLING FOR A
VOTE NOT HIS JOBS BILL?
BECAUSE THERE WAS, AGAIN, ONE
OF THE LONG OBSTRUCTIONS THAT
TOOK PLACE IN THE SENATE AND IN
FAIRLY SIMPLE.
THE HOUSE ON AN ISSUE THAT WAS
WHAT WAS THAT?
FUNDING THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
THESE DEVASTATING FLOODS,
TORNADOES, HURRICANES AND FIRES
HAD CREATED A SITUATION WHERE
FEMA WAS ABOUT TO GO BROKE.
YOU WOULD THINK WE COULD MOVE ON
AND QUICKLY PASS THAT BUT NO,
WE COULDN'T.
BECAUSE SOMETHING WE AGREED ON
IN LATE JULY THAT WE WOULD FUND
THE GOVERNMENT THE REST OF THE
YEAR WAS AGAIN BROUGHT TO THE
FOREFRONT AND BECAUSE THE
REPUBLICANS WERE THREATENING TO
CLOSE DOWN THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN.
SO OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT WAS
CALLING FOR HIS JOBS BILL,
RECOGNIZING THAT WHAT WAS GOING
ON HERE IN THE SENATE AND IN THE
HOUSE WAS A WASTE OF TIME.
THAT IS, WHY WERE WE SPENDING
TIME UNNECESSARILY ON FUNDING
ONE OF THE ESSENTIALS OF
GOVERNMENT, THAT IS TAKING CARE
OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
DEVASTATED BY THESE TERRIBLE
STORMS AND OTHER CALAMITIES.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE MOVED
VERY QUICKLY AFTER WE GOT
THROUGH THAT SLOG CAUSED BY THE
REPUBLICANS TO GET FEMA FUNDED,
AND TO GET THE C.R. EXTENDED FOR
SIX WEEKS.
WE'RE NOW ON SOMETHING THAT IS
CURRENCY.
LONG, LONG OVERDUE, CHINA
CHINA HAS BEEN MANIPULATING
THEIR CURRENCY FOR A LONG TIME.
THE LAST TEN YEARS WE'VE LOST
TWO MILLION JOBS BECAUSE OF
THIS.
IF THERE WERE EVER A JOBS BILL,
IT'S THIS THAT WE'RE DOING ON
THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.
NOW, I SPONSORED THE
PRESIDENT'S BILL.
I'M THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT TO
THE FLOOR.
I HAVE ANNOUNCED IN A NUMBER OF
SPEECHES I'VE GIVEN OUT HERE
THAT I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD
MOVE TO THIS JOBS BILL.
I'M SORRY, I WAS HANDED
SOMETHING THAT THREW MY THOUGHT
PROCESS OFF A LITTLE BIT HERE.
AWAY.
SO WE NEED TO MOVE TO THIS RIGHT
THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
BUT TO TACK THIS ONTO THE CHINA
CURRENCY MANIPULATION
A POLITICAL STUNT.
LEGISLATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN
WE ALL KNOW THAT.
IF WE DON'T, WE SHOULD KNOW,
I'M TELLING EVERYONE.
I'VE SAID THAT I'LL BRING THE
AMERICAN JOBS ACT TO THE FLOOR
THIS BOARKD, THIS WORK PERIOD.
WE HAVE TWO MORE WEEKS LEFT IN
THIS WORK PERIOD.
SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THIS:
OBVIOUSLY THE REPUBLICAN
LEADER, MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR
FROM KENTUCKY, WANTS TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THE JOBS BILL.
I'M GLAD THAT HE DOES.
FORWARD.
HE WANTS US TO MOVE THIS
SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO
MODIFY MY FRIEND'S UNANIMOUS
CONSENT REQUEST AND SUGGEST THAT
WE HAVE THE PERMISSION, FOR
LACK OF A BETTER WORD, OF THE
REPUBLICANS HERE IN THE SENATE
TO IMMEDIATELY MOVE -- THE
MOTION TO PROCEED WOULD BE
UNNECESSARY, WE COULD MOVE TO
THAT AS SOON AS WE FINISHED,
YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES, EITHER AS
WE FINISHED THE CHINA
CURRENCY LEGISLATION OR WE
FINISH THE TRADE LEGISLATION
SENATOR McCONNELL AND I HAVE
TALKED ABOUT FINISHING THAT NEXT
WEEK.
SO I WOULD MOVE TO MODIFY HIS
CONSENT AGREEMENT, MY FRIEND,
THE REPUBLICAN LEADER'S CONSENT
AGREEMENT, THAT WE MOVE
IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEGISLATION
I'VE INTRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE
PRESIDENT, EITHER AFTER WE
FINISH THE CHINA CURRENCY
LEGISLATION OR AFTER THE TRADE
BILL, WHATEVER MY FRIEND WOULD
RATHER DO.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE
PENDING REQUEST IS A REQUEST
FROM THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.
WHICH IS -- I'VE
ASKED THAT IT BE MODIFIED.
DOES THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER SO MODIFY
HIS --
MR. PRESIDENT,
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.
I LISTENED CAREFULLY TO WHAT MY
GOOD FRIEND THE MAJORITY LEADER
HAD TO SAY AND HE WAS TALKING
ABOUT OTHER MATTERS DEBATED AT
THE FIRST STIMULUS
BILL WHICH WE'VE I THINK
PROBABLY HAVE A BASIC
DISAGREEMENT ON, I THINK IT WAS
ALMOST TOTAL FAILURE, HE ALSO
TALKED ABOUT THE DEBATE WE HAD
WITH REGARD TO THE CONTINUING
RESOLUTION WHICH WAS FINALLY
WORKED OUT ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS
BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT
OCCURRED IN THE PAST.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY
BISUGGESTING THAT WE VOTE ON THE
PRESIDENT'S JOBS BILL BUT MY
GOOD FRIEND THE MAJORITY LEADER
HAS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED AND I
GATHER BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION
SUPPORTS, THAT WE HONOR THE
REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO VOTE ON IT NOW.
HE HAS BEEN ASKING US REPEATEDLY
OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS TO VOTE
ON IT NOW.
NOW, IF MY FRIEND THE MAJORITY
LEADER IS SAYING HE DOESN'T WANT
TO HONOR THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
AND VOTE ON IT NOW, BUT WOULD
LIKE TO CONSIDER VOTING ON IT
LATER, THAT'S SOMETHING HE AND
I CAN DISCUSS AS WE DECIDE HOW
BUSINESS.
FORWARD WITH SENATE
BUT I THINK THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, HIS POLICIES I
GENERALLY SPEAKING DO NOT
SUPPORT ALTHOUGH I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT HIS INITIATIVES ON
TRADE, BE IT EVER SO LATE, IS
ENTITLED TO KNOW WHERE THE
SENATE STANDS ON HIS PROPOSAL
THAT HE'S BEEN OUT TALKING ABOUT
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE
LAST FEW WEEKS, SUGGESTING THAT
WE ARE UNWILLING TO VOTE ON IT.
AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WE
DON'T AGREE THAT ITIES RIGHT
POLICY, BUT WE'RE -- IT'S THE
RIGHT POLICY, BUT WE'RE MORE
THAN WILLING TO VOTE ON IT.
WHAT I HEAR THE MAJORITY LEADER
SAYING, EVEN THOUGH HE SUPPORTS
IT, HE WANT TO VOTE ON IT SOME
OTHER TIME.
THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING HE
DOESN'T WANT TO US VOTE ON IT
SOME OTHER TIME, HE WANTS TO US
VOTE ON IT NOW.
I'D BE HAPPY IF MY FRIEND IS
SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE
ON IT NOW I'D BE HAPPY TO REACH
AN UNDERSTANDING TO VOTE ON IT
LATER, BUT MY FEELING HERE IS
THAT THE LEAST WE CAN DO FOR THE
PRESIDENT IS GIVE HIM A CHANCE
TO HAVE A VOTE ON HIS PROPOSAL
NOW AS HE HAS REQUESTED ON
NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
SO I WILL OBJECT TO THE
MODIFICATION, UNDERSTANDING
FULL WELL THE MAJORITY LEADER
AND I OFF THE FLOOR WILL HAVE
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHEN
WE MIGHT MOVE TO THE PRESIDENT'S
BILL AND GIVE HIM THE VOTE THAT
HE'S BEEN REQUESTING.
MR. PRESIDENT,
FURTHER RESERVING MY RIGHT TO
OBJECT.
14 MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE OUT OF WORK.
WHAT A CHARADE WE HAVE GOING ON
HERE.
WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF SOME OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGISLATION
WE'VE DONE THIS ENTIRE YEAR.
CHINA CURRENCY MANIPULATION.
AND WE NOW HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT
IS RIDICULOUS ON ITS FACE.
THAT IS, WE VOTE WITH NO DEBATE
ON THE PRESIDENT'S JOBS BILL.
THIS IS SENSELESS, IT'S UNFAIR
TO BRING THIS UP IN THIS FORM,
AND WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THIS
AND WE'RE GOING TO DO IT EITHER
AS SOON AS WE FINISH THIS CHINA
CURRENCY OR AFTER WE FINISH THE
TRADE BILLS, WHATEVER I CAN
WORK OUT WITH MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES SO THAT I CAN MOVE TO
IT.
IT TAKES 60 VOTES TO GET TO THIS
LEGISLATION, 60 VOTES TO GET TO
IT.
AND SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE I'M
SURE CAN SEE THROUGH THIS VERY
CLEARLY THAT THIS IS NOTHING
MORE THAN A POLITICAL STUNT.
IT'S CLEAR THAT WE NEED A FULL
DEBATE ON THIS.
WE DON'T NEED A FILIBUSTER, AND
THAT TIME WILL COME VERY, VERY
SOON.
SO I OBJECT.
THE
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER.
MR. PRESIDENT,
IF I MAY ELABORATE FURTHER.
WE'VE HAD A REQUEST FROM THE
PRESIDENT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS
TO VOTE ON WHAT HE CALLS HIS
JOBS BILL, AND TO VOTE ON IT
NOW.
I JUST TO COUNT UP AGAIN, ONE,
THREE, FOUR, FIVE,
SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE,
TEN, 11, 12 TIMES THE
PRESIDENT HAS ASKED US OVER THE
LAST FEW WEEKS TO VOTE ON WHAT
HE CALLS HIS JOBS BILL NOW.
I DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT IS
SAYING HERE HE WANTS AN
EXTENSIVE DEBATE ABOUT IT.
I THINK HE'S SAYING HE WANTS A
VOTE ON IT.
AND I WANTED TO DISABUSE HIM OF
THE NOTION THAT SOMEHOW WE'RE
PROPOSAL.
UNWILLING TO VOTE ON HIS
WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO VOTE
ON IT.
I UNDERSTAND WHY MY FRIEND THE
MAJORITY LEADER MAY HAVE SOME
RESERVATIONS ABOUT GOING FORWARD
ON THIS.
I'VE READ A NUMBER OF CRITIQUES
OF THIS LEGISLATION BY
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS, ONE PART
OF IT OR ANOTHER.
BUT LOOK, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THE
PRESIDENT'S JOBS PROPOSAL,
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO IT, I
THINK HE'S ENTITLED TO A VOTE.
AND SO I'M SORRY THAT IT APPEARS
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE
THIS VOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
REPETITIOUSLY ASKED FOR OVER THE
LAST FEW WEEKS.
I'D LIKE TO GIVE HIM THAT VOTE.
AND WE'LL BE TALKING TO THE
MAJORITY LEADER ABOUT WHEN WE
MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
VOTE ON HIS PROPOSAL, THE
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL, WHICH THE
MAJORITY LEADER INTRODUCED,
WHICH HE HAS BEEN REQUESTING US
TO VOTE ON.
THE
LEADER.
THE PRESIDENT
INTRODUCED HIS JOBS BILL.
IMMEDIATELY THE REPUBLICANS
CONTINUE THEIR OBSTRUCTION ON
ISSUES VERY SIMPLE, BUT MAINTAIN
THE FLOOR.
THERE ARE THINGS GOING ON HERE,
YOU JUST CAN'T AUTOMATICALLY
MOVE TO THINGS.
WE KNOW THE SENATE PROCEDURE.
IT TAKES 60 VOTES TO GET ON A
PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
THE PRESIDENT WAS CALLING UPON
CONGRESS, AND ESPECIALLY THE
REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS, TO
ALLOW HIS JOBS BILL TO MOVE
FORWARD.
AS I INDICATED, WE WERE HUNG UP
HERE ON ISSUES THAT HAD VERY
LITTLE TO DO WITH THE JOBS BILL.
DOING IT.
IN FACT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
ALL THE TIME, I REPEAT, HUNG UP
ON FEMA FUNDING, ON THE
CONTINUING RESOLUTION, WHICH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED
QUICKLY, BECAUSE WE ALREADY
AGREED TO THAT LAST JULY, BUT
THEY RENEGED ON THAT EVEN.
AND THREATENED SHUTTING DOWN THE
GOVERNMENT UNLESS FEMA WAS PAID
FOR THE WAY THEY WANTED IT.
AND WE WERE ABLE ULTIMATELY TO
WIN THAT DEBATE, BUT IT TOOK A
LONG TIME.
SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE
WANTS TO NOTIFY HIS LEGISLATION
RIGHT AWAY, HE WAS ABSOLUTELY
CANDID AND FORTHRIGHT.
YES, HE DID WANT IT -- HE WANT
TO CLEAR THE UNIMPORTANT THINGS
ON THE FLOOR, THE STALLING
TACTICS ON THE FLOOR AND MOVE TO
HIS BILL.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
WHAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO,
MR. PRESIDENT, IF MY FRIEND
WOULD BE AGREEABLE, WOULD THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER AGREE TO A
VOTE ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED TO
THE JOBS BILL?
WE COULD DO THAT.
WE COULD INTERRUPT THIS
LEGISLATION RIGHT HERE.
BILLS.
WE COULD INTERRUPT THE TRADE
WE COULD VOTE ON A MOTION TO
BILL.
IS MY FRIEND
PROPOUNDING A CONSENT AGREEMENT
OR SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION?
WELL, IF YOU'RE
INTERESTED, I COULD PUT IT IN
PROPER FORM, BUT YOU GET THE
POINT.
THE BILL IS ON THE FLOOR, TO GET
IT ON THE FLOOR, I NEED 60
VOTES.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO, IF THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER WOULD AGREE TO
A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED
TO THE JOBS BILL.
MR. PRESIDENT,
LET ME JUST SAY TO MY GOOD
FRIEND, I'M PREPARED TO VOTE ON
THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL TODAY.
IF THE MAJORITY LEADER WANTS TO
VOTE ON IT SOME OTHER DAY, WE
CAN TALK ABOUT THAT, ABOUT HOW
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.
BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN
REPEATEDLY ASKING US TO TAKE IT
UP AND VOTE ON IT NOW.
AND I'M PREPARED TO DO THAT.
WITH REGARD TO TAKING IT UP SOME
OTHER TIME AND VOTING ON IT SOME
OTHER DAY, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO
THAT OFF THE FLOOR,
AS WE DO FREQUENTLY ON EVERY
ISSUE THAT WE DEAL WITH.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M
SURE THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE
FUTURE, RIGHT AWAY, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WILL SEE ONCE AGAIN THE
REPUBLICANS ARE FILIBUSTERING
THINGS THEY SHOULDN'T BE
FILIBUSTERING, THIS TIME A JOBS
BILL.
I WOULD JUST
ADD IN CLOSE, MR. PRESIDENT, I
THINK MY GOOD FRIEND'S PROBLEM
HERE -- AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH
HIM -- IS THERE'S BIPARTISAN
OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT'S
PROPOSAL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR MY FRIEND
SAY THAT.
I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO A LONG
DISSERTATION ABOUT BIPARTISAN
OPPOSITION.
THERE'S 53 OF US.
A MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS WILL
SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S JOBS
THE MAJORITY
BILL.
LEADER JUST CONFIRMED WHAT I WAS
SAYING, WHICH IS THAT THERE IS
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THIS,
AND WE'LL DISCUSS AT WHAT POINT
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
COMFORTABLE WITH GOING FORWARD
THIS PROPOSAL.
MY ONLY REASON FOR OFFERING IT
TODAY WAS TO RESPOND TO THE
QUESTION -- TO THE PRESIDENT'S
REQUEST THAT WE VOTE ON IT, AND
WE'RE PREPARED TO DO THAT.
IF WE CAN'T DO IT TODAY, WE'LL
BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS, AS WE
ALWAYS DO, THE AGENDA OF THE
SENATE AND WHEN IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE TO VOTE ON IT SOME
OTHER TIME.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
KNOW THAT I ONLY HAVE IN MY HEAD
THE MATH I LEARNED FROM
MRS. PICKER, AT THE SEARCHLIGHT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
I KNOW WHEN I'VE TOLD EVERYBODY
HERE THAT WE'LL GET A MAJORITY
OF THE SENATE, THAT'S NOT REALLY
VERY BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL.
MR. PRESIDENT,
I CAN ONLY QUOTE MY GOOD FRIEND,
THE MAJORITY LEADER, WHO
REPEATEDLY HAS SAID, AND MOST
RECENTLY IN EARLY 2007, THAT IN
THE SENATE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE
CASE YOU NEED 60 VOTES.
THIS IS MY GOOD FRIEND, THE
MAJORITY LEADER, WHEN HE WAS THE
LEADER OF THE MAJORITY IN MARCH
OF 2007.
ANAND HE SAID IT BOTH WHEN HE WAS
THE LEADER OF THE MAJORITY OR
LEADER OF THE MINORITY THAT IT
REQUIRES 60 VOTES.
SO IT IS NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL THAT WE
RAISE TAXES, THAT WE SPEND A
HALF A TRILLION ON A SECOND
STIMULUS BILL WOULD HAVE TO
ACHIEVE 60 VOTES.
THAT'S THE WAY VIRTUALLY ALL
BUSINESS IS DONE IN THE SENATE,
CERTAINLY NOT EXTRAORDINARY OR
UNUSUAL.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WILL SEE VERY SOON THAT A
MAJORITY OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT'S
JOBS BIM BILL.
I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE VITIATED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK
FOR TEN MINUTES AND FOLLOWING MY
REMARKS THAT SENATOR BARRASSO BE
ALLOWED TO SPEAK.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK FOR A FEW MINUTES TODAY
ABOUT AN AMENDMENT THAT I
INTRODUCED THAT IN MY VIEW GETS
TO THE HEART OF SOME OF THE MORE
TROUBLING CHINESE TRADE POLICIES
THAT ARE THREATENING THE
ECONOMIC SECURITY AND THE
COUNTRY.
LONG-TERM COMPETITIVENESS OF OUR
IT'S WELL-KNOWN THAT MANY
FOREIGN COMPANIES, MANY AMERICAN
COMPANIES, OPERATING IN CHINA
ARE REQUIRED TO TRANSFER THEIR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY TO CHINA
AS PREREQUITS FOR --
PREREQUISITE FOR DOING BUSINESS
IN THAT COUNTRY.
DESPITE AINSURANCES FROM --
DESPITE ASSURANCES FROM CHINESE
LEADERSHIP EARLIER THIS YEAR
THAT THIS WAS NO LONGER -- QUOTE
-- "OFFICIAL CHINESE POLICY"
CHINA DOES CONTINUE TO BE
AGGRESSIVE IN ITS PURSUIT OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS IT
SEEKS TO DO ITS OWN INNOVATION.
COMPANIES REQUIRE THE TRANSFER
OF PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY IN
ORDER TO DO BUSINESS THERE.
IF A PRIVATE COMPANY HAS
DEVELOPED TECHNOLOGY ON ITS OWN
AND MAKE A BUSINESS DISOITION
TRANSFER THAT TECHNOLOGY TO A
JOINT VENTURE PARTNER IN A PLACE
LIKE CHINA, FLLS THERE ARE
NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES, WE ARE
OBLIGATED TO RESPECT THE FREE
MARKETPLACE.
THERE MAY BE -- THEY MAY BE
SEEKING SHORT-TERM PROFITS AT
THE EXPENSE OF LONG-TERM
BUSINESS DECISION.
COMPETITIVENESS, BUT THAT IS A
BUT IT IS A DIFFERENT CASE WHEN
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER HAS
FINANCED THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THESE TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH
FEDERAL FUNDING ASSISTANCE, AND
I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THOSE
TECHNOLOGIES SIMPLY TO BE GIVEN
AWAY TO OTHER COUNTRIES.
EVERY AMERICAN OWNS A PIECE OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THAT HAS
BEEN FINANCED THROUGH TAXPAYER
ASSISTANCE.
FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT GO TO WAR
AND R&D FUNDING, LOAN
GUARANTEES, PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP
THE NEXT GENERATION OF
TECHNOLOGIES HERE ARE SUPPOSED
BE MAKING AMERICAN BUSINESSES
COMPETITIVE AND GENERATE
AMERICAN JOBS, NOT TO HELP
DEVELOP OTHER INDUSTRIES SUCH AS
THOSE IN CHINA.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD PROHIBIT THAT
PRACTICE.
LAST YEAR THE UNITED STATES
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ISSUED A
REPORT ENTITLED "CHINA'S DRIVE
FOR INDIGENOUS INNOVATION."
THE CHAMBER NOTED THAT CHINA'S
MASTER PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IS --
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
QUOTE -- "CONSIDERED BY MANY
COMPANIES TO BE A BLUEPRINT FOR
TECHNOLOGY THEFT ON A SCALE THE
WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE" --
END QUOTE.
THE REPORT WINT TON SAY THAT
CHINA'S "PERSISTENT INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY THEFT IS COMPOUNDED BY
THE INDIGENOUS INNOVATION
POLICIES WHICH PROPEL TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFERS IN ORDER TO HAVE BEING
ACCESS TO CHINESE MARKETS."
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" RECENTLY
REPORTED THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY
IS LOOKING TO SHARE PROPRIETARY
TECHNOLOGIES FOR ELECTRICAL
VEHICLES IN EXCHANGE FOR SELLING
CARS IN CHINA.
THE ELECTRICAL -- THE ELECTRIC
VEHICLE SECTOR HAS BEEN
DEVELOPED THROUGH FEDERAL R&D
FUNDING, LOAN GUARANTEES AND
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS BY
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY RECEIVED ADS
5.9 BILLION LOAN GUARANTEE FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO
ADVANCE ITS VEHICLE TEGNOLOGY
MANUFACTURING PROGRAM IN 2009.
WE SEE THESE TYPES OF TRANSFERS
IN OTHER INDUSTRIES AS WELL.
"THE WASHINGTON POST" REPORTED
LAST MONTH THAT GENERAL ELECTRIC
HAS TRANSFERRED VALUABLE
AVIONICS TECHNOLOGY TO
STATE-OWNED AVIATION CORPORATION
OF CHINA.
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS LONG
SUPPORTED THE AVIATION INDUSTRY
PROJECTS.
THROUGH FEDERAL RESEARCH
THE FRUITS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER
SUPPORT MAY NOW BE INCORPORATED
INTO CHINESE COMMERCIAL
AIRLINERS IN LINE WITH CHINA'S
DESIRE TO DEVELOP AN
INTERNATIONALLY COMPETITIVE
AIRCRAFT DISLAI COULD RIVAL
AMERICAN-BASED BOEING.
WE SEE SIMILAR EXAMPLES OF
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE
NUCLEAR ENERGY SECTOR.
ACCORDING TO "THE FINANCIAL
TIMES," WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
HAS TRANSFERRED MORE THAN 75,000
DOCUMENTS TO CHINESE
COUNTERPARTS AS THE INITIAL
PHASE OF A TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM IN EXCHANGE FOR A SHARE
OF CHINA'S GROWING NUCLEAR
MARKET.
THEIS DOCUMENTS RELATE TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR THIRD-
THIRD-GENERATION A. PEE
REACTORRERS THAT WESTINGHOUSE IS
BUILDING IN CHINA.
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS SUPPORTED
DEVELOPMENT OF THE AP-100 AS
WELL AS ITS PREDECESSOR THROUGH
DECADES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
IN OTHER WORDS, OUR TAXPAYERS
PROVIDED YEARS OF GOVERNMENT
SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGN AND
LICENSINGINGS OF THIS REACTOR.
IN A LETTER TO
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS,
THE HEADS OF 19 AMERICAN
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATIONS WROTE -- QUOTE --
"OF SYSTEMIC EFFORTS BY CHINA TO
DEVELOP POLICIES THAT BUILD
THEIR DOMESTIC ENTERPRISES AT
THE EXPENSE OF U.S. FIRMS AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
SIGNATORIES TO THAT LETTER
INCLUDED THE BUSINESS ROUND
TABLE, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MANUFACTURERS, AND THE U.S.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE."
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT LETTER
TO THE RECORD AT THIS POINT WITH
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
SO I'M INTRODUCING AN AMENDMENT
TODAY, A VERY SIMPLE AMENDMENT.
IT'S INTENDED TO PROTECT
AMERICAN INNOVATION AND AMERICAN
JOBS, AND IT'S INTENDED TO MAKE
AMERICA MORE COMPETITIVE AND TO
CREATE JOBS HERE AT HOME.
IN CASES WHERE TECHNOLOGIES ARE
DEVELOPED WITH THE SUPPORT OF
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, MY
LEGISLATION PROHIBITS COMPANIES
FROM TRANSFERRING THE TECHNOLOGY
BY LAW,
PRACTICE, OR POLICY REQUIRE
PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS
AS A MAST DOING BUSINESS.
-- AS A MATTER OF DOING
BUSINESS.
SPECIFICALLY, IT SAYS, A COUNTRY
WHICH BY LAW, PRACTICE, OR
POLICY IS REQUIRED TO TRANSFER
PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY OR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS A
CONDITION OF DOING BUSINESS IN A
N. THAT COUNTRY WILL NOT BE THE
RECIPIENT OF ANY OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT WERE DEVELOPED
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYER."
QUITE SIMPLY, IF TAXPAYERS
SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES, THEY OWN A PIECE
OF IT AND IT CAN'T JUST BE GIVEN
A WAY.
THE TRANSFER OF PUBLICLY
SUPPORTED PROPRIETARY
TECHNOLOGIES BY AMERICAN FIRMS
TO CHINA AND POTENTIALLY OTHER
COUNTRIES CLEARLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY PLACES THE
EXPETTIVE ADVANTAGE OF THE
AMERICAN -- COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE OF THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY AT RISK.
OUR TRADE LAWS ARE DESIGNED IN
ORDER TO PROTECT NATIONAL
SECURITY, BUT OUR ECONOMIC
SECURITY IS ALSO AN ELEMENT OF
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE
CIVILIAN SECTOR SHOULD ALSO BE
PROTECTED.
MY AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DO THAT,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I BELIEVE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
EVERY SENATOR CAN SUPPORT. I THANK THE CHAIR,
AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM WYOMING.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I COME TO THE
FLOOR TODAY AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY
SINCE THE HEALTH CARE BILL WAS
SIGNED INTO LAW, TO OFFER A
DOCTOR'S SECOND OPINION ABOUT
ISSUES RELATED TO THAT HEALTH
CARE LAW.
MR. PRESIDENT, A GROUP OF HOUSE
AND SENATE REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS,
INCLUDING SENATOR THUNE OF SOUTH
DAKOTA, RELEASED A STARTLING NEW
REPORT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
HEALTH CARE LAW.
THE REPORT IS ENTITLED "CLASSES:
UNTOLD STORY.
TAXPAYERS, EMPLOYERS AND STATES
ON THE HOOK FOR FLAWED
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM."
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT,
MR. PRESIDENT, TO HAVE THIS
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE RECORD.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
MANY MAY REMEMBER THAT PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE LAW
ESTABLISHED A BRAND-NEW FEDERAL
LONG-TERM CARE ENTITLEMENT
PROGRAM.
IT'S CALLED THE CLASS PROGRAM, A
COMMUNITY LIVING ASSISTANCE
SERVICES AND SUPPORTS.
WELL, THIS "CLASS" PROGRAM PAYS
A STIPEND TO INDIVIDUALS
ENROLLED WHEN THEY'RE
UNTAOEUBL -- UNABLE TO PERFORM
DAILY LIVING ACTIVITIES.
TO QUALIFY FOR THE BENEFITS, AN
INDIVIDUAL ABOVE TO PAY A
MONTHLY PREMIUM FOR FIVE YEARS,
PAY A MONTHLY PREMIUM FOR FIVE
YEARS BEFORE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT STARTS TO PAY OUT ANY
OF THE BENEFITS.
THE HEALTH CARE LAW MANDATES
THAT THE "CLASS" PROGRAM
COLLECTS INDIVIDUAL PREMIUMS FOR
THOSE FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE
PROGRAM ACTUALLY EVEN STARTS TO
PAY OUT BENEFITS.
WELL, SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD, BUT
NOT SO FAST.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE HEALTH CARE
LAW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
THAT IF IT
SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT
PROBABLY IS.
THE "CLASS" PROGRAM WAS SUPPOSED
TO START JANUARY 1 OF 2011, TEN
MONTHS AGO.
BUT THE OBAMA'S OFFICIALS
DECIDE -- THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION'S OFFICIALS
DECIDED TO DELAY THE PROGRAM
BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT DOESN'T
WORK.
IT'S NOW KNOWN THAT THE "CLASS"
PROGRAM WAS AN INTENTIONALLY
DESIGNED BUDGET GIMMICK.
THAT IS CORRECT.
AN INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED BUDGET
GIMMICK.
DURING SENATE FLOOR DEBATE OF
THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE
BILL, I ALONG WITH MANY OTHER
MEMBERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE
AISLE WARNED REPEATEDLY,
REPEATEDLY THAT THE "CLASS"
PROGRAM IS A FINANCIAL DISASTER
WAITING TO HAPPEN.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
ESTIMATED THAT THE "CLASS"
PROGRAM WOULD REDUCE THE DEFICIT
BY $70 BILLION OVER A TEN-YEAR
PERIOD.
WELL, THESE SAVINGS ARE MYTHICAL
AND THEY COME FROM THE PREMIUM
DOLLARS THAT "CLASS" COLLECTS
THOSE FIRST FIVE YEARS BEFORE IT
PAYS OUT A SINGLE PENNY.
DURING THOSE FIRST FIVE YEARS
THE PROGRAM IS NOT REQUIRED TO
INDIVIDUALS.
PAY OUT ANY BENEFITS TO ANY
OVER ITS FIRST TEN YEARS THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SAYS
THIS "CLASS" PROGRAM WILL
COLLECT $83 BILLION IN PREMIUMS
AND ONLY PAY OUT $13 BILLION IN
BENEFITS.
BUT INSTEAD OF HOLDING ON TO THE
$70 BILLION IN EXCESS PREMIUMS
COLLECTED TO PAY FOR FUTURE
EXPENSES WE KNOW ARE COMING,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, MEMBERS
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
USED THOSE SAME FUNDS TO PAY FOR
THE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH
CARE LAW.
AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY,
WASHINGTON DEMOCRATS THEN TRIED
TO CLAIM THAT THE $70 BILLION
COULD ALSO BE TAOUFD PAY DOWN ON
THE -- COULD BE USED TO PAY DOWN
ON THE DEFICIT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY
SAW THIS CLAIM WAS
IRRESPONSIBLE.
EVEN THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN, SENATOR KENT CONRAD
FROM NORTH DAKOTA, ADMITTED THAT
THE "CLASS" PROGRAM WAS -- QUOTE
-- "A PONZI SCHEME OF THE FIRST
ORDER."
SOMETHING HE SAID BERNIE MADOFF
WOULD BE PROUD OF.
YET THE PRESIDENT AND WASHINGTON
DEMOCRATS PUSHED TO INCLUDE THIS
"CLASS" PROGRAM IN THE HEALTH
CARE LAW.
THIS NEW REPORT PROVIDES
UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE THAT
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS KNEW
THE "CLASS" PROGRAM'S DESIGN AND
PAYMENT STRUCTURE WERE FISCALLY
UNSUSTAINABLE.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION KNEW IT
AND YET THEY REPEATEDLY IGNORED
THE EXPLICIT AND PERSISTENT
WARNINGS.
THAT?
YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF WHY IS
THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION IS
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION
OFFICIALS CHOSE TO HIDE THE
"CLASS" PROGRAM'S TRUE COST FROM
CONGRESSIONAL LAWMAKERS AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
ALL TO ADVANCE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
IDEOLOGICAL HEALTH CARE AGENDA.
THIS PUSH TO ADVANCE AN AGENDA
RATHER THAN REASONABLE
PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE
REFORMS SERVED ONLY TO CREATE
YET ANOTHER UNSUSTAINABLE
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.
AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM THAT THIS
COUNTRY SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S
CHIEF -- OWN CHIEF ACTUARY, A
MAN NAMED RICHARD FOSTER, HE
REPEATEDLY TRIED TO TELL THE
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS THAT
THE "CLASS" PROGRAM WAS NOT
FISCALLY SOUND.
INTERNAL E-MAILS FROM MR. FOSTER
FIRST WARNED ADMINISTRATION
OFFICIALS IN MAY OF 2009, WELL
BEFORE THE HEALTH CARE LAW WAS
ENACTED.
ACCORDING TO THAT REPORT, THIS
IS WHAT MR. FOSTER'S E-MAIL
SAYS.
HE SAYS THE PROGRAM IS INTENDED
TO BE ACTUARIALLY SOUND BUT AT
FIRST GLANCE THIS GOAL MAY BE
IMPOSSIBLE.
HE SAID DUE TO THE LIMITED SCOPE
COVERAGE, THE
VOLUNTARY "CLASS" PRA PL PLAN
WOULD PROBABLY NOT ATTRACT MANY
PARTICIPANTS OTHER THAN
INDIVIDUALS WHO ALREADY MEET THE
BENEFICIARIES.
CRITERIA TO QUALIFY AS
HE WENT ON TO SAY WHILE THE
FIVE-YEAR VESTING PERIOD WOULD
ALLOW THE FUND TO ACCUMULATE A
MODEST SUM OF ASSETS ALL SUCH
ASSETS SHOULD BE USED JUST TO
MEET BENEFIT PAYMENTS DUE IN THE
FIRST FEW MONTHS OF THE SIXTH
YEAR.
AND THEN A KEY SENTENCE: THE
RESULTING SUBSTANTIAL PREMIUM
INCREASES REQUIRED TO PREVENT
FUND EXHAUSTION WOULD LIKELY
PRODUCE THE NUMBER OF
PARTICIPANTS IN A CLASSIC
ASSESSMENT SPIRAL.
OR HE SAYS INSURANCE DEATH
SPIRAL WOULD ENSUE.
BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN IN PLAIN
ENGLISH?
IT MEANS THE "CLASS" PREMIUMS
WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE TO
PARTICIPATE.
PERSUADE HEALTHY PEOPLE TO
THE LONG-TERM CARE
PAYMENT IS -- PAYOUT IS ENTICING
TO PEOPLE WHO NEED THE CARE.
HEALTHY PEOPLE DON'T
PARTICIPATE.
SICK PAOERPL DO PARTICIPATE.
INDIVIDUALS IN THE HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM CALL THE PHENOMENAL
ADVERSE SELECTION.
WHEN ADVERSE SELECTION OCCURS,
THEN THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER IS AT
VERY SERIOUS RISK OF BEING
FORCED TO BAIL OUT THE PROGRAM
WHEN IT FAILS.
THE REPORT GOES ON TO SHOW THAT
MR. FOSTER REPEATED HIS CONCERNS
DURING THE SUMMER OF 2009.
HE WRITES TO ANOTHER
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL.
HE SAYS, I'M SORRY TO REPORT
THAT I REMAIN VERY DOUBTFUL THAT
THIS PROPOSAL IS SUSTAINABLE AT
THE SPECIFIED PREMIUM AND
BENEFIT AMOUNTS.
BUT, HE SAYS, 36 YEARS OF
ACTUARIAL EXPERIENCE LEAD ME TO
BELIEVE, HE SAID, THAT THIS
PROGRAM WOULD COLLAPSE IN SHORT
ORDER AND REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT
FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO CONTINUE.
WELL, LET ME REMIND EVERYONE
IS A
NONPARTISAN, HIGH-RANKING
OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
THE CHIEF ACTUARY'S ASSESSMENT
IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
TRUE IMPACT AND LONG-TERM
VIABILITY.
GRIND.
MR. FOSTER DOESN'T HAVE AN AX TO
HE SIMPLY OFFERED HIS ANALYSIS
BASED ON THE DATA AND THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION IGNORED IT.
NOT ONLY DID THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS IGNORE
MR. FOSTER, THEY STOPPED
REQUESTING HIS INPUT.
BUT MR. FOSTER WASN'T ALONE.
IN THE FALL OF 2009, THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND
EVALUATION ALSO RAISED THE RED
FLAG.
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, ONE
EMPLOYEE WROTE IN AN E-MAIL ON
OCTOBER 22 -- QUOTE -- "SEEMS
LIKE A RECIPE FOR DISASTER TO
ME."
HE SAID "I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT
"CLASS" WOULD NOT HAVE HIGH
LEVELS OF ADVERSE SELECTION
GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER
PREMIUMS COMPARED TO SIMILAR
POLICIES IN THE PRIVATE MARKET."
MR. PRESIDENT, JUST A WEEK AFTER
SENATOR THUNE RELEASED THIS
STUNNING NEW REPORT ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE, MEDIA OUT LETS
INDICATED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CLOSED
ITS "CLASS" PROGRAM.
MR. BOB YEE ANNOUNCED THE
CLOSURE IN AN E-MAIL.
HE WENT ON TO SAY HE WOULD LEAVE
HIS POSITION AT THE "CLASS"
OFFICE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
NEWS REPORTS INDICATED THAT THE
"CLASS" OFFICE'S EMPLOYEES HAVE
EITHER BEEN REASSIGNED OR ASKED
TO LEAVE.
MYSTERIOUSLY, HOWEVER, THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES ISSUED A STATEMENT
DENYING THAT THE OFFICE WAS
OFFICIALLY CLOSING.
IN FACT, THE STATEMENT FAILED TO
SAY IF AND WHEN THE "CLASS"
PROGRAM WOULD EVEN START.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS HAD
18 MONTHS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
IMPLEMENT THIS "CLASS" PROGRAM.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS SHOW THAT
THEY'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO
RESOLVING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PROGRAM'S SOLVENCY.
MORE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE THE
TRUTH.
THE EVIDENCE IS INDISPUTABLE.
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES KNEW THAT THE "CLASS"
PROGRAM WAS UNSUSTAINABLE, AND
THEY KNEW IT BEFORE PRESIDENT
OBAMA SIGNED THE HEALTH CARE
BILL INTO LAW.
THEY KNEW IT.
YET THIS SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
ADMINISTRATION FAILED IN THEIR
DUTY TO BE HONEST WITH THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO TELL THEM
THE TRUTH.
WERE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
DELIBERATELY HIDING "CLASS'"
TRUE COST FOR POLITICAL GAME?
WELL, THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE
FIRST TIME DURING THE LAST
SEVERAL WEEKS THAT WE HAVE SEEN
TROUBLING REPORTS EXPOSING THE
ADMINISTRATION'S TENDENCY TO
IGNORE FINANCIAL WARNINGS.
THEY IGNORE THE WARNINGS SO THAT
THEY CAN ADVANCE POLITICALLY
IMPORTANT PROJECTS TO THEM,
PROJECTS THAT TURN INTO
EXPENSIVE FAILURES WITH THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BEING STUCK
WITH THE BILL.
I SEE THIS REPORT, THIS
INCREDIBLE STUDY, THIS REPORT AS
YET ONE MORE PIECE OF EVIDENCE
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE
LAW MUST BE REPEALED.
IT MUST BE REPEALED AND REPLACED
WITH REASONABLE, COMMONSENSE,
AND FINANCIALLY SOUND
ALTERNATIVES.
PATIENT-CENTERED REFORMS THAT
ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO GET THE
CARE THEY NEED FROM THE DOCTOR
THAT THEY WANT AT A PRICE THEY
CAN AFFORD.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM UTAH.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT
