Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to address an environmental issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue. Future generations will look back on global warming as the defining issue of our time. Our children, their children, and their children will look back on this issue and judge us on how we confronted it. If we treat global warming politically, as so many of the other side of the aisle did today, if we abdicate our responsibility, if we ignore reality, if we twiddle our thumbs as the destructive effects of global warming intensify, we will lose our chance to shape the future because, simply put, we will be squandering it. I applaud Senator Boxer, the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, a tireless advocate for clean air, safe drinking water, and healthy families. This was not an easy vote. This entire week I have listened to the speeches on the Senate floor, and I have listened to my colleagues speak eloquently on the need for global climate change legislation. I fully agree with the environmental goals of this bill--mandatory caps, the science-based timeline. This, as I said, is the moral question of our generation. I have the utmost respect for my colleagues who have worked so long and so hard to craft this historic legislation and for environmental advocates in Ohio and across the country. I am 100 percent committed to passing a robust, mandatory cap-and-trade policy. However, while we have been debating climate policy, Ohioans have been getting bad news. This has been a particularly tough week for my State. In the last 7 days, Ohioans learned that our State may soon lose another 10,000 jobs. Those are not just jobs. They are the building blocks, the foundation for individual achievement, family security, and community survivability. They are about health care, they are about opportunity, they are about sending kids to college, they are about admission to the middle class. Now that foundation is crumbling--10,000 good-paying jobs in 1 week. Since 2001, Ohio has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs. We have, to be sure, a moral obligation to our planet. For me, that obligation stems from Scripture which makes each of us a steward of our planet, of this Earth. We also have an opportunity and obligation to Ohioans and to all Americans. We have the opportunity and the obligation to write global warming policy that is sustainable, equitable, beneficial, both domestically and globally, both environmentally and economically. We can do that. We can write a bill to do that. We can write a law to do that or we can settle for a work that I believe is still in progress. I cannot settle and could not settle a moment ago in my vote for this legislation because it needlessly may hurt my State because it fails to protect against what could be a policy that exports emissions rather than eliminating emissions. I submitted five amendments to this bill that were designed to produce a final bill that would combat global warming without undermining American families, without hurting families from Galion to Gallipolis, from Cincinnati to Ashtabula. Unfortunately, after today's cloture vote, there was no opportunity to debate and vote on those amendments. Given the chance, I would have fought to redistribute the financial burden imposed by this bill so Ohio would receive a fair share, rather than the short end of the stick. I would have fought to provide sufficient transition assistance for energy-intensive manufacturing so our Nation does not lose those crucial national-security oriented, in many cases, crucial jobs. I would have fought to ensure domestic manufacturers a level playing field with companies from countries without global warming requirements. A plant shuts down in Steubenville or Lima, OH, a plant that has followed Ohio and national environmental law over the years, and moves to China. We lose our jobs, and emissions get even greater because the Chinese do not have the environmental laws we do. That is part of the problem with U.S. trade policy. That is another time for another speech and another day. But if we don't take this right step to ensure domestic manufacturers a level playing field with companies from countries without global warming requirements, we might as well throw a going-away party for the steel industry, the cement industry, the glass industry, aluminum industry, the chemical industry, for foundry after foundry after foundry in Ravenna, Chillicothe, Mansfield, and Marion. We might as well pray for a miracle when it comes to global warming because as we export those jobs to countries that have weak environmental laws, we will be exporting emissions so they come in quantities of twice as much from smokestacks in China than they come from smokestacks in Ohio. I would have fought for greater capital investment in emerging green businesses and manufacturing. We need to go green to achieve our goals. We need to rebuild our manufacturing sector to remain a self-sufficient nation and the strongest economy on the planet. We can pass legislation that can be a jobs legislation, energy legislation, environmental legislation if we do the right thing and encourage our companies and our investors to build solar panels and solar cells, to build fuel cells, to build wind turbines, to move forward on all the kinds of biomass energy production that we know how to do in this country. Why wouldn't we invest in the research, infrastructure, job training, and the commercialization needed to secure our independence from foreign oil, to fight global warming, to revitalize our economy? Mr. President, why wouldn't we? I would have fought for resources to help coal communities diversify their economies. If we ignore these communities, we breed poverty. Go with me to southeast Ohio and look at the number of people who are lining up in food pantries, lining up for food to get through the week, to get through the month, to get through the winter and now the spring, as most people in those families hold jobs, often full time, often part time. They don't pay enough because of what has happened to coal miners and what has happened to industry in southeast Ohio. We, in moral terms and practical terms, cannot let that happen. If we ignore these communities, as I said, we breed more poverty. That is not a prediction, that is a fact. I was not given the opportunity to offer my amendments. I will have the opportunity to push for legislation that capitalizes on our Nation's strengths, that leaves a legacy of which we can be proud for future generations. We can do it, we must do it, and with Senator Boxer's leadership, we will do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the goal of our trade policy should be to promote fair competition and lift up workers at home and abroad. Americans support trade that allows responsible businesses to thrive, fueling good-paying jobs and a strong, resilient economy. But wrong-headed trade pacts following the failed NAFTA-model have betrayed middle class families across the country, destabilizing our economy and destroying communities in rural and urban areas alike. In my state of Ohio, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs have been eliminated since 2001. Across the country, more than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been eliminated in that time. Our failures to modernize our Nation's trade policy, to learn from our mistakes, and to respond to changing dynamics in the global arena, hurt communities like Toledo and Steubenville and Dayton. That is why voters in my state of Ohio and across the country have sent a message loud and clear demanding a new direction, a very different direction, for our nation's trade policy. Over the last 8 years, our approach to trade has been haphazard at best. In the last 2 years, since voters elected candidates who support fair trade, Congress has reasserted itself in trade policy-making, with some improvements to proposed deals with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. We also have chosen not to grant President Bush a renewal of Fast Track. But our approach to trade has not evolved from reactive to proactive. We have not forged a new approach to trade that is results-oriented, an approach focused squarely on the goals of economic strength, job creation, and U.S. self-sufficiency. Not surprisingly, polls show that Americans reject current trade policy as misguided. That is because it is. It is time to learn from our mistakes. It is time for a change. The Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment, TRADE, Act, which Senator Dorgan, Senator Feingold, Senator Casey, Senator Whitehouse and I are introducing today, is a step towards that change. This legislation will serve as a template for how to craft a trade agreement that works for workers, for business owners, for our country. This legislation will mandate a review of all existing trade agreements and will require the President to submit renegotiation plans for those agreements before pursuing new trade agreements. The TRADE Act will create a committee comprised of House and Senate leaders who will review the President's plan for renegotiation. This bill spells out standards for future trade agreements, standards based on fostering fair competition, promoting good-paying jobs, and addressing unethical behavior by multinational corporations, including the exploitation of people and natural resources in developing nations. Trade is an exchange that relies on the integrity of its participants. We must not trade away our fundamental belief in basic human rights and our responsibility to fight the kind of exploitation that threatens vulnerable peoples and vulnerable nations. That is why our trade policy must not sidestep the impact of lax trade agreements and unethical corporations on developing nations. The TRADE Act also sets out criteria for a new negotiating process-- one that would do away with the fundamentally-flawed Fast Track process and return power to Congress when considering our nation's trade pacts. We take for granted our clean air, safe food, and safe drinking water. But these blessings are not by chance: they result from laws and rules that foster fair wages, protect the public health, and promote environmental stewardship. Flawed trade policy accelerates the import of toxic toys, contaminated toothpaste, and poisonous pet food into this country. It does not have to be this way. We have a choice. We can continue a race to the bottom in wages, worker safety, environmental protection, and health standards. Or, we can use trade agreements to lift standards abroad--not threaten workers and consumers. We can continue down the path of the failed NAFTA model, or we can write trade agreements that sustain and grow our Nation's manufacturing self-sufficiency, create good-paying jobs and reduce the trade deficit by providing fair and transparent market access. We can forsake U.S. standards and U.S. values and ignore trade abuses in order to mass produce trade agreements, or we can write trade agreements that fulfill their promises, that hold our trading partners accountable for abiding by the rules, and that build on the hard-fought battles waged to build a strong middle class, reward good corporate citizens, preserve our natural resources, and ensure that the food and products Americans purchase are safe. We can continue to use trade deals to lock in protections for Wall Street, the drug companies, and oil companies, or we can create a predictable structure for international trade without providing corporations with overreaching privileges and rights of private enforcement that undermine our laws. Middle class families, American manufacturers and farmers, and community leaders across the country all know that we need a new direction for trade. I am going to ask my leadership, and my caucus, to work with me on this legislation. And I look forward to working with my allies on the other side of the aisle to modernize U.S. trade policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the goal of our trade policy should be to promote fair competition and lift up workers at home and abroad. Americans support trade that allows responsible businesses to thrive, fueling good-paying jobs and a strong, resilient economy. But wrong-headed trade pacts following the failed NAFTA-model have betrayed middle class families across the country, destabilizing our economy and destroying communities in rural and urban areas alike. In my state of Ohio, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs have been eliminated since 2001. Across the country, more than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been eliminated in that time. Our failures to modernize our Nation's trade policy, to learn from our mistakes, and to respond to changing dynamics in the global arena, hurt communities like Toledo and Steubenville and Dayton. That is why voters in my state of Ohio and across the country have sent a message loud and clear demanding a new direction, a very different direction, for our nation's trade policy. Over the last 8 years, our approach to trade has been haphazard at best. In the last 2 years, since voters elected candidates who support fair trade, Congress has reasserted itself in trade policy-making, with some improvements to proposed deals with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. We also have chosen not to grant President Bush a renewal of Fast Track. But our approach to trade has not evolved from reactive to proactive. We have not forged a new approach to trade that is results-oriented, an approach focused squarely on the goals of economic strength, job creation, and U.S. self-sufficiency. Not surprisingly, polls show that Americans reject current trade policy as misguided. That is because it is. It is time to learn from our mistakes. It is time for a change. The Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment, TRADE, Act, which Senator Dorgan, Senator Feingold, Senator Casey, Senator Whitehouse and I are introducing today, is a step towards that change. This legislation will serve as a template for how to craft a trade agreement that works for workers, for business owners, for our country. This legislation will mandate a review of all existing trade agreements and will require the President to submit renegotiation plans for those agreements before pursuing new trade agreements. The TRADE Act will create a committee comprised of House and Senate leaders who will review the President's plan for renegotiation. This bill spells out standards for future trade agreements, standards based on fostering fair competition, promoting good-paying jobs, and addressing unethical behavior by multinational corporations, including the exploitation of people and natural resources in developing nations. Trade is an exchange that relies on the integrity of its participants. We must not trade away our fundamental belief in basic human rights and our responsibility to fight the kind of exploitation that threatens vulnerable peoples and vulnerable nations. That is why our trade policy must not sidestep the impact of lax trade agreements and unethical corporations on developing nations. The TRADE Act also sets out criteria for a new negotiating process-- one that would do away with the fundamentally-flawed Fast Track process and return power to Congress when considering our nation's trade pacts. We take for granted our clean air, safe food, and safe drinking water. But these blessings are not by chance: they result from laws and rules that foster fair wages, protect the public health, and promote environmental stewardship. Flawed trade policy accelerates the import of toxic toys, contaminated toothpaste, and poisonous pet food into this country. It does not have to be this way. We have a choice. We can continue a race to the bottom in wages, worker safety, environmental protection, and health standards. Or, we can use trade agreements to lift standards abroad--not threaten workers and consumers. We can continue down the path of the failed NAFTA model, or we can write trade agreements that sustain and grow our Nation's manufacturing self-sufficiency, create good-paying jobs and reduce the trade deficit by providing fair and transparent market access. We can forsake U.S. standards and U.S. values and ignore trade abuses in order to mass produce trade agreements, or we can write trade agreements that fulfill their promises, that hold our trading partners accountable for abiding by the rules, and that build on the hard-fought battles waged to build a strong middle class, reward good corporate citizens, preserve our natural resources, and ensure that the food and products Americans purchase are safe. We can continue to use trade deals to lock in protections for Wall Street, the drug companies, and oil companies, or we can create a predictable structure for international trade without providing corporations with overreaching privileges and rights of private enforcement that undermine our laws. Middle class families, American manufacturers and farmers, and community leaders across the country all know that we need a new direction for trade. I am going to ask my leadership, and my caucus, to work with me on this legislation. And I look forward to working with my allies on the other side of the aisle to modernize U.S. trade policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I echo the words of my friend, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, about Senator Kennedy. I have had the honor for only 15 months now to serve on his and Senator Enzi's HELP Committee. Even more important than Senator Enzi points out and even more important than Senator Kennedy's passion for his work, his commitment to social and economic justice and his never, ever giving up in fighting for those things he believes in, is what Senator Kennedy does personally for all kinds of people, including people who don't live in his State, people whom he has never met, people who walk down the hall. He brings them into his office and gives them a book, written by Senator Kennedy, but in the name of his dog Splash. And he talks to children. Again, they are people Senator Kennedy doesn't even know, who can do nothing for him politically. He gives so much in those ways. As Senator Enzi does, I hope Senator Kennedy will be back here as strong as ever. He has used that energy and passion for so many others, and he will put that same energy and passion into being cured. We all look forward to that day in the fairly near future. (The remarks of Mr. Brown pertaining to the introduction of S. Res. 574 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. BROWN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the Chinese people have endured an unspeakable tragedy, as we know, with the loss of tens of thousands in a major earthquake. Those numbers continue to grow. On the radio this morning, I heard it looks like more than 50,000 Chinese people have died in one of the greatest tragedies of the last decade. My prayers are with the people of Sichuan Province and all those brave men and women who are there now providing support as volunteers, especially providing support to the Chinese people in Sichuan Province. I wish to focus on something else in China. This isn't the Chinese people, it is the actions of a few people at the top of the Chinese Government--actions we must confront. When I say ``only a few people at the top,'' the Chinese Government is called the People's Republic of China for a reason. It is a Communist government, a very top-line hierarchical system, where a few people at the top enjoy so much of the benefits and so much of the power and they wield that so unfairly and immorally and, many times, against so many in their country. For us to ignore the behavior of the Chinese Government, to dismiss that behavior, to minimize that behavior is a reprehensible act on our part. In a little more than 3 months, the world will witness one of its great quadrennial events--the summer Olympic Games. The games have been billed as a way for the host, China, to reintroduce itself--a new China, if you will--to the international community. And China has pulled out all the stops: $38 billion in infrastructure improvements, including a brandnew 91,000-seat stadium, 300 miles of new roads, and an entirely new terminal at Beijing's International Airport, all because of the Olympic Games. What China will not be highlighting is its human rights record. That is because it is abysmally disgraceful. As China rolls out the red carpet to welcome hundreds of thousands of tourists and as Olympic-related media flock to Beijing to watch the events, no one will be allowed to go to Tibet, no one will be allowed to go to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, no one will be allowed to see the hundreds of political prisons, no one will be allowed to visit the areas of China where hundreds of millions live in abject poverty. Last year, Amnesty International--a no more respected and fairminded group in the world--said of China: An increased number of . . . journalists were harassed, detained, and jailed. Thousands of people who pursued their faith outside officially sanctioned churches were subjected to harassment and many to detention and imprisonment. Thousands of people were sentenced to death of executed. Migrants from rural areas were deprived of basic rights. The Presiding officer, from the State of Rhode Island, has talked passionately about the freedom of the press and journalism in countries where we have the kind of relationship we have with China and how important it is. Others in this body have talked about human rights and labor rights, and now China has violated those values we hold dear and that international organizations that serve all of the world hold so dear. Beijing will continue to attempt to paint its repressive regime during the Olympics in the best light possible, as we have seen in the last month with the unnerving events in Tibet. The repression in Tibet, a region similar in its treatment by the government as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, is nothing new. For almost 60 years, Tibetans have survived under Beijing repression. Tibet was swallowed up by China in 1950. The Uyghur Autonomous Region was swallowed up by China the year before. China's policy is straightforward: Declare war on human rights, bring in native Chinese for the best jobs, eradicate the indigenous culture, the language, the spiritual center, disperse the population. It seems to have worked for China's interest every time. China's policies keep import prices low by allowing inhumane treatment of workers, slave wages, and unsafe working conditions have become all too common. China, the Communist regime, has become China, the world's largest one-company town where workers are interchangeable, replaceable parts and where members of the Communist Party are its shareholders. The United States as purportedly the world leader in human rights--we talk about exporting democracy, we brag about our values, yet out business is with encouragement and incentives--unbelievably enough, sometimes from our own Government--even though we say we are the world leader in human rights. The United States should not be endorsing in any way the brutal and horrific policies of the Chinese Government. Again, the United States, by our actions by the Government and by business do not seem so interested oftentimes in human rights in China in spite of what we say. We should not be sacrificing our moral compass at the altar of the dollar. We do that way too often. I met with Rabiya Kadeer, the Uyghur dissident leader and head of the Uyghur American Association. She told me of her time in prison for political advocacy on behalf of her people. She spent 6 long years in prison, arrested in 1999 on her way to a meeting with foreign activists and leaders. She told me of her children who either live in fear or live in prison because of her advocacy on behalf of basic freedoms for the 12 or 13 million Uyghur people. She told me of her exile. She is not allowed to return to her native country. We need the strength to stand up to rather than apologize for China's brutal regime. This has been the systematic policy of a highly efficient and powerful central government. The Chinese Uyghurs have long fought for more autonomy from Beijing and greater freedom to practice their Muslim religion. This is not a new policy. We have seen the same in the Zinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region where ethnic Uyghur people have been systematically relocated and repressed. Their Turkic language is prohibited, their women are placed into forced labor, especially young women taken out of the Autonomous Region to other parts of China, in many cases to be slave labor, forced labor, in other cases to be sex slaves, and their political leaders are jailed. Yet we allow China into the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and made them a preferred trading partner. Communities across America feel the reverberations of this policy. Not only does it blacken our name as a country when China violates every kind of human rights we care about, but then it affects our country in so many other ways. We have lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs across this country since President Bush has been President. Many of these jobs have been eliminated because of government-subsidized imports from China, because of cheating on currency rules, and because of direct off shoring to countries such as China. China gives their manufacturers that unfair competitive advantage by manipulating its currency and providing massive subsidies to its industry. We know all that. American companies have been complicit by hiring Chinese subcontractors and forcing those subcontractors to continue to cut costs, meaning contaminated vitamins, contaminated pharmaceuticals, and dangerous toxic lead-based paint on toys. I am submitting a resolution today calling on the Chinese to free the Kadeer children, free the Uyghur political prisoners, and end the political, religious, and ethnic repression in that part of China. I ask my colleagues to take a look at this resolution, to meet with Ms. Kadeer and to join me in working to bring the atrocities against the Uyghur people to an end. Instead of welcoming China, celebrating China, and trading with China on their terms, as we all talk about the great quadrennial events of the international Olympic Games, we should be helping China's repressed. We should not indulge China its abuses. It dishonors our own values.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, May is National Mental Health Month. This proud tradition was started over 50 years ago. Each May, the mental health community comes together to raise awareness about mental health disorders and to celebrate recovery. The last 50 years have seen significant progress in the treatment of mental disorders. We know that with treatment and support, it is possible to recover. Dr. Fred Frese knows this first hand. I met Dr. Frese at a roundtable that I held in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Frese served as Director of Psychology at Western Reserve Psychiatric Hospital for 15 years. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology in Clinical Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. He has authored and reviewed numerous articles and chapters, lectured in several countries and served on the boards of trustees of various organizations that work on behalf of individuals with disabilities. In 1999, Dr. Frese received the Hildreth Award, the highest honor given by the American Psychological Association's Psychologists in Public Service Division. Over the course of his career, he has testified numerous times before both houses of the United States Congress. Dr. Frese's career has been remarkable. His life has been remarkable. He has been living with paranoid schizophrenia since 1966. Dr. Frese is remarkable. But his recovery is not unusual. Many people stricken with mental illness can and do recover with appropriate treatment. But the stigma associated with mental health disorders can discourage people from getting the help they need. The U.S. Surgeon General's seminal report on mental health cites stigma as a significant barrier to recovery. I am proud to say that Ohio's Departments of Mental Health and Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services are doing something about it. They have launched a ``Think Outside the Stigma'' campaign, a public information effort to increase awareness about the misperceptions associated with mental health and substance use disorders. Today I am introducing a resolution commending this campaign. My colleague in the house, Congressman Zack Space, is offering a companion resolution. Imagine a world where individuals with mental disorders are supported and treated, not marginalized and discriminated against. Imagine a world where we see individuals first and disability second. Imagine the wealth of talent and resources that individuals with mental illness can realize with treatment. Individuals like Dr. Frese. We must work together to overcome the unfair and unnecessary burden of stigma associated with mental illness and substance use disorders. We know that treatment can work. We know that people can recover. We know that Americans are well worth the investment. We know that Americans are well worth the investment.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, both the international community and experts from across our country have come to a definite consensus. Climate change is not a theory. It is a reality. We may not like it, but we have to confront it. Rising temperatures, melting icecaps, and extreme weather show the increasing effects of global warming in the United States and especially around the globe. Without action, we will be unable to avoid dangerous consequences for our children, grandchildren, and subsequent generations. We risk the health of our citizens, the well-being of our coastal areas, the productivity of our farms, forests, and fisheries. There is solid support in this institution and around the country for a mandatory cap-and-trade approach to reducing carbon emissions. All three Presidential candidates--Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain--and both political parties have agreed on this philosophy. The Senate passed the Lieberman-Warner bill out of committee in December. It is likely to reach the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks. I am not saying a climate change bill will pass this year. I am saying a climate change bill will pass. No more burying our heads in the sand, no more ignoring the issue and putting it off for another day. It is not a question of whether; it is a question of when and a question of what it will look like. As a manufacturing State reliant on coal--not too different from the State of the Presiding Officer--Ohio is going to be significantly affected by the climate change bill regardless of its specifics. I am working with Senators from other industrial States--Senators Casey, Bayh, Lugar, Durbin, Stabenow, Levin, and others--to ensure that the effects on manufacturing jobs are considered as this legislation is drafted. We can't shut our eyes or turn our backs or hope that global warming goes away and becomes someone else's problem. That is not going to happen. But we can maximize Ohio's gains, Pennsylvania's gains, the gains of other States, and minimize those losses, looking first at the opportunities presented to us by global change legislation. The mandatory cap-and-trade approach to climate change will create a market for clean energy and green jobs. By creating markets for clean energy, we can stabilize our Nation's energy supply, reduce greenhouse gases, and bolster manufacturing in Lima, Zaynesville, Toledo, and Ashtabula. It has been estimated that in terms of a global market, the advanced and alternative energy sector will double several times over in the next decade, from a $55 billion industry to a $226 billion business. Wind power alone, it is estimated, will grow from $18 billion to a $61 billion market. In the last 15 months, I have conducted roundtables in Ohio, bringing together 15 or 20 people to talk about problems, about their communities. You can see what is happening in a State such as mine. The Cleveland Foundation, in conjunction with Case Western Reserve University, is going to build a field of wind turbines in Lake Erie, the first time wind turbines have ever been placed in a freshwater lake. I have seen the Composite Center in Dayton which makes new, lighter, stronger materials, initially for airplanes, now for fuel-efficient automobiles and wind turbines. The University of Toledo is doing some of the best wind turbine research in the United States. In Columbus and Ohio State, there is the Center for Automotive Research, the work they are doing for more fuel-efficient automobiles. Today I talked with someone who was visiting Washington from Battelle Institute. They are doing astonishing things on a whole range of issues; Stark State and Rolls-Royce on fuel cells. Oberlin College has built the largest building of any college campus in the country fully powered by solar energy. The problem is those solar cells and panels are not made in this country because we don't make them. They were bought from Germany and Japan. At the same time, we are seeing the largest solar company in the country producing near Toledo in Perrysburg. In Ashtabula, right across the border from Erie, we are seeing components for wind turbines. In place after place, Ohio is helping to lead the way to make my State the Silicon Valley of renewable energy. Ohio has the potential to create 20,000 new jobs through renewable energy projects. That puts Ohio second only to California in terms of potential job creation. But we have a lot of work to do. Any climate change legislation must invest in the deployment of renewable energy technology and promote green job growth. That is why I introduced legislation called the Green Energy Production Act last month. It is an energy bill, an environment bill, and a jobs bill. The bill creates a government corporation that will set up loan programs and grant programs for green energy manufacturers, mostly small businesses, to get them to develop products and get them to market. Over 5 years, the bill would invest $36 billion with no political strings attached, no Government picking winners and losers but companies that need capital that are just taking off, small businesses, businesses that need to grow, businesses that need to expand. Some $36 billion will be invested in green energy manufacturing. We have great R&D in my State, but the big problem is commercialization, the key to creating jobs in my State. Speaking of jobs, we can't overlook the tremendous challenges the industrial Midwest will face under climate change legislation. My State is the seventh largest in the country by population. We are the fourth largest carbon-emitting State, behind California, Texas, and New York. In the past year and a half, I have held roundtables all over my State in some 60 of the 88 counties. They have given me an opportunity to be with workers and business people and civic leaders and local government officials. One thing is crystal clear: Ohioans are anxious about their communities' futures, and the statistics match their anxiety. More than 40,000 manufacturing plants have shut down in the United States since 2001. More than 3.3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, about one-sixth of all U.S. manufacturing jobs. My State has lost more than 200,000 jobs. Pennsylvania is comparable. The simple fact is, our economy cannot prosper unless we manufacture and sell goods as a State and a nation. Manufacturing is too important to the prosperity of this country and to our economic and national security. Manufacturing is too important to ignore, as this Government has done in the last few years. I know, given a level playing field, our companies can outcompete any around the globe. Any climate change legislation must be developed in conjunction with manufacturers to ensure U.S. competitiveness with other growing industrial giants in the world, particularly China and India. We must work together to ensure that domestic manufacturers are protected from imports that come from countries without comparable climate change legislation. That means working together to provide appropriate transition assistance to our energy intensive industries. My State, in some sense, specializes in energy-intensive industries-- steel, chemicals, glass, cement, aluminum. We must work together to minimize any economic harm while ensuring the environmental integrity of the climate change legislation. The bill that came out of committee needs to do a better job. It has made progress from the original bill to the substitute bill brought forward by Senator Boxer. It has made major progress, but it has to do a better job of addressing the need, particularly in people's own personal electric bills and the cost of energy to manufacturers. The bill needs to help low- and middle-income consumers who will face higher energy costs and must help communities and workers who are displaced due to a shift from coal power. It means providing support necessary to create green jobs in Ohio and across the Midwest, and it means helping those energy-intensive manufacturers I was talking about with their energy costs and with unregulated international competition. Some environmental groups quote economic models saying that business under a cap-and-trade program will be all wine and roses. They are on one side. Some business groups are touting economic models that predict climate change legislation will send us all back to living in caves. Both sides are wrong. It is not going to be that easy, but it is also not going to put American business out of business. One last point. When you talk to people about climate change, one of the first questions that always comes up is what do we do about China and India. If they are not going to, why should we, in some sense, unilaterally disarm as a country, putting more and more costs on Ohio businesses in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati? Why should we put more cost on these businesses, when China and India are not doing that? We have three possibilities. One is do nothing. That is unacceptable. We have two other possibilities: To work with countries around the world on bringing them to a level of climate change comparable to the level we want to get to; one is multilateral environment and climate change agreements, negotiations, Kyoto-type agreements among all the major industrial powers in the world. That will take years. That will perhaps only be as successful as Kyoto, which wasn't very successful, ultimately. The other path to walk down is what we do about trade legislation, about accepting those products coming into the United States from other countries. When we have pretty strong environmental laws, you know in your State what has happened with the steel industry, where they have put huge numbers of dollars into scrubbers and other kinds of environmental cleanup. China and India, frankly, don't do that. When we buy products from China and India, we buy steel from them, discounting the issue of toxic toys and contaminants in vitamins and all the unsafe products they send us that are ultimately consumer products, but when we buy steel from China and India, that steel is made by cheaper labor, and it is also made with very weak environmental rules. The only way to change that, to get China and India to the table, if you will, if we will not do the negotiations that will be so difficult and tedious and take so long, is to say, every time we import steel from China and India, steel where there is an environmental cost in its production, we charge a tariff at the border, a tariff reflecting the cost that they have not borne but that our manufacturers bear on the production of that steel. So why should a steel company in Lorain or a foundry in Mahoning Valley have to pay these huge additional costs under climate change to deal with their carbon emissions, when people in China and India don't? The only way to equalize that and to make this competitive and keep American business competitive is to figure out what it actually costs China and what moneys China and India save by not coming up to the same level of environmental protection that we do. That should always have been part of the trade debate. The Bush administration has never believed that. That is one of the reasons we have lost so many manufacturing jobs in my State, since President Bush took office--bad trade policy, bad environmental policy, bad labor policy. Ultimately, this climate change issue is going to be about equalizing the cost of making air cleaner, limiting carbon emissions, dealing with all the issues around CO2. The way to do that is through a trade policy that works for us, for China, for India, and especially works for our grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and those subsequent generations. We must work together in this institution to shape legislation that truly addresses global climate change while protecting our manufacturing jobs. That means working assiduously with countries around the world in reaching those goals. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, May is National Mental Health Month. This proud tradition was started over 50 years ago. Each May, the mental health community comes together to raise awareness about mental health disorders and to celebrate recovery. The last 50 years have seen significant progress in the treatment of mental disorders. We know that with treatment and support, it is possible to recover. Dr. Fred Frese knows this first hand. I met Dr. Frese at a roundtable that I held in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Frese served as Director of Psychology at Western Reserve Psychiatric Hospital for 15 years. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology in Clinical Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University and Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. He has authored and reviewed numerous articles and chapters, lectured in several countries and served on the boards of trustees of various organizations that work on behalf of individuals with disabilities. In 1999, Dr. Frese received the Hildreth Award, the highest honor given by the American Psychological Association's Psychologists in Public Service Division. Over the course of his career, he has testified numerous times before both houses of the United States Congress. Dr. Frese's career has been remarkable. His life has been remarkable. He has been living with paranoid schizophrenia since 1966. Dr. Frese is remarkable. But his recovery is not unusual. Many people stricken with mental illness can and do recover with appropriate treatment. But the stigma associated with mental health disorders can discourage people from getting the help they need. The U.S. Surgeon General's seminal report on mental health cites stigma as a significant barrier to recovery. I am proud to say that Ohio's Departments of Mental Health and Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services are doing something about it. They have launched a ``Think Outside the Stigma'' campaign, a public information effort to increase awareness about the misperceptions associated with mental health and substance use disorders. Today I am introducing a resolution commending this campaign. My colleague in the house, Congressman Zack Space, is offering a companion resolution. Imagine a world where individuals with mental disorders are supported and treated, not marginalized and discriminated against. Imagine a world where we see individuals first and disability second. Imagine the wealth of talent and resources that individuals with mental illness can realize with treatment. Individuals like Dr. Frese. We must work together to overcome the unfair and unnecessary burden of stigma associated with mental illness and substance use disorders. We know that treatment can work. We know that people can recover. We know that Americans are well worth the investment. We know that Americans are well worth the investment.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, economic anxiety is pervasive among the middle class in my State of Ohio and throughout our great country, and there is good reason for that. The average duration of unemployment-- 17.5 weeks--is longer than at the start of the two previous recessions. In 2001, it took the average unemployed worker about 12.5 weeks to find work. In 1990, it took the average unemployed worker almost 12 weeks to find work. The average duration of unemployment now is about 17.5 weeks. In fact, long-term unemployment is higher now than it has been at any other time since Congress first extended unemployment benefits, since 1980. The share of workers suffering long-term unemployment, meaning those who remain jobless after their first 6 months of benefits run out--so if their benefits run out after 6 months, that defines long- term unemployment by the Government--the share of those workers is nearly 17 percent higher than the 11 percent at the start of the 2001 recession and higher than the 9.8 percent at the start of the 1990 recession. My State of Ohio has not added jobs since the end of the last recession, even while economists and an indecisive President wonder whether the country is entering another one, with all of their definitions and all of their pondering these questions and all of the indifference that comes out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What I do know is that there are 58,000 fewer jobs in Ohio than there were in November 2001. In the past year around my State, I have attended almost 100 roundtables where I have convened meetings of 120, 125 people who sit around a table and talk to me about their hopes and dreams, what is happening in their communities, ways I can help, and all of the things that can help me do my job in the Senate. One of the topics that came up again and again during these meetings was the topic of economic insecurity. Wages are stagnant, jobs are scarce, and jobs are too often temporary. Sometimes, laid-off workers have seen their lives change. Instead of one good-paying job, they are holding two part-time or full- time jobs that pay significantly less than the job they held earlier. Middle-class families are struggling now and deeply worried about the future. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing today on plant closings and workers' rights. This summer marks 20 years since Congress passed major plant closing legislation known as the WARN Act, a bill championed by Senator Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio, who held this seat, and Senator Kennedy, who is our committee chair today on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. One of the witnesses today was a gentleman from Senator Kennedy's State of Massachusetts, Joe Aguiar, who worked for a fabric manufacturer for nearly 30 years. He and 900 coworkers were laid off without any notice last summer. As are so many workers in manufacturing, he is about 50 years old. Like so many other workers in my State of Ohio, in Springfield and Lima and Tiffin and Marietta, their lives have been upended. For most, the pensions and health care which they earned and which they desperately need and which they thought had been promised to them, so often the pensions and health care will be slashed. Mr. Aguiar, as workers do in places such as Marion, OH, and Xenia and Zanesville--those workers need an extension of unemployment insurance. Now more than ever, we need to extend those unemployment benefits because so many workers see their unemployment benefits run out because they can't find comparable jobs. It is very simple. Economists on Wall Street and Washington and universities all say that every dollar invested in unemployment benefits leads to $1.64 in growth--more than any other stimulus package, any other stimulus program, any other way to put money into the economy. We had this discussion, and the unemployment extension was blocked by congressional Republicans some months ago. In addition, we offered a stimulus package which will, in fact, put money in people's pockets--a good thing. Unemployment extension would have come quicker and put money into the pockets of those who will spend it immediately because they are struggling. They need the money for gas for their cars to go out and look for jobs, for food to feed their families, and the daily necessities of life. The Congressional Budget Office agrees that a dollar in unemployment benefits leads to $1.64 in growth, finding that extending unemployment benefits is cost-effective and the single fastest acting measure. The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the Akron Beacon Journal in my State all agree. Last week, the House approved an extension of unemployment insurance. The Democrats are trying to--or are going to--include unemployment insurance extension in the stimulus package. We hope the Republicans don't filibuster this, and that the President finally changes his mind and signs an extension of unemployment insurance. It is a reasonable extension and needs to be done now. As I came over here today to talk about unemployment benefits and extending them, my thoughts turned to Senator Kennedy and his family. Senator Kennedy, who we find out today has been diagnosed with a serious illness, has been fighting for an extension of unemployment insurance certainly lately in this case, and other times, but he is always fighting for workers, the poor, and the middle class. Nobody in this Congress has consistently, or for a longer period of time, in the history of this institution, fought for workers or the middle class the way Senator Kennedy has, and the way he will continue to; he has been tireless about this. Just last week, I stood on the Senate floor with Senator Kennedy as we worked together to pass legislation that came out of his committee, a committee on which I also sit, the Health, Education, Labor, Pension Committee, to establish collective bargaining rights for firefighters and others. When it comes to issues facing working families, Senator Kennedy, as recently as last week, fought for legislation to give workers a civil right--the right to collective bargaining. He has been the compass of this institution too. He focuses his attention and our attention on the insecurities so many families in this country are facing. Our prayers today are with him as he heals, and with his lovely family. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, tomorrow we celebrate Armed Forces Day. Communities across my State, from Van Wert to St. Clairsville, from Sandusky to Ironton, will pause to honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women in all branches of the military service as they and we celebrate Armed Forces Day. I have held close to 100 roundtables around my State where, in many of them, I had the opportunity to speak with dozens of these honorable man and women. Those conversations reinforced my profound respect for their unstinting bravery, their unshakable sense of duty, and their unwavering commitment to our national security. Not long ago, at Walter Reed I visited two Ohio marines recovering from wounds suffered in Iraq. I asked each of them what was the first thing they thought about when they realized they were wounded. Both marines, independently of one another, said: ``Can I stay in the Marines.'' That simple statement speaks volumes about our men and women in uniform. Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to honor our troops, an opportunity to honor the sacrifices they and, equally importantly, their families have made to protect our Nation, and an opportunity to honor the promises our Nation has made to repay their services and sacrifices. That is so important. We are stewards of those promises. We have a responsibility to work every day, against opposition sometimes, to ensure that our Armed Forces receive the wages and benefits and services they have earned. Honoring our troops should be more than sentiment. It should be action. When we make promises to our troops, we should keep them. They most certainly have kept their promises to us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his terrific work as chairman of this committee, especially the work he does on conservation, nutrition, and for family farmers. We have for many months been debating the farm bill, legislation that wears many hats, all of them important. It is an agriculture bill, it is a food bill, it is an energy bill, it is a conservation bill, it is a world development bill, and it is an economic development bill. Melding these priorities, each one critical to our Nation's future, is a profound accomplishment. I particularly applaud Chairman Harkin for his work. Last spring, I held a series of roundtables throughout Ohio and heard directly from farmers about what this year's farm bill should look like. They told me a safety net that lends stability to market segments buffeted by unpredictable costs and volatile prices is essential. Farmers need a safety net that makes sense, but it is important to understand that farmers are not looking for a handout. Rather, farmers are looking for assistance when prices drop or natural disasters strike. This bill incorporates a safety net proposal I put forward with Senator Durbin, the Average Crop Revenue Program, which will help family farmers in Ohio and consumers and taxpayers across the country by strengthening and diversifying the farm safety net. For the first time ever, farmers will be able to enroll in a program that insures against revenue instability, which, for many farmers, makes more sense than the traditional price-focused safety net. Conservation programs were another frequent topic at the roundtables I held. One point is clear: Farmers do not want Washington rhetoric about conservation and alternative energy; they want commonsense programs and meaningful incentives, which this bill begins to provide. As I traveled around Ohio, I met with Mark Schwiebert, a corn farmer in northwest Ohio, who will take advantage of the Average Crop Revenue Election Program. By targeting overall revenue rather than simply price, farmers can receive better protections against two things: natural disasters--therefore, low yield--and price volatility. I met the same week with Ralph Dull, a hog farmer from Montgomery County who uses wind turbines to run his farm. Promoting sustainable farm-based renewable energy, such as the wind energy that Ralph's turbines produce, is another key element of the farm bill. Encouraging these ventures will help expand and diversify U.S. energy sources, while invigorating rural economies. During a roundtable in Chillicothe, I met with fruit and vegetable farmers who asked for more support as they provide fresh and healthy produce to Columbus and that region of the State. The farm bill creates a new program, the Healthy Food Enterprise Development Center, that will connect local farmers to communities that need access to healthy, affordable food. During a roundtable in Wayne County, I talked with dairy farmers such as Bryan Wolfe who told me about the difficulty he has had meeting rising feed costs. The bill provides relief for these dairy farmers by linking the dairy safety net to the cost of feed. This bill does something else. It fights hunger. When the purchasing power of food stamps erodes, so does our Nation's progress against hunger. This bill increases food stamp benefits and indexes the benefits to inflation. Nearly 400,000 people in Ohio will receive additional benefits from this bill. In Hocking County, OH, more than 2,000 residents went to the local food bank in a single day. That is over 7 percent of the local population. While we need to do more, this bill is a major step, especially in nutrition. We need to keep our eye on McGovern-Dole to make sure these dollars are available for nutrition all over the world. But this bill moves us forward. Ohio's families need this farm bill, and Ohio's rural communities deserve this farm bill.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in a little more than 2 hours, I will join members of the United States and Colombian labor organizations at a news conference speaking out against human rights abuses in Colombia, speaking out against the pending free-trade agreement that would ignore those abuses and, in some sense, excuse them. Much of the talk about this agreement centers around the violence and impunity in Colombia, especially as it relates to trade unionists. And for good reason. International organizations, human rights and religious groups look at Colombia's record with alarm and urgency. Human rights defenders, trade unionists, community leaders, and religious leaders are today, in too many cases, receiving death threats from rearmed paramilitary groups such as the Black Eagles and are reeling from a new wave of violence. Before, during, and after a countrywide rally on March 6, 2008, against paramilitary and all forms of violence, at least two march organizers were killed. Union leaders Carlo Burbano and Carmen Cecilia Carvajal were killed for simply trying to voice their views. Three other social leaders were killed in events that also were associated with the march. March organizers all over the country received death threats. One organizer's house was attacked with gunfire on February 29. Those human rights issues are serious. Yet the administration takes them in stride, barely acknowledging the Colombian culture of violence and then impunity, in too many cases, for those who committed those violent acts. In a short while, I will stand with nearly a dozen brave women and men who have come to Washington to give witness to the horrific danger they and their loved ones face every day. These brave men and women face threats to their jobs, their families, their homes, and their lives. They are under threat because they have taken a stand. They have fought for labor and human rights in Colombia. One message I want them to take back to Colombia is that we are not taking lightly what is happening to them. The administration may be taking it lightly, but an awful lot of people in the House and Senate and an awful lot of Americans don't take this lightly. We will push the Bush administration to take a stand against the violence occurring in Colombia instead of glossing over it. The President must not forsake our Nation's values, our profound respect for the rule of law, and our Nation's hard-won progress on behalf of labor and human rights and basic rights. Again, the President must not forsake our Nation's values and our profound respect for the rule of law or our hard-won progress to establish labor, human, and basic rights. The President must not forsake our values or dismiss the sacrifices of so many. The Colombian Government has taken steps to strengthen legal institutions and processes--I acknowledge that--but the bottom line is the violence is not subsiding. Murders of labor leaders continued at a pace of one per week already this year. Some newspapers have said the violence is down--and although it was down last year, now it is back up--and we should move on with this Colombia trade agreement because the violence is down. But when there is one labor activist killed every single week, it is hard to say that is an acceptable level. That is what people in the administration are saying. That is what some newspapers are saying, that that is an acceptable level of violence. No, we should not approve a trade agreement when that kind of violence is aimed at too many labor activists. For the sake of both our nations, the United States should not sign a trade deal with Colombia that shortchanges workers, that rewards polluters, that gives businesses the same power as sovereign governments. Later, I will talk more about a part of this trade agreement and how it does reward polluters and gives businesses the same power as sovereign governments. In many cases, corporations will be able to override the democratically attained rule of law, rules, and regulations. More on that later. Back to the issue at hand with Colombia, we absolutely should not sign a trade deal that forgives treachery toward labor leaders, that says it is OK that these labor leaders are murdered. We in this body will fight alongside our Colombian labor friends for fair trade, and we will fight for their efforts to end the violence. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy again for his comments. Look at what happened in this country over the last decades, as we set up a system of collective bargaining for private employees. This body had no interest in telling GM and the UAW how to negotiate a contract, only that the rights of collective bargaining are recognized in this country. We have the same view--not a mandate, not an unfunded mandate, to be sure--the same view of setting up collective bargaining with governments, elected officials, in all that we do. As Senator Kennedy said, it is all pushed to the local level. They will make the decisions. That is why defeat of the Alexander amendment is crucial. It undoes all the good in this bill. After defeating the Alexander amendment, this legislation should receive an affirmative vote.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I concur in what the junior Senator from Maine has said, if the volunteer firefighter organizations worked closely with Senators Gregg and Kennedy and they are supportive and have signed off on the language. I am particularly pleased to participate in this discussion for a lot of reasons. One of them is because I was in the Ohio State legislature many years ago--about 25 years ago--when we debated a bill that would have given collective bargaining rights to Ohio first responders. That legislation eventually passed. I have to tell you Ohio, partly because of that legislation, has the best public safety forces in the United States of America, the best police officers, the best firefighters, and the best EMS professionals. I may be biased about that, but I am also right. I have worked with the firefighters in Cincinnati to push for legislation that would help eliminate needless risks to their safety on the job. I have worked with firefighters in Lorain and Akron to make sure Federal and municipal firefighters receive the proper benefits when injury strikes. I have worked with police officers to fight for the COPS Program and with EMS professionals to reduce the redtape surrounding hometown hero benefits. All these men and women have pledged to fight for our lives. Every single day they bear deadly risks on our behalf. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act gives Members of this body an opportunity to fight for first responders, just as they fight for us. It gives us an opportunity to take on risk and overcome it, just as our first responders do. S. 2123 will reduce the risk of injury or death to first responders and the public they serve. The Alexander amendment will take away our ability to do that. S. 2123 will reduce the risk of a first responder workforce shortage. The Alexander amendment, again, will take away our ability to do that. It will reduce the risk that first responders will be grossly overworked or dramatically underpaid. The Alexander amendment will take away our ability to do that. It will reduce avoidable risks, and when it comes to public safety, avoidable risks are unconscionable risks. Some public safety professionals have the right to negotiate fair wages, decent benefits, and proper equipment. Some don't have that right. That is because some States empower their first responders to collectively bargain and others don't. Collective bargaining is not just about wages or benefits; it is about doing the job in the safest way possible, doing the job in the best way possible. If first responders, without bargaining rights, are underpaid or overworked or poorly outfitted, their options include living with it or leaving. Neither option serves the public good. Our Nation has a stake in ensuring that public safety jobs are filled in every town, every city, and every State. Denying first responders the right to negotiate fair wages--denying them the right to negotiate their own safety--is not exactly a strong selling point for these jobs. That is why the Alexander amendment should go down and the bill should pass. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act ensures that every first responder, regardless of where she or he lives, can do that. This bill promotes fairness and safety. It wasn't just written for first responders--police, firefighters, and EMS professionals. It was also written for those who rely on first responders. That is us. This bill was written for us. Senator Alexander's amendment, when he spoke, talked about the ``Washington knows best'' attitude. I thought about that as he was talking. His points were well made and well articulated. I wear on my lapel a pin that is a depiction of a canary in a birdcage. About 100 years ago, the mine workers used to take the canary into the mine, and if it died from toxic gas or from a lack of oxygen, the mine worker knew he had to get out of the mine. In those days, the worker had no Government that cared enough to protect him, no union strong enough to protect him, and he didn't have collective bargaining rights. We know that 100 years ago, a baby born in this country lived to be about 46 or 47 years old. Today, a child lives 30 years longer. Do you know why that is? It is not mostly miracle medical technology. Certainly, chemotherapy and heart transplants and other things help many of us live longer. But the reason people live 30 years longer today is, frankly, because of national standards, because of collective bargaining rights. Look around. We have strong collective bargaining laws, and people live 30 years longer because we have strong laws on safe drinking water and clean air. We have strong laws on minimum wage and Social Security and Medicare and prohibition on child labor and protections for women and all the things that were negotiated at the bargaining table and were passed by this Congress--setting national standards on clean air, on safer drinking water, on worker safety, national standards on a whole host of issues that are important to all of us. That is why when I hear this ``Washington knows best,'' we will do it our own way--we have not done that on civil rights or worker rights. As a nation, we share these values, whether we are from Wyoming, Tennessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts or Ohio, and we share these values of helping people, giving them collective bargaining rights, passing a minimum wage increase, having safe drinking water and clean air and pure food laws--all that our country has stood for. Also, Senator Alexander said this act imposes an unfunded mandate on cities and States, and they would not even be able to afford new benefits for public safety officers. I will answer that for a moment. First of all, under the bill, no costs are imposed. The bill comes with no pricetag. There is not a single provision in the bill that requires cities and States to spend a penny. Senator Alexander spoke about Pulaski and other communities in Tennessee, saying we are going to go to Tennessee and tell them how much they are going to have to pay first responders in Pulaski or in Nashville. We don't want to do that. I don't want the Federal Government to tell us what first responders in Mansfield, Zanesville, Lima, Springfield, and Xenia should get. But this bill doesn't do that. It doesn't set those kinds of standards, and we know that. I wish to speak to a couple other issues. No particular terms are imposed in this legislation. Local governments under the Kennedy-Gregg bill are free to write their own contracts. The bill doesn't require any particular terms. State and local officials will sit down with workers and figure out together what will work for their communities. That is the whole point of collective bargaining, not to impose this health provision or this level of pension or that particular wage. It doesn't do that. It simply gives those communities the right to organize and bargain collectively. There is no binding arbitration in this bill. Many States have done binding arbitration. This bill doesn't require binding arbitration. So no third party can require a government to raise wages or spend any money the local government and their citizens don't agree to spend. State and local legislatures have the final say. We went out of our way to respect the autonomy of State governments. One way we have done that is to let State and local legislatures have the final say on collective bargaining agreements. The States can give their legislatures the right to approve or disapprove funding for any negotiated agreements. Again, that is what collective bargaining is all about, whether it is in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Ohio, or Tennessee. This bill most specifically is about mandating a discussion between employers and workers. It is not a mandate. It certainly is not an unfunded mandate. That is why the Alexander amendment should be defeated. That is why the underlying bill should be approved.

Mr. BROWN. I certainly will yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I certainly agree with the senior Senator from Massachusetts. In my State in Ohio, I have watched for 25 years what has happened with public employee collective bargaining. It has made the State better. At the beginning of my comments, I talked about Ohio, I believe, has the best police, fire, and EMS forces in the entire country. A big part of that came out of collective bargaining. Many times in communities when the city council reaches a difficult position with their police or with their fire or with their other first responders, the Federal Government does not get involved. We don't mandate that there should be a certain level of pay or certain level of fringe benefits or certain level of worker protections as they do their jobs. That is up to them, and this bill makes that easier to accomplish. In no way is there a mandate, and in no way is this an unfunded mandate. No costs are imposed, no terms are imposed, there is no binding arbitration. As Senator Kennedy said, if Newton, MA, Lynn or Boston want to have binding arbitration or factfinding, they can do that. It is the same with Marion, Portsmouth, and Ravenna, OH. They make those decisions. That is the beauty of this legislation. We set up the system of collective bargaining and let them make those determinations.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWN. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian. Trade Mr. President, for the last year, 15 months, 16 months, or so, as I have traveled throughout my home State of Ohio, I have held 95 or so roundtables with small business owners, entrepreneurs, workers, community leaders, family farmers, educators, and everywhere I go I hear variations of the same story--about plants that have closed and left for Mexico or China, and workers, often in their fifties and sixties, who have few alternatives. Manufacturing has been devastated over the past 5 years. Ohio has lost upwards of 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and this administration has been largely indifferent. One of these roundtables was held in Tiffin, OH, a small manufacturing city of about 20,000 people, an hour or so from Toledo. A company well known, American Standard, a company that makes plumbing equipment, was bought out by an investment banking firm from Boston in November. In December, they notified the workers they were going to shut down the plant and move its production elsewhere. A couple hundred workers lost their jobs, many of them lost big chunks of their pension, and some of them lost their health care. Yet the investors who came in and bought American Standard did, of course, very well. Today, Ohio and its neighbors feel this problem of plant shutdowns, what it means not just to the workers and their families, but what it means to the communities as it relates to police protection and fire protection and teachers, as these communities are badly hurt, particularly smaller cities, and they simply cannot afford to hire as many police and firemen and teachers. Ohio and its neighbors feel this problem most acutely, but it is the Nation's problem. Our economy cannot prosper unless we make and sell goods as well as services. Yet for the past several years, much of our Nation's greatest engineering prowess has not gone to Toledo or Dayton or Youngstown but, instead, to Wall Street. Unfortunately, traditional manufacturing has declined as a share of our economy, while the manufacture of financial products has become increasingly important. When I was elected to Congress in 1992, our trade deficit was $38 billion--$38 billion a decade and a half ago. Today, it exceeds $800 billion. With oil reaching $121 per barrel, and perhaps higher soon, the trade deficit will likely only increase in the years ahead. Leading up to the Ohio Presidential primary in March, the media focused on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. In Ohio, when we talk about NAFTA, we mean our overall trade policy, be it with Mexico and Canada, or China, or Central America. But the media, of course, hears only the word ``protectionism.'' When you think about it, that is a pretty interesting choice of words. On the one side you have proponents of free trade, while on the other side you have what many papers label as ``protectionists.'' Those of us in favor of fair trade are, indeed, trying to protect what we believe is important. We would like to protect the labor standards our country has fought so hard to establish over many decades. We would like to help our trading partners, the developing world, to improve their labor standards. We would like to protect consumers in this country from defective and even dangerous products. We would like to protect our children from toys covered with lead paint and our hospital patients from tainted blood products. We would like to protect the ability of our manufacturers to compete against foreign companies without having to overcome trade barriers such as currency manipulation. So, yes, there are things I would like to protect. But so-called free traders are interested in protecting their interests, as well. They would like to protect their beef from imports. They would like to protect pharmaceutical companies, as they do. They would like to protect financial services. In fact, trade agreements of recent years basically are chock full of protections--protections for the financial service industries, protections for the pharmaceutical industry, protections for big oil. In fact, NAFTA--what I hold in my hand is not the actual NAFTA trade agreement but NAFTA was about this size. NAFTA contained hundreds of pages of protections--protections in areas that go way beyond tariffs on goods. It is similar with the Colombia trade agreement; it is also about this size. If they were free-trade agreements, you could have written them on about this many pages: five, six pages. All you would need is a tariff schedule--a schedule of tariffs we were going to reduce or eliminate. But, instead, NAFTA and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and these others are this big. Do you know why? It is not just the tariff schedules. They also have protections for the drug industries, protections for the banks, protections for the oil industry, protections for all kinds of corporate interests in every one of these trade agreements. That is why when we talk about protections, let's be fair. Yes, to be sure, I want to protect workers. I want to protect communities such as Tiffin, OH. I want to protect Sandusky and protect Lorain and protect Springfield and protect Zanesville. I want to make sure those communities are not devastated by these trade agreements that have all kinds of protections for the largest corporate interests but very little for the environment, even less for workers, and even less still to protect our food supply and our toy supply for our children. We need to recast this debate. Those of us who want to change the rules are not protectionists, in spite of what every elitist newspaper from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and everything in between likes to say. Those of us who want to enforce trade laws and defend against bumping Chinese steel products are not protectionists. Those who want safe ingredients in pharmaceuticals we import are not protectionists. Those who want to make sure our children's toys coming from China--after our toy companies outsource jobs, push the Chinese subcontractors to cut costs. They cut costs by putting lead-based paint on toys because it is cheaper, it is easier to apply, it is shinier, it dries faster. Yet then these products, these toys come into the United States, and the Bush administration has weakened consumer protection laws and cut the number of inspectors so, because of this trade policy, this protectionist, protect-industry-at-all-costs trade policy, we have these tainted toys entering the bedrooms of too many of our children. Trade is not just about exchanging goods between countries. Trade, when done right, is about lifting workers in the United States and lifting workers abroad out of poverty. It is about creating new industry. It is about creating new business. It is about creating new jobs. It is about ensuring strong and thriving economies for all parties involved. Fair trade products--for example, coffee, tea, bananas, flowers-- products once relegated to specialty shelves in health food stores have now found their way into mainstream America. Costco and McDonalds have begun to promote fair trade. That is fair trade where workers share in some of the profits they produce for their employers. They know it means quality products and good business sense at home. In the coffee fields of Nicaragua, fair trade products mean a bright future for tens of thousands of young girls--girls who often would not have been able to go to school, but they are able to because their parents--coffee farmers in the case of Nicaragua--are making an income that gives them enough, sometimes more than $1 a pound, as opposed to coffee that is not fair trade where maybe they get only half that. The kids of those workers do not get to go to school. Fair trade products mean that farmers in developing nations earn two to three times more for their products, and those children, as I said, can get an education. Fair trade products mean workers on flower farms across Latin America will be free from poisonous pesticides that cause death and birth defects. Fair trade products mean that workers in developing nations will earn more and be able to buy more from us--the whole point of trade. That means, obviously, increased exports for U.S. businesses. Fair trade means trade--and more of it--but with a very different set of rules, not this kind of protectionism to protect the drug companies and the oil industry and the insurance industry and the financial services, but trade agreements with a different set of rules that help lift up people, both in the developing world and in this country. Proponents of the same failed trade policies of the last 15 years need to stop selling the trade deal with Colombia, for example, as a path to a stronger economy. NAFTA sent 19 million more Mexicans below the poverty line. Today, there are 19 million more Mexicans living below the poverty line than in 1993, since NAFTA. CAFTA has failed--the Central American Free Trade Agreement--to create the thriving middle class in Central America that proponents promised. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement, as written, will produce the same results: more poverty abroad, more lost U.S. jobs, more small businesses in this country closing up shop. The first President Bush said each billion dollars--listen to this-- each billion dollars of our trade surplus or deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. A billion-dollar trade surplus creates 13,000 jobs. A billion-dollar trade deficit costs 13,000 jobs. That is what the first President Bush said. That was back when the trade deficit was $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. Again, think about that: 13,000 jobs for a billion-dollar trade deficit or surplus. Today, the trade deficit exceeds $800 billion. Just do the math. The cost in jobs of this enormous increase in our trade deficit is staggering. It is not surprising that voters in my State see bad trade deals as a major factor in the destruction of our manufacturing base. They know our economy and they know their interests are undermined by that exploding trade deficit. They know Ohio's problems are Colorado's problems and Montana's problems and Massachusetts' problems. They know for the past three decades the historical link between rising productivity and rising wages has been severed. For most of my life--well, half of my life; the first 25 or 30 years of my life--in this country, when workers were more productive, their wages went up. If I had a chart, you could see that. We could map productivity, and we could map wages. In this country, for decades and decades and decades, this created the middle class. This is what made us a successful economy and a successful democratic capitalist country--that productivity and wages would almost be parallel. Today, particularly in the last decade, that connection has absolutely been severed. That has been the problem in many ways with our economy. Wages have been flat, profits have been up, executive salaries have exploded, and the middle class has struggled mightily. Our country has entered a period where income inequality is at the highest level in 70 years. Now is the time to be asking the right questions. It is time to end the name calling and have a real debate about trade. We are at a critical juncture in our Nation's history. It serves both sides of the trade debate to remember that U.S. trade policy is a tool. It is not a fairy godmother. It should not be used to temporarily pump up well-connected industries--as trade policy often is; hence, all the protections--nor should it be used to tamp down competitive forces. Our trade policy must promote competition, build on the progress our Nation has made, and promote our Nation's economic and strategic objectives rather than flouting them. Ultimately, it will be ingenuity and sweat equity--we know that--that enables our country to thrive in the global marketplace. Like every country, we will have to work harder and smarter to win every contract and every sale. But it is the role of governments to ensure the rules for that contest are fair and that the interests of everyone--not just those we protect in our trade agreements--to ensure that everyone has a stake and everyone is served by our trade policy. Our Government has not done that. Our trade deficit has ballooned, our manufacturing sector is faltering, and real wages are falling. The last thing we need is more business as usual. No more NAFTAs, no more CAFTAs, no more Colombia trade agreements. Business as usual has not worked. The status quo is not working. Again, 15\1/2\ years ago, the trade deficit was $38 billion; today, it is $800 billion. We need to decide what our economic goals will be and how we achieve them. If we do not, we will wake up to find we have left a sorry legacy to our Nation, to our communities, and to our children. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hatch, for his leadership on this issue and on so many other health issues. He has had a terrific career in public service, especially on public health issues such as MRSA, and we are all appreciative of that all over the country. In the last year, as we know, we have seen news reports about outbreaks around the country of a dangerous infection commonly referred to, as Senator Hatch said, by the acronym MRSA. MRSA is a strain of staph infection that is resistant to penicillin and related antibiotics. While MRSA was previously thought to occur only in hospital settings--bad enough--Americans have begun to contract it in schools and communities. Last year, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that MRSA infections occur in approximately 94,000 people each year and are associated with approximately 19,000 deaths. Think about that. On September 11, 3,000-plus people were killed in New York, Washington, DC, and in Pennsylvania. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents. We are talking about 19,000 deaths from MRSA infections, not to mention other kinds of related deaths from similar infections. That article in the Journal of the American Medical Association is a wake-up call that we must not ignore. In my State of Ohio, there were 12 outbreaks of MRSA last year alone. Ohioans contracted MRSA in health care settings, in the workplace, on sports teams, and in corrections facilities. The head of the Centers for Disease Control told me on the phone several months ago that high school students sharing towels or getting burns from artificial turf at football practice or coming into the gym and sharing a towel that might have been used the day before that wasn't washed--some students contracted MRSA from that. It is fairly rare that way, but it happens. Most students recover fine from it, but occasionally some do not. MRSA outbreaks took place in counties across the State of Ohio, including Franklin, Gallia, Madison, Cuyahoga, Allen, Portage, Vinton, Fairfield, and Miami. If you look at a map of Ohio, outbreaks happened in all sections of our State. Robert Totsch died in his hometown of Coshocton, a community in southeast Ohio, after contracting a hospital-acquired MRSA infection. Here is what happened to him. He was a kind and loving husband, father of two and proud grandfather of five. He was a retired guidance counselor, a Korean war Navy veteran who had served his country during that war. In September of 2006, Robert Totsch suffered a heart attack and needed triple bypass surgery. Once the procedure was over, his doctors told him the surgery couldn't have gone better. They said Robert would be home by the following Saturday in time to watch his alma mater Ohio State playing football on his own TV in his own house. But Robert had contracted a surgical site MRSA infection that spread to his blood stream. The surgeon told him ``5 or 6 others in the intensive care unit had MRSA.'' Robert was given numerous antibiotics, including an antibiotic of last resort. While he was in the ICU on life support, Robert and his wife celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Robert should have gone home. While he went into the hospital for a heart condition, it was not his heart problems that took his life. Robert's wife and children miss him every day and are still recovering from watching him suffer during those last days of life. This story is painful, especially because we know this infection, and the deaths that have resulted from it, don't have to happen. MRSA outbreaks are part of the larger problem of what we lay people call ``superbugs'' that are resistant to antibiotics, which are the cornerstone of modern medicine, but they are under siege. Over time, fueled by antibiotic misuse and overuse in farm animals and human beings, bacteria mutate to develop resistance to those antibiotics. In response to this health care crisis, Senator Hatch and I introduced the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act, also known as the STAAR Act. That bill is meant to reinvigorate efforts to combat the so-called superbugs--efforts that accelerated in the late 1990s, and then stalled. We need to respond more quickly to this problem because it will only grow with time, reversing years of progress in the fight against debilitating and deadly illness. We know what antibiotics have done to save lives since the discovery of penicillin. Our bill will launch a coordinated effort to prevent outbreaks of MRSA and other dangerous drug-resistant infections. It would jumpstart research on the superbugs and explore strategies to ensure a robust pipeline for new antibiotic drugs. Drug-resistant bacteria sets back the clock on medical progress. It costs more and, more importantly, it costs lives. No one should go into a hospital for one problem with their health and leave with another--or not leave at all. We need to take antibiotic resistance seriously and fight it with as much passion as we fight any potential killer. I thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and for introducing this bill with me. I look forward to working with him to help get it passed. I yield the floor.