Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to follow on the speech made by my friend and colleague from Utah about the current state of unemployment in America and what to do about it. One of the last things he says is, get government out of the way. I wish to suggest that maybe, if he has some time--and I know he is a very busy man--he join me on a trip to Peoria, IL, where I was last week visiting Lucas & Sons Steel Company. This company has been in business since 1857. It has 26 employees. The CEO is a delightful, dynamic young woman named Margaret Hanley. She has, as I said, 26 union employees, all ironworkers. What she does is fabricate steel for construction projects all over the Midwest and as far away as Antarctica. As I said, the company has been around over 150 years.

I asked her, Where do you get your steel? She said, It is all American steel. I asked her, How are you doing? She said, Great. She said, One of the reasons we are doing great is because of President Obama's stimulus package. The President said to American businesses such as hers, you can borrow money at low interest rates to buy new machinery that will help you be more competitive. She said, Come on, let me show you. We walked in the other room, and here was a computer-driven machine as big as a small room being handled by a fellow that was literally taking steel girders, boring holes in them, and bending them where they are supposed to be bent. She said, I can compete with the big boys with this. We are going to increase the number of people working at Lucas & Sons Steel. Senator Hatch says, Government, get out of the way. Thank goodness, government was there for that company, a private company, paying a living wage with decent benefits, that has been around for a century and a half and is prospering because they are making quality products out of American steel with equipment they bought through President Obama's stimulus package.

How many times do we hear Senator McConnell come to the floor and say, The President's stimulus package was a punch line on nighttime TV? Well, it isn't a punch line in Peoria. It is dead serious because people are working, making a good wage, thanks to the investment in small business through government help.

I believe, and most Americans believe, real job creation is going to be in the private sector. Well, look what happened here. Because of the investment of government helping her to buy this machinery and be competitive, production and manufacturing jobs stayed right here in the United States, and that is what we want. There are 14 million people out of work.

As I traveled up and down my State of Illinois, I visited some days with those who are unemployed, desperately trying to find jobs, and other days with businesses such as Lucas & Sons Steel in Peoria which are doing well. I asked them the key to their success. They basically say they have been lucky to have good products and great workers and great infrastructure.

Senator Hatch says, Get government out of the way. Government has to be in the way for infrastructure. It is government that builds the highways, the bridges, the airports, the railroads. That is part of what the government is investing in for the future of our economy. Part of President Obama's jobs package is to put Americans back to work rebuilding basic infrastructure. We need it. We need it all across the Midwest and across the Nation. If you think we can afford to get government out of the way and not invest in infrastructure, take a look at what is going on in China today. In China, our No. 1 competitor in the world and our No. 1 creditor in the world, they are building right and left. They are preparing for the 21st century. They are going to build 50 new airports in the next 5 years that will accommodate every plane of every size made by Boeing Aircraft. That is how big these airports are. There will be 50 new ones. They are building the infrastructure to not only compete but pass the United States.

When my colleagues on the other side come to the floor

and say: Get government out of the way, what do they mean? That we should not be investing in infrastructure to make America strong for the 21st century; that the businesses, large and small, in Illinois that need modern, safe highways to move their goods back and forth to market should not turn to government for that help? It makes no sense. Historically we have agreed on a bipartisan basis when it comes to infrastructure. We should agree again, and that is part of the President's jobs bill.

Let me tell you what else is in there. We know America's working families are struggling paycheck to paycheck. They took a survey recently, and they asked working families in America: How many of your families could come up with $2,000 in 30 days either out of savings or borrowing? That isn't an unreasonable amount of money. A very moderate injury in an emergency room might cost you $2,000. So they asked them, and it turned out only a little over half of working families had access to $2,000. It shows you how close to the edge many families are living. It shows you many of them are surviving paycheck to paycheck. Although they work hard, they cannot seem to get ahead.

President Obama's jobs act says this: These working families deserve a payroll tax cut of 3 percent. What would that mean? Three percent doesn't sound like much, but look what it means in Illinois. Our average wage in Illinois is about $53,000 a year. The 3-percent payroll tax cut would give to these families between $125 and $130 a month. A Senator may not miss that amount of money, but for a lot of working families, it is the difference between filling your gas tank and buying the shoes for the kids to go to school. So the President's payroll tax cut puts money in the hands of working families to buy the goods and services to get the economy moving forward.

What else does the President suggest? He suggests in his jobs act that we need to provide tax incentives for small businesses to hire the unemployed. One of the things the President said when he spoke to us is we ought to make sure every veteran who served our country can find a job when they get home by offering incentives for businesses to hire returning soldiers. That is government involved. We create that incentive. The Republican side says: Get government out of the way. I don't think so. These men and women who served our country, who risked their lives, who fought for America, should not have to come home and fight for a job and lose that fight. We ought to stand by them and help them find work. That is part of President Obama's jobs bill, and it is a reasonable part. Cutting the payroll taxes, cutting the taxes that businesses, including small businesses, pay so they are more profitable and can hire more people is a reasonable thing to do.

I was amused that the Senator from Utah brought up one of my issues that I have worked on, and that is the debit card swipe fee. If you use a debit card to make a purchase at a restaurant, a grocery store, a drugstore, a bookstore, whatever it happens to be, and they would swipe that card, the retailer you bought that good or service from has to pay a fee to the bank and major credit card company. Well, it turns out that the fee--the so-called swipe fee--is dramatically larger than the actual cost of the transaction to the bank and credit card company.

Let me give you some numbers. The Federal Reserve investigated, and here is what they found: To use a debit card to make a purchase costs the bank and credit card company somewhere between 4 cents and 12 cents. That is to process everything. For you to take money out of your checking account with a debit card to pay for a purchase, what do they charge? On average they charge the retailer 44 cents. That is somewhere between 600 percent and 400 percent of their actual costs. So what we did is to say that retailers across America deserve a break. With the Federal Reserve establishing the number, we said a reasonable fee is about 24 cents. That splits the difference, which is the common outcome in Washington. It gives the banks more than they actually have to expend to process, but it doesn't hit the retailers hard.

I went to the Rock Island Country Market when I was back home in downstate Illinois. Carl, the manager, talked about his morning special, a cup of coffee and a doughnut at the country market, 99 cents. He said, Senator, do you know what it feels like when someone hands me a debit card for that 99-cent transaction? I not only didn't break even, I lost money, and I will lose it every time.

We have to give retailers a fighting chance. When the Senator from Utah comes to the floor and says we should not do that, that we should stand by the Wall Street banks and the credit card companies, I think he lost sight of the fact that Main Street, not Wall Street, is where jobs are created in America. Helping retailers, large and small, be profitable, be able to reduce prices on their goods and hire more people is the way for us to emerge from this situation and have more people working across America.

There is great controversy associated with the fact that President Obama made a suggestion when he spoke to us about the jobs bill and when he said to us: I am going to pay for it. Whatever I do with this jobs bill, whether it is extending unemployment benefits, payroll tax cuts for working families, a break for small businesses to hire veterans and other unemployed people, we are going to pay for it. We are not going to add this to the deficit. He came up with a plan to do it. I thought his plan was reasonable. We have talked on the Democratic caucus side and come up with a plan that is more acceptable to our caucus, and I can accept it too. Here is what it is. It is a little over a 5-percent surcharge on people who are making over $1 million a year--a 5-percent surcharge on their income tax. These are people who are making $20,000 a week--$20,000 a week--and the President has suggested they should pay their fair share. We have come up with a more specific approach--a little over a 5-percent surtax to pay for what it will take to get the jobs act moving forward and get the economy moving forward, which will be to everyone's benefit, rich and poor alike, across America.

One would think we said something heretical--the protests that were received from the Republican side of the aisle in the House and the Senate. What I find interesting about their opposition to this is, when we ask the American people point-blank: Do you think to pay for the President's jobs bill, to get people back to work, it is reasonable to close tax loopholes and ask millionaires to pay a little more on their income tax, here is what the poll says: 64 percent--almost two out of three Americans--support raising taxes on millionaires. How about Independents? ABC News poll: Seventy-five percent support raising taxes on millionaires. But what about Republicans? Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support raising taxes on millionaires and--hang on tight--55 percent of tea party supporters agree with raising taxes on millionaires.

It turns out that the majority of Americans at every political level believe this is a reasonable proposal. The only problem is, we can't find a Republican Senator or a House Member who agrees. They have said they will vote against anything that includes a penny more in taxes for those who are making over $1 million a year.

I think Americans believe we are all in this together. Everyone has to sacrifice. Families sacrifice every day. Businesses are sacrificing, trying to stay open and prosper in a rough and challenging economy. It is not unreasonable to ask those who are doing well in America to pay a little more so we can get this economy moving forward and create jobs.

WALL STREET REFORM

There are two other points raised by the Senator from Utah I wish to address. One of them is, he said he is against the Wall Street reform package we passed. Do my colleagues remember--it hasn't been that long ago--when we were told by the previous President that if we didn't provide almost $800 billion of taxpayers' money to the biggest banks in America, they would fail and the economy would crater? It is a day I will never forget because it is a stark choice: take $800 billion out of our Treasury with all our debt and give it to Wall Street banks or run the risk of our economy collapsing. Many of us said we will stand with President Bush's proposal. We will see if we can keep these banks staying afloat. Does anyone remember the thank-you note we got from the major bankers across America for the $800 billion in TARP funds? They gave million-dollar bonuses to their officers. The same people who were in charge and who drove their banks into the ground and drove the economy into the ground that forced the taxpayers' bailout were ending up with millions of dollars in bonuses.

We decided with Wall Street reform to say, once and for all, we are not going down this road again. This notion that some of these Wall Street banks and bigger banks are too big to fail has to come to an end. So we passed Wall Street reform to try to straighten out some of the abuses that led to this recession. We didn't get a single vote on the Republican side of the aisle--not one. They don't want the government to exercise any power of oversight, to police the ranks of those in the financial industry who are not dealing with this situation responsibly. That is their position.

I happen to believe government has a legitimate role. When those banks were about to fail, they loved government. They couldn't wait to get our money. They got the money and survived and then gave one another bonuses. The government said: Now you have to clean up your act, and they said: Get out of the way. Government is nothing but a big old problem.

The American people know better. We want Wall Street and the big banks to be held accountable. We never want to go down this bailout road again, and I think--and I hope most Americans believe--that oversight of these banks is absolutely essential to make sure we have money available and these banks are sound.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

The last point I will make relates to the health care issue. I see my colleague from Colorado on the floor, and I am happy to yield to him in just a couple minutes.

The health care issue is one that is a frequent source of conversation among the political talking heads and elected officials here in Washington. Recently, many on the other side of the aisle have been holding almost daily press conferences--one was reported today in the Washington Post--where they get very worked up over the President's health care reform bill, which I was proud to support, and say it is the reason for virtually every problem in America.

Let me tell my colleagues on both sides the reality. Having served on the deficit commission, we cannot reduce the deficit and the rate of growth in our national debt without coming to grips with the cost of health care. Whether it is a family, a business or any level of government, the cost of health care is breaking the bank. What we tried to do, and I think we will do, is to come up with a fair way to bring down the rate of growth and the cost of health care. I am not naive enough to believe we are going to actually bring down health care costs dramatically. What we are trying to do is to slow that rate of growth, and that is something we can achieve.

I take a look around at what we are faced with when it comes to health care and the dilemmas we face, how many people before this health care reform bill had virtually no protection. One of the things we did in health care reform, which I suppose those who want to repeal it want to get rid of, was to say they couldn't penalize a person or a family because of preexisting conditions. Children under the age of 18 could not be denied on a family policy because of a preexisting condition. Many parents, such as my own family, have lived through this and have known that if we couldn't get basic health insurance for our child, it could jeopardize the quality of care that was available. We changed that law. We said they cannot discriminate against children under the age of 18 because of preexisting conditions. We are moving toward eliminating that discrimination across the board. Is that unreasonable? I think it is realistic and humane and it is a good thing to do.

The second thing we did was to help senior citizens getting prescription drugs under Medicare who get stuck with something called the doughnut hole. It is a gap in coverage of almost $2,000 a year that they have to take out of their savings accounts to pay for expensive prescription drugs. We are closing that hole over a period of a number of years so seniors will have seamless coverage, start to finish. That is part of health care reform. Those who are calling for its repeal ought to stand and say exactly that they want to get rid of that as well.

We also provide coverage under the family health insurance plan for children up to the age of 26. It expands the reach of family health insurance for recent high school and college graduates who may not have a job. It is an important coverage factor that I am glad we included in this bill.

There is more we need to do. But to walk away from health care reform, to walk away from efforts to preserve quality and reduce the cost in health care is a step in the wrong direction for the quality of life of American families and for dealing with this deficit challenge we face.

I sincerely hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will consider joining us in offering amendments and modifications to the President's jobs act. What is absolutely unacceptable is to do nothing. Unfortunately, many of them believe that is exactly what we should do: Don't let government get involved in any respect when it comes to the unemployment across America. Whether it is unemployment benefits, helping working families, giving incentives to small businesses to hire veterans and other people, putting money into infrastructure in America--these are things we can and should do together as a nation to bring this economy forward and to reduce the unemployment we are currently facing.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 14 million Americans are currently unemployed. The American people are resilient, strong and hard-working. If they are given a fair shot, they will succeed. Unfortunately, as the world keeps getting flatter, as our global economy grows, Americans are not always given a fair shot.

Last year the United States had a $273 billion trade deficit with China. That means the U.S. imports more goods from China than China imports from the U.S.--$273 billion more. This is because Chinese goods are cheaper. Why? Because China undervalues it currency.

Madam President, 2.8 million jobs have been lost to China since 2001. 1.9 million of them are manufacturing jobs. And 117,000 jobs were in Illinois. Congress needs to help restore the strength of domestic manufacturing and bring jobs back to the United States.

In 2001 China joined the WTO and agreed to play by the rules. China agreed to be on a level playing field with other countries, to employ fair trade practices. That means no export subsidies and no product dumping. China agreed to those terms, but it hasn't always acted in accordance with them.

China is breaking the rule undervaluing its currency. China undervalues it currency by anywhere from 15 percent to 50 percent--depending on the methodology used. When the Yuan--China's currency--is low compares to the dollar, Chinese products are cheap while U.S. products are expensive. So Americans buy cheap goods made in China, but the Chinese do not buy goods made in America, made more expensive by their currency manipulation. How is that fair to U.S. and American workers?

According to a recent report, if China revalued its currency, we would see U.S. GDP increase by $287.7 billion, creation of 2.25 million U.S. jobs, and a lowering of the U.S. budget deficit by $71.4 billion.

We don't shy away from competition in America. We play fair because we know that we can compete with any other country in a fair fight. This bill marks an important step toward job creation and restoring the strength of America's economy in a globalized world.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source