Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose amendment No. 3324, the Sessions amendment. As far as I know, there is no Member of this body who opposes rigorous oversight of labor unions. Members of this body who care about the well-being of American workers don't want them harmed, period. It doesn't matter if it is an employer or a union leader or the U.S. Trade Representative who is doing the harming. Unions are already subject, as they should be, to stringent reporting requirements, and unions overwhelmingly comply with whatever requirements are mandated. In its budget justification, the Department of Labor stated that the acceptability rate for unions in meeting their financial requirements is 96 percent. There is not a serious problem. We don't have a problem with monitoring unions. What we do have a problem with is attacking workers, which is what this amendment will do. The offset of this amendment should offend any Member of this body who respects the hard-fought progress our Nation has made in the workplace, whether it is protecting the health and safety of workers or preventing the exploitation of children. Look at what this amendment does. It increases funding 37 percent for ``labor-management standards.'' It does nothing for wage and hour enforcement. The Presiding Officer from Iowa has fought so hard for more wages to build the middle class. Look what it does here--and one of the reasons we have had stagnant wages in this country--it cuts funding for occupational safety and health. We know what has happened with workers in the workplace. We have seen an increase in incidents because of the Bush administration's lax enforcement of OSHA standards to begin with. Look what it does to the International Labor Affairs Bureau. This offset would undercut our investment in fighting the worst forms of child labor and human trafficking. It would undercut our ability to ensure that labor laws in developing nations are being enforced. When those laws are not enforced, not only are there gross human rights abuses, there are insurmountable obstacles to fair competition in the global trading arena. In other words, when we do not enforce labor standards in the developing world, it is only costing us jobs because they are undercutting our wages because they are violating labor law and they are basically not playing fair. This administration now seeks more of the same, asking Congress to approve trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. This amendment is more of the same. The Sessions amendment cuts from the small contribution--the small contribution--this Government makes toward eliminating the worst forms of labor abuse. Many countries still permit deplorable practices such as child labor and forced labor. The Sessions amendment cuts funding of the International Labor Affairs Bureau by $5 million. That undercuts its core mission: investigating and combating these violations of human dignity. Look at these children shown in this picture I have in the Chamber, and look at the work they are doing, hour after hour, day after day, in all too many places around the world. This is economic globalization on the cheap, and our Nation cannot afford it. Many in this Chamber may remember a report released last year by the National Labor Committee which exposed disgraceful working conditions in Jordan--a country with which we have a free trade agreement. The report documented workers who were trafficked--their passports confiscated when they arrived in Jordan. They used materials made in China to make finished projects eligible for duty-free entry into the United States, passing through Jordan. We see too many workers in places such as Jordan. And our administration, what does it do? It looks the other way. International Labor Affairs funding--the funding this amendment would cut--goes toward the implementation of ILO Convention 182 on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. It has been ratified by 165 nations. The funding provides foreign governments with technical assistance on meeting their responsibilities so this does not happen. A more recent ILO report, ``The End of Child Labor: Within Reach,'' showed that the number of children working around the world dropped 11 percent, from 246 million children--like these--in 2000, to 218 million in 2004. That is not good enough, but that is progress, and the Sessions amendment would pull the rug out from under that progress. Members of this body who vote ``yes'' on this Sessions amendment will be simultaneously launching a gratuitous attack on labor unions in this country and abandoning workers, including these children, and others, who are being abused and exploited. It is doubly wrong. Vote ``no.'' Amendment No. 3348 To Amendment No. 3325 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 3348 at the desk.

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

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

Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lieberman and Whitehouse be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Lead and Children's Health.''

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will provide general oversight on current regulatory and programmatic activities at the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Commerce Committee has general oversight jurisdiction over the entire Department and specific authority over the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Maritime Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, amongst other entities within the Department.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the committee will explore the effects science parks can have on innovation and competitiveness including encouraging partnerships with academia, and spurring regional economic development. The committee also will examine public policy involvement in science park development.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise to support the Dorgan amendment offered earlier this evening. I thank him for his amendment. I am a proud cosponsor. The Dorgan amendment makes sense for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, we need updated and current information on what NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which passed in November of 1993, means for our country today and, most importantly, because the North American Free Trade Agreement has become the model, for good or bad, for trade policy since. The Central American Free Trade Agreement was built on the NAFTA model. Trade agreements Presidents asked this Congress to pass, negotiated with Peru and Colombia, Panama and South Korea, while tweaked, while having some improvements, perhaps, in the case of Peru and Panama, some significant improvements, nonetheless are based on the same failed trade model that NAFTA was based on, a trade model that entertains investor-state relations giving more authority to corporations to undercut environmental laws in our country, to undercut labor law, and to undercut the values of our society. I wish President Bush would sit down with the steel worker in Steubenville or the machinist in Toledo or the tool and die shop owner in Lorain and talk about what these trade policies, this NAFTA model the Dorgan amendment addresses, in fact means for American workers, what they mean for American small manufacturers, what they mean for our communities, what they mean in Hamilton and Middletown and Ashtabula and Maineville, what impact that has on communities. These trade policies, which are set in Washington and negotiated across the globe, have a direct impact on Toledo, on Wauseon, on Findlay, on Bowling Green, all across our State. That is why the voters in my State and across the country sent a message loudly and clearly in November demanding a very different direction in trade policy, a trade policy that serves workers, consumers, families, and communities rather than one that serves investors, especially the wealthy in other countries and the wealthy in this country. Working men and women in Ohio, including the machine shop owner in Akron and the factory worker in Columbus, know that job loss doesn't just affect the worker or the worker's family or the business owner. Job loss in the thousands affects communities and police, the number of police and firefighters and teachers and workers in a community and the economic vitality of that community. What we have seen in the last few years in this country is disturbing especially in this sense. American workers all across the board, whether they are in the State of the Presiding Officer, Washington, or in Lima, OH, are more productive; whether they work with their hands or minds or whether they are a retailer or whether they are a factory owner, workers are more productive, provably, quantifiably, quantitatively way more productive than they were 5 years ago. That is a testament to our Nation's hard-working and skilled labor force. It is a testament to our job training and education system. The problem is, those workers' productivity is no longer parallel to their wages. It used to be in this country, after the war, since the 1940s, that as productivity went up, workers' wages and profits went up roughly at the same pace. But we have seen a disconnect. As productivity goes up and up because workers with their capital investments are more and more productive, we have not seen wages keep up. In a nutshell, that is because ultimately what has happened is, our Nation's workers don't share in the wealth they have created for their employers. If you are a worker and you create more wealth for your employer, you should share in the wealth. But that is not what is happening. That disconnect is more and more obvious in this country, especially in a State such as Ohio. Some years after NAFTA passed the House and Senate and was signed into law, took effect, the agreement among Mexico and the United States and Canada, some 5 years later, at my own expense, I flew to McAllen, TX, rented a car with a couple friends, went across the border into Reynosa, Mexico. I wanted to see how NAFTA was working on the other side of the border. I knew how it was working in Lorain and Akron and Sandusky and Findlay, but I wanted to see how it worked on the other side of the border. I went to the home of two General Electric workers. They worked for GE Mexico. They lived in a 20-by-20-foot shack, dirt floors, no running water or electricity. When it rained hard, the dirt floors turned to mud. These were full-time workers, 3 miles from the United States of America, just south of the Rio Grande. These workers were working every bit as hard as any workers in the United States. But they weren't sharing in the wealth they created for their employers. As you walked around their home, in the community behind their shack was a ditch maybe 4 feet wide, 2 by 4 across the ditch. This ditch was filled with I am not sure what, human/industrial effluent waste running through the neighborhood. The American Medical Association says along the Rio Grande River is one of most toxic places in the western hemisphere. There were children playing in the ditch contracting who knows what kind of diseases that they might pick up along this very polluted little waterway, if you could call it that. But as you walked around this neighborhood and you looked at these shacks, you could tell where the workers worked because the workers' shacks were constructed from the packing materials of the companies for which they worked. The roofs, the walls were made of cardboard boxes and other kinds of packing materials, crates where these workers worked. Not far away from these shacks I visited an auto plant. This plant looked just like an auto plant in the United States. It was modern, maybe more modern, more up to date, the best technology. The workers were working hard. The floors were clean, all that you would want in a modern industrial plant. But there was one difference between the Mexican auto plant and an auto plant in Norwood or Toledo. The auto plant in Mexico had no parking lot because the workers there weren't paid enough to buy the cars they made. They weren't sharing in the wealth they created. You could go halfway around the world to a Motorola plant in Malaysia, and workers weren't paid enough to buy the cell phones they make. You could come back to Costa Rica and go to a Disney plant, and the workers weren't making enough to buy toys for their children. You could go halfway around the world to China and go to a Nike plant or a bicycle plant, and the workers were not making enough to buy the Nikes or the bicycles they were making, that they were building. That is the key. In our trade policy, which has become international in this globalized economy, because of what is happening around the world and because of the way we write trade policy, workers are simply not sharing in the wealth they create. Whether it is a Mexican auto plant, a Malaysian cell phone plant, a toy plant in Costa Rica, or a shoe plant in China, the workers are not making enough to share in the wealth. The workers are not sharing in the wealth they create. That is what has happened in our country, this disconnect between productivity and wages. More than anything, that is why the middle class is shrinking. That is why the Dorgan amendment is so important to show the world, to show the country, to show us in this body what we need to do to fix our trade policy. This trade policy hurts local business owners, not just the plant that might lay off or close, but it hurts the drugstore, the grocery store, the neighborhood restaurant. It hurts teachers and firefighters and police. It hurts the people whom the police and the firefighters and the teachers serve. When I first ran for Congress, our trade deficit was $38 billion. Today, after NAFTA and NAFTA clones, like the Central American Free Trade agreement, the WTO and PNTR with China, our trade deficit has topped $800 billion, from $38 billion in 1992 to $800 billion today. Our trade deficit with China in 1992 was barely double digits, barely $10 billion. Now it probably--for 2007, we don't know for sure--is going to exceed $250 billion. The first President Bush said a $1 billion trade surplus or deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. Whether he is right, he is close enough to be right. When you do the math, a $1 billion trade surplus or trade deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. When you do the math, you can see the kind of effect our trade policy has on us, not just with lost jobs but with what it has done to break that connection between productivity and workers' wages. That is the story of our trade policy and why the Dorgan amendment is so important. The current system is not sustainable. We want trade. We want plenty of trade but not under this NAFTA model. We want trade under a whole new set of rules. Now is not the time for more bad trade deals. We need to adopt the Dorgan amendment, look at what has happened with our trade policy, pause, and have a national conversation about a new direction for trade in the 21st century. Let's wait on the passage of Peru and Panama. Let's wait on the passage of South Korea and Colombia. We need a conversation that includes all parties involved. That means investors. It means workers. It means small business owners. It means communities with people who are so affected by trade. The Dorgan amendment is a significant first step in doing that. We should adopt the Dorgan amendment. We should pause and look at where our trade policy is going, and then we should embark in a new direction on trade in this country. family forum earmark

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, in this Chamber, we passed the Children's Health Insurance Program and passed it by a big majority, passed it bipartisanly, when almost two dozen Republicans joined, I believe, all the Senate Democrats in passing a program that has worked for 10 years. I was in the House of Representatives when we initially wrote the Children's Health Insurance Program. It was written by a Democratic President, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate. It has worked splendidly for the last 10 years. It has, in fact, provided health insurance for literally millions and millions of American middle-class families--families making a little bit too much to qualify for Medicaid but families either not earning quite enough to buy insurance or not working in a place that offers insurance at a decent, reasonable rate. We know the children who are in the Children's Health Insurance Program are sons and daughters of working parents--again, working parents overwhelmingly making between about $20,000 and $50,000 a year. The Senate passed the Children's Health Insurance Program expansion, which would have meant, in addition to the 6.6 million children in our country receiving health insurance under the Children's Health Insurance Program today, it would have added about another 4 million American children. About 200,000 children in my State--from Ashtabula to Hamilton, from Wauseon to Marietta--now receive coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program. This would have added tens of thousands more to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Unfortunately, a couple weeks ago, the President of the United States decided to veto this legislation even though it passed with more than four dozen Republican votes in the House joining almost every Democrat and passed with almost two dozen Republican votes in the Senate. I wish the President, before he vetoed this legislation, had done what a lot of us did. I know the Presiding Officer from Missouri has done this. So many of us have talked to families in our States. I have talked to families in Lima and in Canfield and in Columbus and in Dublin and in Springfield about what the Children's Health Insurance Program means to them. Eleven-year-old Tanner Stainbrook of Toledo has cystic fibrosis. Both of his parents work. They are playing by the rules, working hard, and paying their taxes. But without CHIP, without the Children's Health Insurance Program, Tanner cannot get the care he needs. Seth Novak is a 3-year-old boy who lives in Lebanon, OH, down in the southwest corner of the State near Cincinnati. Seth has Down's syndrome and needs the Children's Health Insurance Program to help him stay healthy. Again, his parents are working, but they simply cannot get the insurance, in part, as with many of these children, because of a preexisting condition and also because of the finances the family faces and the lack of health coverage. Emily Danko of Columbus also has Down's syndrome. Without CHIP, Emily has no health insurance. I wish the President had talked to the Stainbrook family and the Novak family and the Danko family and talked to them about their situations. I am not sure he would have vetoed this bill if he had done that. Unfortunately, the President made the decision to veto this bill. When he did, he mentioned several things. I would like to briefly touch on what he said and what the truth really is. The President of the United States said this will result in all kinds of families shifting their children from private health insurance to Government health insurance. Were it so that all those families he talks about had private health insurance--if they all had private health insurance--we would not be concerned about this Children's Health Insurance Program. But the fact is, most of these families--the overwhelming majority of these families--who will be on this Children's Health Insurance Program expansion are not getting private insurance or they are getting very inadequate private insurance. The President said families making up to $80,000 a year could get this insurance. That is patently untrue. If a State wants to do that, they have to apply to the Federal Government, and the President has already said no to the State of New York. He could say no to other States. So that is clearly, simply not true. The President also said the Children's Health Insurance Program is just too expensive--a $7 billion-a-year increase over the next 5 years; $7 billion a year to insure 4 million children a year; $7 billion a year contrasted with what we spend on the war in Iraq: $2.5 billion a week; $7 billion a year for 4 million children versus $2.5 billion and climbing per week for a war we never should have been in, a civil war the President continues to immerse our Nation in, with no plan to end. The last thing the President said is this program is socialized medicine, that we are going down the path of socialized medicine. The President forgets to say he and many Members of Congress get health care from Bethesda--go out to Bethesda and get their health care, with Government doctors taking care of Members of Congress and the President. The President also forgets to mention that when he calls it socialized medicine, that, in fact, this legislation was supported bipartisanly 10 years ago in a Republican House, Republican Senate, and with a Democratic President--hardly socialized medicine supported by that many conservative Republicans back then and today. This legislation is supported by 68 Senators, including 18 Republicans; is supported by 43 Governors, including 16 Republicans; is supported by more than 270 organizations, representing millions of Americans. The beauty of this legislation is for 10 years it has worked for America's children. And 6.6 million children have insurance today because of the Children Health Insurance Program. We can expand this program at the cost of about $3.50 a day to cover a child through the Children's Health Insurance Program, and do that for 4 million children. It makes sense for our children, it makes sense for our communities, and it makes sense for our country.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I begin my thanking Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby, as well as Senators Baucus and Grassley, for their support of this amendment. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Stabenow, Byrd, Rockefeller, and Levin. I should note that the Finance Committee chair has drafted a bill to boost trade enforcement. I look forward to working on that very important piece of legislation. This amendment will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers. For generations American manufacturing has been a tremendous source of pride and work for our whole country. Especially for working families, it has been a ladder to the middle class. American manufacturing fuels our economy and supplies our national defense infrastructure. It would be dangerous on many levels for our country to ignore the anticompetitive forces that are buffeting every day our manufacturing sector. In the State of Michigan, in Ohio, across the Midwest, throughout the country, it would be and is dangerous to ignore that. Over the last several years, U.S. manufacturing has faltered. Millions of good jobs have been lost. In my State of Ohio, from Toledo to Gallipolis, from Ashtabula to Middletown, well over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the last 6 years. American industry, we know, can compete with anyone in the world when it is a fair fight. Our international trade laws are intended to secure a level playing field. Unfortunately, some of our trading partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws to gain an unfair advantage against our workers and our companies. This has led to record-breaking trade deficits--some $800 billion in 2006--which threaten the long-term health of our economy and massive job losses which have wreaked havoc on the middle class. Foreign governments have unfairly and illegally doled out massive subsidies to their own companies and others willing to reestablish offshore, contributing to the migration of manufacturing jobs overseas and artificial price advantages for imported products. Despite ample evidence that something is very wrong--when I first ran for Congress in 1992, the U.S. multilateral trade deficit was $38 billion. Last year it was literally more than 20 times that, and we can look at job loss figures, the trade deficit, outsourcing figures, offshoring figures--the Bush administration needs to aggressively enforce American trade law. Recent WTO decisions threaten to create enormous loopholes in trade law enforcement. This affects industries and local economies throughout the country. We know about steel. We know about paper. But it affects all American manufacturing. That is why we need to be more aggressive in enforcement of the trade laws. If the WTO continues to target U.S. trade remedy laws, we in this Chamber need to fight back. This amendment is a modest reminder to the administration that we need to vigorously enforce our trade laws. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their support. I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the senior Senator from Maryland for her work, especially today, on much of what she has done, but especially for what she did on NASA earlier today that will matter to northern Ohio, my whole State, and to much of the rest of this country. I rise, quickly, to offer an amendment that will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers. American manufacturing, for generations, has been a tremendous source of pride for our country and a ladder to the middle class for our working families. American manufacturing fuels our economy and supplies our national defense infrastructure. It would be dangerous, on many levels, for our country to ignore the anticompetitive forces that are buffeting our manufacturing sector. It would be, and it is. Over the last several years, American manufacturing has faltered and millions of jobs have been lost. In my home State of Ohio, well over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the last half decade or so--from Steubenville to Lima and from Cleveland to Dayton. Workers and manufacturers in all our States find it increasingly difficult to compete in today's global markets, where the odds are stacked against them because of unfair trade practices. American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it is a fair fight. Our international trade laws are intended to secure a level playing field, but, unfortunately, some of our trading partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws to gain an unfair advantage against workers in the United States. This has led to recordbreaking trade deficits, which threaten the long-term health of our economy, and massive job losses, which have wreaked havoc on the middle class. Some foreign governments, for example, have unfairly and illegally doled out massive subsidies to their own companies and others willing to reestablish offshore, contributing to the migration of manufacturing jobs overseas and artificial price advantages for imported products. Despite evidence that something is very wrong, you can look at job loss figures, deficit figures, outsourcing figures or offshoring figures. Our Government has chosen not to aggressively enforce U.S. trade remedy laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting. The WTO has issued a series of decisions striking down the practice known as zeroing in U.S. antidumping proceedings. Zeroing is a methodology employed for measuring and remedying unfair foreign dumping--the practice of selling products in the United States at below ``fair value,'' which corrupts free market competition and undermines U.S. industries. Zeroing, a practice our Government has used for more than 80 years, has been upheld by U.S. courts and the GATT and is recognized as good policy because it combats unfair dumping. The WTO's decisions threaten to create an enormous loophole in trade law enforcement. This affects industries and local economies throughout our country--not just steel, not just paper, so many things. The WTO decisions on issues such as zeroing is an overreach. The USTR must work harder to overturn the recent European and Japanese zeroing decisions in negotiations and delay full implementation of the Japanese decision until, at a minimum, other methodologies are in place to capture 100 percent of dumping. If the WTO continues to target U.S. trade remedy laws, we need to fight back. The administration's lack of backbone is unacceptable. This amendment is a modest reminder to the administration that we need to vigorously enforce our trade laws. I urge my colleagues to give it their support. Aeronautics Research

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Maryland. Amendment No. 3260 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3260.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our Nation's haphazard trade policy has done plenty of damage to Ohio's economy, to our manufacturers, to our small businesses. Recent news reports of tainted foods and toxic toys reveal another hazard of ill-conceived and unenforced trade rules. They subject American families, American children, to products that can harm them, that, in some cases, can actually kill them. Ohio's Ashland University Chemistry Professor Jeff Weidenhamer recently tested 22 Halloween products for lead. Three products tested were found to contain high lead levels. Acceptable levels of lead, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are 600 parts per million. A Halloween Frankenstein cup, presumably a cup that ends up in a child's hand, contained 39,000--not 600--39,000 parts per million. Both Professor Weidenhamer and I have sent letters to the CPSC demanding action. Exposure to lead can affect almost every organ in the body, especially the central nervous system. Lead is especially toxic to the brains of developing young children. In the last century, we made gains in combating health and safety issues. Whether it was the FDA banning red dye No. 2 or chloroform in medicines or it was banning lead in paint, the Government created a structure, a safety net that makes it harder for unsafe products to reach consumers. That safety net is unraveling before our eyes. The safety net secured to keep our families safe from lead is being systematically dismantled by our Nation's failed trade policies. Our trade rules encourage unsafe imports, our gap-ridden food and product inspection system lets those imports into the country, our lax requirements for importers let those products stay on the shelves, and our foot dragging on requiring country-of-origin labeling leaves consumers in the dark. It is a lethal combination. From pet food to toothpaste, from auto tires to kids toys, the daily news highlights the consequences of lacksidasical import rules and ``less is less'' import oversight. Countries such as China lack the basic protections we take for granted. Given the well-known dangers of lead, particularly for young children, we banned it from products such as gasoline and paint decades ago. With the total lack of protections in our trade policy, we are importing not just the goods from those countries, but we are importing the lax safety standards of those countries. If we relax basic health and safety rules to accommodate Bush-style, NAFTA-modeled trade deals, then we should not be surprised to find lead paint in our toys and contaminants and toxins in our toothpaste and our dog food. Due to trade agreements, there are now more than 230 countries and more than 200,000 foreign manufacturers exporting FDA-regulated goods into the United States, to our child's bedrooms and our kitchen tables. Unfortunately, trade deals put limits on the safety standards we can require for imports and how much we can even inspect imports. Our trade policy should prevent these problems, not invite them. Now the President wants new trade agreements with Peru, Panama, with Colombia, and South Korea, all based on the same failed trade model. FDA inspectors have rejected seafood imports from Peru and Panama, major seafood suppliers to the United States. Yet the current trade agreements, as written, limit food safety standards and border inspections. Adding insult to injury, the agreements would force the United States to rely on foreign inspectors to ensure our safety. We have seen how well that worked with China. More of the same in our trade policy will mean exactly that, more contaminated imports and more recalls. We need a new approach to trade policy and to import safety. We need to write trade laws that encourage quality imports not dangerous ones. We need to empower consumers with full information about the projects they are purchasing. It is time for a new direction in our trade policy. It is time for a trade policy that ensures the safety of food on our kitchen tables and toys in our children's bedrooms. Everyone agrees on one thing: We want more trade, we want more trade with countries around the world. But first we must protect the safety of our children and the health of our families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time remaining be equally charged. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.