Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would like to speak about two amendments, if I could. One is about basic civil rights and fair housing organizations and the other is about counseling and I would like to speak on both of them. Our Nation's fair housing organizations help enforce basic civil rights, something that has been important in this country for many years. They investigate housing discrimination and they educate tenants and homeowners of their rights. They fight the pernicious discrimination that targets and redlines low-income Americans in communities of color. Housing discrimination not only violates our laws, it is a barrier to economic mobility. That is why the Department of Housing and Human Development invests in the Fair Housing Initiative Program which supports fair housing groups across the country. They investigate mortgage lending fraud and predatory lending. They investigate foreclosure cases that force homeowners out of their homes--an endemic problem in the Presiding Officer's State of Maryland, my State of Ohio, and across the country--before facts and underlying rights are observed. Simply put, FHIP helps the very organizations that educate the public and enforce the laws that protect people from housing discrimination. The program is cost-effective, saving HUD money as it streamlines government resources to move more effectively and efficiently and investigate complaints. The fair housing organizations investigated 65 percent of the Nation's complaints of housing discrimination, nearly twice as many as all agencies combined. Fair housing advocates in Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Columbus, and in towns across Appalachian Ohio fight predatory lenders. For millions of Americans, the barrier to opportunity and security is the latent discrimination of ruthless landlords and unscrupulous lenders. Without FHIP, our country and our economy are subject to the very discrimination that not only hurts individual renters and homeowners but holds too many communities back. That is why I am offering this amendment to restore full funding to FHIP in line with the House level. State and Federal fair housing enforcement is already stretched thin. In my home State, the State Civil Rights Commission has four investigators devoted to housing complaints. It would be devastating to cut private fair housing programs any further. This amendment is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Fair Housing Alliance. It is also supported by Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Neighborhood Housing Services of Greater Cleveland, the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio, the Ohio CDC Association, the Toledo Fair Housing Association, and the Homeownership Center of Greater Dayton. On Sunday, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial was dedicated on our National Mall. It is a reminder of the era that blatant Jim Crow laws, brutal beatings and segregation may be over, but our fight to remove stains and strains of discrimination continues. It continues through thousands of fair housing organizations that serve millions of our fellow Americans. It continues with this body investing in these organizations. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of endorsement of many organizations. This is a letter from those civil rights organizations supportive of our legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would like to speak on a second amendment. Since a peak in 2006, housing prices, as we know in this country, have fallen by nearly one-third. Total homeowner equity slashed in half with the loss of more than $7 trillion. Some 6 million people have lost homes since the height of the financial crisis. Yet just yesterday we heard a leading Republican Presidential candidate tell an editorial board in Nevada that his solution to the Nation's housing crisis is to speed up the rate of foreclosures. This despite clear evidence that basic legal requirements have often gone ignored in foreclosure proceedings; this despite clear evidence that some banks have specifically targeted certain communities in specific neighborhoods for foreclosure; this despite the fact that persistent foreclosures are dragging down property values across the Nation. I remember some years ago in Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County in my State, we had more foreclosures--except for the moratorium year last year--every year than the year before for the last 14 years. I remember neighborhoods in Cleveland where there might be only a couple of foreclosures on a street, but we knew what happened when those homes were foreclosed on--well, what obviously happened was vandalism and stripping off the aluminum siding and stealing the pipes, and the property would be degraded and the property would be ignored--and what happened to other homes in the neighborhood and what happened to the prices and the values of those homes even though people were paying their mortgages and staying in their homes. So this--this statement to the Nevada newspaper--this despite the clear message from my distinguished colleagues, Senator McCain of Arizona and Senator Nelson of Florida, representing States such as Ohio that have been devastated by high rates of foreclosures. Earlier this week, my colleagues stated on this floor--some colleagues said we need to do more to get people mortgages they can afford, to make payments on them, rather than throwing them out of their homes. I couldn't agree more. If we are going to strengthen our economy, we must find a stronger response to the foreclosure crisis, not rushing the process but better managing it. Right now, the provision of homeowner counseling is one of the most effective ways we have to deal with this crisis. I remember talking to fair housing coalitions and organizations in Toledo and Dayton and all over my State, telling how they were able, one family at a time, to avert foreclosure. We know what that means not just for that family but to that community because they were able to do foreclosure counseling. I have seen firsthand in my State how these programs help better manage the mortgage payment process that helps to keep homeowners in their homes. Organizations such as the Neighborhood Services of Greater Cleveland, the Columbus Housing Partnership, and the Coalition of Homelessness and Housing in Ohio are leaders in foreclosure counseling. The Department of Housing and Urban Affairs invests in the Housing Counseling Assistance Program that supports these Ohio programs and hundreds like them across the country. Housing counselors provide guidance and assistance and advice to help families meet the responsibilities of tenancy and home ownership. Foreclosure counseling is particularly valuable to those obviously in danger of losing their home. According to a study by the Urban Institute, homeowners who are assisted by mortgage counselors have a 60-percent better chance of saving their home. If a family has counseling with a professional counselor, somebody to advocate for them and assist them, they have a 60-percent better chance of saving their home than if they don't have that assistance. HUD has requested $88 million for housing counseling for each of the last 2 fiscal years. Yet, last year, Congress provided no money for this important program--a program that keeps people in their home, helps their neighbors because this house might not be foreclosed on, helps those people build equity and savings that are essential for stable houses, stable families, stable homes, stable neighborhoods, stable communities. Given this lack of funding, I am particularly grateful for the work done by the subcommittee chair and ranking member in restoring funding for this program. Special thanks to Senator Murray and Senator Collins. The subcommittee has worked hard to find $60 million to fund the program. I applaud them for their efforts. Senator Sanders has also been a great champion in this effort. Even with this level of funding, the demand for housing counseling exceeds the level of services that would be supported. It is imperative that we provide these investments. They are necessary to meet the needs of the record number of homeowners facing foreclosure, they are necessary to help advise borrowers preparing to purchase new homes, and they are necessary and vital to our housing and economic recovery. Historically, we know that to pull ourselves out of recession in this country, we need a vibrant manufacturing sector, especially driven by auto, and we need housing, more home construction, more home renovation, and appreciation of housing prices. We are doing OK with auto manufacturing, but we are not doing nearly well enough with housing. I applaud my colleagues for their work. I appreciate their support for this program, and I look forward to their continued support and to their supporting the Senate number in conference. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the prescription drug abuse epidemic sweeping my State and the Nation. The rampant abuse and trafficking of prescription drugs represents a major threat to public health and to law enforcement. In recent years, more Ohioans have died from prescription drug overdoses than car accidents-- legal prescription drug overdoses, obtained illegally in many cases. In 2008, statistics show oxycodone and other prescription drugs-- namely morphine-based drugs, such as Oxycontin and Percocet--caused more overdoses in Ohio that year than heroin and cocaine combined. Simply put, prescription drug abuse is one of the fastest growing drug problems in the Nation, resulting in ever increasing rates of robberies and other attendant crimes. Yesterday, I was in the Cleveland suburb of Fairview Park at Ohliger Drugs. That store has been a target in the last couple of years. I spoke with Tom Ohliger, the fourth generation owner of this drugstore, and he described being held up at gunpoint on more than one occasion. There is a new report showing drug users and addicts are now targeting seniors for help getting pain killers to feed their addiction. There is also a rise in the outright theft and stealing of these drugs. We are seeing over and over on newscasts and in newspapers across the State stories of addicts and criminals targeting pharmacies to obtain pain killers and prescription drugs. Last month, in Parma--another Cleveland suburb--a man claiming to have a weapon made off with more than $14,000 worth of prescription pain killers before he was apprehended by the police. That is why I worked with Senator Schumer and others on the Strengthening and Focusing Enforcement to Deter Organized Stealing and Enhance Safety--SAFE DOSES--Act. The bill would use Federal antiracketeering laws to arm law enforcement with the tools to stop and prosecute pharmaceutical theft and robberies. Last year, as we toughened penalties for theft, we also cracked down on the fraud and trafficking of prescription drugs. It also, of course, dealt with the human side of counseling, in education, to help people break that addiction. Also last year, I convened a first-of-its-kind roundtable in southern Ohio, where the problem has been most acute in my State, with Federal and local law enforcement, community activists, elected officials, and members of the medical community. They raised a concern with criminal manipulation of Ohio's Medicaid Program, which spends upward of $800 million on prescription medicines. While most prescription pain medicines are used as prescribed--after surgery, after some kind of accident, often in the case of people with intense pain from some kind of acute illness--criminals too often have defrauded the Medicaid system and fleeced Ohioans and America's taxpayers by acquiring multiple prescriptions and filling them at multiple pharmacies. That is why I introduced legislation to require all States to establish Medicaid ``lock-in'' programs to crack down on the use of Medicaid cards to obtain and illegally sell these prescription drugs. This bill would prevent drug abusers from acquiring excess legal prescription drugs, though they are not doing it legally--which they may abuse or illegally resell--by barring them from visiting multiple doctors and pharmacies. It means high-risk prescription drug users would be placed in the program and they would only get Medicaid assistance when they are limited to one physician and one pharmacy. States would also identify prescription drugs that are dispensed under Medicaid and represent a high risk of overutilization. Nearly 20 States have adopted similar programs. South Carolina's Medicaid lock-in program targeted high-use beneficiaries and resulted in a 43-percent decrease in the total number of proscribed prescription pain medications. Consider Scioto County, on the Ohio River. In this Ohio river town, prescription drugs cause 9 of every 10 fatal drug overdoses. In nearly two-thirds of those cases, the individuals involved did not have prescriptions, indicating they obtained the drugs illegally. Recently, the Government Accountability Office audited the Medicaid Program in the 5 largest States and found 65,000 cases in which Medicaid beneficiaries visited 6 or more doctors and up to 46 different pharmacies to acquire prescriptions. This same report found some 1,800 prescriptions written for dead patients and 1,200 prescriptions ``written'' by dead physicians. The numbers are staggering. In southeast Ohio it has been particularly tragic. Old factory towns and rural communities have become havens for prescription drug abuse. Across the country, communities are struggling to find ways to respond and develop strategies to reduce the diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Out of the often sad stories, there are successes. Last month, I was in Portsmouth, in Scioto County, which I mentioned earlier, at the Second Chance Counseling Center. It has received critical Federal resources--not a lot of dollars but critical dollars--for a job retraining program for those recovering from abuse. The center is about second chances, combating the epidemic with the focus on recovery and rehabilitation--helping Ohioans with the resources they need to be the productive citizens they want to be. This past July I was at the Amethyst Family Treatment Residence in Columbus, with the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske. We talked about the administration's comprehensive prescription drug strategy and ways FDA can crack down on the abuse. The staff at the residence--such as health professionals, law enforcement officials, and community activists--described the stories of victims and families they represent. I met with many of those people who were going through these programs and are getting their lives back in order. Prescription drug abuse and crime is nonpartisan. It is an issue of life and death in too many parts of our Nation, and especially in my State. I wish to share three brief letters describing how this is a human tragedy above all else. It is a law enforcement issue, it is a counseling of substance abuse issue, and it is an education issue, but fundamentally it is a human tragedy, with the addiction people have experienced coupled with the crime that is often committed and compounded with the defrauding of taxpayers. Let me read three stories from letters that were sent to me from my State. The first is from a rural county, one from sort of a medium- sized county, and one from a large urban county. David from Union County writes: Our son David was a college graduate, 42 years old, a father, and a husband for 18 years. He abused prescription drugs because of a motorcycle accident 10 years earlier. He was a 3 year clean drug addict because of all the support he was given by so many caring individuals. He was pursuing his master's degree with a 4.0 average, but in spite of all of this, he passed away last May due to an accidental overdose of oxycotin. We need to protect family members from the heartbreak [and] pain that we are suffering because our son made a bad mistake. Amy, from Stark County, the Canton area, writes: In our extended family, we have a close family member who has become addicted to prescription drugs. The problem has become so bad for our individual family member that she has sought illegally obtained prescription drugs from dealers from two counties away. I always believed that drug abuse was something committed by rebellious, high-risk teenagers and young adults. But prescription drug abuse is something that can happen with much older adults who would ``know better.'' And then Tara from Lucas County--the Toledo area. Through my previous job as the director of an anti-drug coalition, I personally witnessed many families fall apart because of prescription drug abuse. I will never forget the day I visited my dear friend at the hospital because her 16 year old son had overdosed on oxycontin. The average citizen needs to be educated about proper disposal of their drugs, and parents need to be made aware of this issue. Better policing and controls around the transportation and distribution of prescription drugs is definitely a key step; however, we can all raise the importance over educating ourselves, our schools, and our children about how to keep this issue from persisting. As I said, it is about law enforcement, it is about drug treatment, and it is about education. It is about all these things to end these human tragedies that cost taxpayer dollars, that inflict criminal activity on innocent pharmacists and others, and that create so much tragedy for so many of my State's families and so many American families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, this Chamber considered trade measures this week for the first time in about 4 years. First, and most important, the bipartisan currency measure passed by an overwhelming majority, 63 to 35. This action on China's currency is long overdue. This is legislation of which I was the prime sponsor. We had major cosponsors in both political parties: Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican; Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat; Debbie Stabenow from Michigan, a Democrat; Jeff Sessions from Alabama, a Republican; Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine; Kay Hagan, a Democrat from North Carolina; Bob Casey, Democrat from Pennsylvania. This was a strong bipartisan bill. My junior Senator, Rob Portman from Ohio, former Trade Representative under President Bush, supported the legislation. Basically it works this way. We know the kinds of job losses in places such as Duluth, MN or Toledo, OH, because China cheats. Pure and simple, they cheat. They depreciate or overappreciate their currency, making a weaker renminbi. That is the name of their currency term. When a company in Dayton, OH, or Youngstown, OH, sells a product into the Chinese market that the people of Xian or Wuan might consider buying, this company is faced with a 25- to 30- to 35-percent currency tax, currency tariff, making the product more expensive, making it much harder for the U.S. company to sell the product to China. At the same time going back the other way, the company in China, or the government in some cases, selling into the U.S. market gets a 25-, 30-, 35-percent subsidy, making it so much easier to sell. I will give one perfect example, a regrettable example. There is a company about 20 miles from where I live in Brunswick, OH, owned by the Bennett Brothers whom I met fairly recently in Cleveland, 25 miles outside of Cleveland, called Automation Tool and Die. The Bennett Brothers had a million dollar sale that they thought they were about to fill and at the last minute a Chinese company came in and underpriced them by 20 percent. That was the currency subsidy that Chinese company had. What is fair about that? I learned today a paper company in Hamilton, OH, right smack in the middle of the home county and home district of the Speaker of the House, announced its closing. One of the main factors was low-cost imports from China. When it comes to paper, here is what the Chinese do. They buy their pulp in Brazil, they ship it from Brazil to Chinese paper mills--in some sense across two oceans. They mill it, they ship it back to the United States, and yet they underprice us. Even though labor is 10 percent of the cost of paper production, they underprice us because apparently they subsidize water and energy and land and capital, plus they get this 25-percent currency subsidy. Our trade deficit with China, which has more than tripled in the last decade after China was let into the World Trade Organization, pledging to follow the rule of law but breaking that pledge every day of the year--our trade deficit with China, now $275 billion for the year, has risen through the economic food chain all the way through advanced technology products. What used to be made in China 10 years ago was similar--the Presiding Officer remembers growing up in Minnesota in the 1950s and 1960s when ``Made in Japan'' always used to mean something was cheap and sort of badly made. ``Made in China'' 10 years ago usually meant the cheapest products, the tchotchke kind of products. Today, with ``Made in China,'' they have worked their way up the technology chain so they compete with our wind turbine component production and they compete on all kinds of high-level kinds of goods. In addition to paper, steel, aluminum, glass, and cement, all the things that have created the middle class in my State for decades, we are competing with China for jobs in solar and wind and clean energy component manufacturing and in the auto supply chain. We can compete on productivity. We have skilled workers. We have world-class infrastructure--although God knows it needs renovation and modernization. But how do you compete against an automatic across-the- board 25- to 30-percent subsidy? I thank my colleagues this week for voting for that legislation--63, including the Presiding Officer's support--including the support to manufacturing. We need to pass that bill in the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House has so far said he is not inclined to bring it up. I think the White House has so far not supported this legislation, but we know the kind of broad bipartisan support it has and how important it is so we can begin to reenergize manufacturing in this country. At the same time we took a step back this week, after the China trade currency bill, which was very progressive, important legislation for our manufacturing--we took a step back by passing trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama that will do more harm than good. It is kind of amazing. Probably the too often used quote from Einstein where he said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is exactly what has happened in trade agreements. Go back 20 years--18 years, in 1993, President Clinton--mimicking President Bush, who had negotiated the agreement--said the North American Free Trade Agreement would create 200,000 jobs in our country quickly. We have lost 600,000 net jobs because of NAFTA. That same model of NAFTA with investor-state relations--with investor-state provisions and other things, gave rise to the Central America Trade Agreement and other agreements that cost us jobs. Every time the administration--either party, it doesn't matter--promises these trade agreements will create jobs, they never do. This body, again--Colombia, North Korea, Panama--a strong majority of Senators again bought that line, ``Hey, this is going to create jobs,'' and it never does. The same promises, businesses promise jobs will increase exports. They only talk about half of it. They say NAFTA, CAFTA, the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Panama Free Trade Agreement, Colombia Free Trade Agreement, are going to mean more exports. Talking only about exports is like telling a baseball score and only reporting half of the score. Yesterday, the season obviously mercifully ended for the home team of the Presiding Officer, but it is like saying yesterday the Twins scored eight runs. Good for them, but the Indians scored 12. But they only told you about the Twins' runs. You don't report baseball scores that way. You report scores like the Twins got 12, the Indians only got 8, and it was 12 to 8 or the Tigers won 3 to 2. With trade, the people who support these trade agreements are the same ones who say it lets us increase the exports. Maybe it is, but imports are increasing much more dramatically. President Bush once said $1 billion in trade surplus or trade deficit translated into 13,000 jobs. If you have a $1 billion trade deficit, if you are selling more than you are buying, that creates 13,000 jobs. If you are buying more than you are selling, if you have a $1 billion trade deficit, you lose 13,000 jobs. You know our deficit is in the range of $600 billion. Do the math. Each time we pass one of these trade agreements--and it will probably happen with Korea and Colombia and Panama--each time we do it, the trade deficit rises. Our trade deficit with China has more than tripled. Before NAFTA we had a trade surplus with Mexico and small trade deficit with Canada. After NAFTA, which was a trade agreement among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the trade deficit with Canada exploded. The trade surplus with Mexico went from a surplus to a deficit. We know this does not work. We have a serious jobs crisis on our hands, 14 million people out of work. We hear Senators talking about that all the time--another 15 million underemployed or stopped searching for work. The economy must have 150,000 new jobs each month simply to keep up with population growth. So what do we do? We add a Korea agreement, a Colombia agreement, a Panama agreement, none of which will create jobs. They never do. They promise them, but they never do. That is because these trade agreements do not tell the whole story about how a trade agenda can actually create jobs. I want trade, I want more trade. I think the American people want more trade, but the American people know these trade agreements don't serve us as a nation. It is impossible. I know you hear this in Duluth, you hear it in Rochester, you hear it in Minneapolis. I hear it in Cincinnati, I hear it in Columbus, I hear it in Zanesville. When unemployment is far too high, our constituents demand that Washington do its job and help folks get back to work. We tried to do that this week on another issue and that was the President's jobs bill. When I heard Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, say--it is almost a direct quote--my No. 1 goal in 2011 and 2012 is to make sure Barack Obama doesn't get reelected--I never heard a leader in the U.S. Senate to my knowledge in history ever say that was his No. 1 goal. Of course, the Presiding Officer and I will support Barack Obama. That is what happens in politics--you hear the leader of one political party say my No. 1 goal is to defeat the sitting President of the United States. And he rounds up his troops to vote no against any job creation bill that President Obama offers. In fact, he didn't just vote against this bill and led every Republican to do that, he led his Republican troops to say: No, we are not going to let it come to the floor to be debated. Senator Cardin was speaking earlier, and I was presiding. He was incredulous in many ways--that the leader of one party would say on the jobs bill, of all things, we are not even going to allow it to come to the floor to debate and offer amendments. Senator Cardin had several amendments I thought sounded like a good idea. A lot of us have amendments to the jobs bill, and we wanted a chance to offer them. Yet Republicans--because of this dysfunctional rule that we have to have 60 votes to even put up a bill for debate--the Republicans say: No, we are not even going to debate it. Let me take one part of that bill that is particularly important. The average U.S. public school building is 40 years old. Many are older; some are newer. The average public school building is 40 years old. I know what I preach to my kids. I know what my neighbors preach. I know what we preach as politicians. I know what almost everybody says in this country. We say to our children and the pages--people who are 15, 16, 17 years old--education is the most important goal to pursue, the most important in our country. What do we do? We send them to crumbling old school buildings that are not easy places in which to learn. It is pretty clear that when the average school building is 40 years old, it is going to cost real money to fix them. Conservative estimates suggest it would cost $270 billion to maintain and repair them. With the slowly recovering economy, we know that too many school districts have been forced to cut budgets and lay off teachers, let alone make improvements to our schools. I introduced Fix America Schools Today, the FAST Act, that would help localities make critical repairs to schools. It will support more than 12,000 jobs in Ohio. I introduced the bill a few weeks ago. Soon after, the President was at Fort Hayes Public School in Columbus, OH, in the central part of my State. The President talked about the FAST Act, about how we should do school renovation as part of his jobs bill. I would plead with my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle--the same colleagues who worked with me on a bipartisan basis to pass the biggest bipartisan jobs bill, the China currency bill of this session--to work on this bill. At least, if they will not let us debate the jobs bill as a whole, let us pass the Fix America's Schools Today, the FAST Act, it will make the kinds of repairs--it will create jobs because workers will rebuild these schools and renovate them. It will create jobs in manufacturing as companies all over my State that make steel, plastic, cement, and brick will go to work to create and make these products, and it will lay the groundwork for prosperity. We know in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the United States of America built infrastructure the likes of which the world had never seen. That is why we had that kind of prosperity in this country. When the Presiding Officer and I were in high school and college and were young adults, we had that kind of prosperity brought about because we had the best infrastructure in the world. We have to rebuild and modernize the infrastructure to create opportunities for young people. We need to pass the FAST Act. It will make such a difference for our country in the years ahead. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President I rise to talk about our Nation's flawed approach to trade and its damaging effects on economic growth and job creation. Yesterday, this body approved three trade agreements that will do far too little to create manufacturing jobs here in the United States. In fact, it is clear these more-of-the-same agreements will cost manufacturing jobs in Ohio and across the nation. In towns and cities across Ohio, workers have the proud tradition of manufacturing products that matter to America. From steel tubes made in Lorain that equip our energy markets, to car parts made in Moraine that move our auto industry forward, Ohio manufacturers represent the heart of our nation's economy. Ohio manufacturers and workers are some of the most industrious and innovative in the United States. Our companies and the people who fill our factories can compete across the world--but only if your government implements trade policies that create a level playing field. However, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, along with Congress, have signed and passed trade agreements premised on hollow promises. Supporters of free market policies promised that past trade pacts like NAFTA would stimulate growth and create jobs. Some companies and constituents in Ohio would argue these assertions--and the assurances that accompany current trade agreements--could not be further from the truth. Once successful companies in my state are now collapsing under the weight of misguided trade policies. Working families in West Chester, Pickerington, Lima, and Akron are holding on for dear life in the face of our government failing to negotiate and enforce trade deals. A rational trade agreement should open new markets, include standards on labor and safety that are at least as strong as the commercial provisions, and help U.S. companies expand their consumer base around the world. However, recent trade pacts have slashed tariffs for foreign competitors while doing little to address the tariff and nontariff barriers that U.S. businesses face with our trading partners. Nothing in these newly approved agreements will change this pattern. All too often, U.S. trade negotiators have been willing to open our markets to a flood of imports while failing to win the concessions required to make trade work for America. A quick glance at our Nation's trade statistics makes it clear that we need a new gameplan when it comes to trade. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit has surged 46 percent over the last decade, reaching an astronomical $634 billion in 2010. Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, the U.S. has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs. Behind these numbers are the faces of middle-class Americans who have lost their job because of ill-advised trade agreements. Whether it is the worker getting laid off at a manufacturer providing energy appliances, or the person losing their job at a steel plant, the loss of a job due to trade can be a devastating experience for families across America. Two examples of our nation giving too much, for too little in return can be seen with the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement. South Korea has the lowest level of import penetration for auto sales--at just 4.4 percent--of any developed country. In 2009, the U.S. exported fewer than 6,000 cars to Korea. In the same year, Korea exported 476,000 cars to the U.S. While a marginal improvement, the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement would allow each American-based automaker to export 25,000 cars to South Korea free of burdensome regulations. However, it is clear that this ``concession'' does not do enough to shift the imbalanced trade in the auto sector in our direction. In addition--much like China--South Korea would still be able to manipulate its currency--thwarting the ability of American companies to compete and hire workers. Instead, South Korea will be able to exploit this trade agreement and make the limited market access we would have meaningless. It is time that our free trade agreements increase market access to U.S. goods so that we're exporting goods--not jobs. The American people are demanding a plan to make trade work. It is time for Congress to meet the demands of the American people and take action to ensure a level playing field for our businesses and workers. That is why I'm introducing the Reciprocal Market Access Act. The Reciprocal Market Access Act would require the reduction or elimination of U.S. duties to be reciprocated by the nation with which we are entering into a trade pact. In the event that a trading partner does not adhere to this requirement, the U.S. Trade Representative would be authorized to withdraw tariff concessions if a trading partner has failed to eliminate relevant tariff and non-tariff barriers. This requirement will make sure that any type of barrier doesn't put American products at a disadvantage before we open our doors to American goods. The U.S. should no longer acquiesce to demands to further open our market--already the most open market in the global economy--without gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange. In addition, this bill would instruct the International Trade Commission to assess the impact of a potential trade agreement on opportunities and barriers for U.S. products that will be affected by the trade agreement. If Congress is committed to creating jobs and reducing the trade deficit, we've got to make sure we have the policies that put us on a level playing field with our trading partners. If we are serious about standing up for workers, small business and manufacturers who continue to play be the rules, we need to pass this legislation. It is time to take action to help rebuild the economic foundation of the middle class. It is time we negotiate trade agreements that put American workers and American businesses first. It is time to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President I rise to talk about our Nation's flawed approach to trade and its damaging effects on economic growth and job creation. Yesterday, this body approved three trade agreements that will do far too little to create manufacturing jobs here in the United States. In fact, it is clear these more-of-the-same agreements will cost manufacturing jobs in Ohio and across the nation. In towns and cities across Ohio, workers have the proud tradition of manufacturing products that matter to America. From steel tubes made in Lorain that equip our energy markets, to car parts made in Moraine that move our auto industry forward, Ohio manufacturers represent the heart of our nation's economy. Ohio manufacturers and workers are some of the most industrious and innovative in the United States. Our companies and the people who fill our factories can compete across the world--but only if your government implements trade policies that create a level playing field. However, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, along with Congress, have signed and passed trade agreements premised on hollow promises. Supporters of free market policies promised that past trade pacts like NAFTA would stimulate growth and create jobs. Some companies and constituents in Ohio would argue these assertions--and the assurances that accompany current trade agreements--could not be further from the truth. Once successful companies in my state are now collapsing under the weight of misguided trade policies. Working families in West Chester, Pickerington, Lima, and Akron are holding on for dear life in the face of our government failing to negotiate and enforce trade deals. A rational trade agreement should open new markets, include standards on labor and safety that are at least as strong as the commercial provisions, and help U.S. companies expand their consumer base around the world. However, recent trade pacts have slashed tariffs for foreign competitors while doing little to address the tariff and nontariff barriers that U.S. businesses face with our trading partners. Nothing in these newly approved agreements will change this pattern. All too often, U.S. trade negotiators have been willing to open our markets to a flood of imports while failing to win the concessions required to make trade work for America. A quick glance at our Nation's trade statistics makes it clear that we need a new gameplan when it comes to trade. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit has surged 46 percent over the last decade, reaching an astronomical $634 billion in 2010. Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, the U.S. has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs. Behind these numbers are the faces of middle-class Americans who have lost their job because of ill-advised trade agreements. Whether it is the worker getting laid off at a manufacturer providing energy appliances, or the person losing their job at a steel plant, the loss of a job due to trade can be a devastating experience for families across America. Two examples of our nation giving too much, for too little in return can be seen with the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement. South Korea has the lowest level of import penetration for auto sales--at just 4.4 percent--of any developed country. In 2009, the U.S. exported fewer than 6,000 cars to Korea. In the same year, Korea exported 476,000 cars to the U.S. While a marginal improvement, the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement would allow each American-based automaker to export 25,000 cars to South Korea free of burdensome regulations. However, it is clear that this ``concession'' does not do enough to shift the imbalanced trade in the auto sector in our direction. In addition--much like China--South Korea would still be able to manipulate its currency--thwarting the ability of American companies to compete and hire workers. Instead, South Korea will be able to exploit this trade agreement and make the limited market access we would have meaningless. It is time that our free trade agreements increase market access to U.S. goods so that we're exporting goods--not jobs. The American people are demanding a plan to make trade work. It is time for Congress to meet the demands of the American people and take action to ensure a level playing field for our businesses and workers. That is why I'm introducing the Reciprocal Market Access Act. The Reciprocal Market Access Act would require the reduction or elimination of U.S. duties to be reciprocated by the nation with which we are entering into a trade pact. In the event that a trading partner does not adhere to this requirement, the U.S. Trade Representative would be authorized to withdraw tariff concessions if a trading partner has failed to eliminate relevant tariff and non-tariff barriers. This requirement will make sure that any type of barrier doesn't put American products at a disadvantage before we open our doors to American goods. The U.S. should no longer acquiesce to demands to further open our market--already the most open market in the global economy--without gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange. In addition, this bill would instruct the International Trade Commission to assess the impact of a potential trade agreement on opportunities and barriers for U.S. products that will be affected by the trade agreement. If Congress is committed to creating jobs and reducing the trade deficit, we've got to make sure we have the policies that put us on a level playing field with our trading partners. If we are serious about standing up for workers, small business and manufacturers who continue to play be the rules, we need to pass this legislation. It is time to take action to help rebuild the economic foundation of the middle class. It is time we negotiate trade agreements that put American workers and American businesses first. It is time to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to these three pending free-trade agreements. The bills look like they are about this size. These are the actual implementing of the three free-trade agreements. But one of the bills, and not the largest one--the one, in fact, of the three countries we are probably today passing trade agreements with, Colombia, South Korea, and Panama--the smallest by far in terms of its economy is Panama, and this is the trade agreement with Panama. I remember all these conservative talk radio people saying: Have you read the bill? Have you read the bill? Have you read the bill? Every time it is a bill they don't agree with, they ask: Have you read the bill? This isn't just to eliminate the tariffs we have with the Republic of Panama. If these agreements were about eliminating tariffs with labor standards--and I know the Presiding Officer from Oregon shares that view about labor standards. If these agreements were about eliminating tariffs and labor standards, they would be about this big. They wouldn't be anything like this. But these are chock-full of special interest deals. It is what this body always does: the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico; the PNTR with China, a different kind of situation but leading to even more problems; the Central American Free Trade Agreement with six countries in Central America and the Dominican Republic. Rules that help the drug companies, rules that help the insurance companies, special interest provisions that help the banks, special interest provisions that undermine public health and undermine safely, that is what these free-trade agreements are about. I get it. I get it that this is greased. I get it that this will pass with overwhelming numbers. I get it that this White House is only this much better than the last White House in pushing for these trade agreements. These are Bush trade agreements, Korea, Colombia, and Panama. President Obama inherited them, but he doesn't get off the hook because he has improved these slightly. We have a little bit of an improvement with Korea so a few more American cars can be sold into Korea, nothing like the number of Korean cars that can be sold in the United States because we didn't want to be that tough when we negotiated, so we just make slight changes. This President made slight changes, and I have seen this. I was in the House for 14 years, and in my first term in the Senate I have seen this kind of game played by administration after administration. This is technically my fourth administration I have worked with, third at some length, and I have seen this over and over and over again. When I hear of these trade agreements coming forward, every President says this is going to create tens of thousands of jobs. NAFTA was going to create 200,000 jobs, almost immediately, the first Bush administration said. The Clinton administration said: Yes; that is right. It is going to create more or less 200,000 jobs immediately. Do you know what it has created? It has created a loss of 600,000 jobs under the North American Free Trade Agreement. We gain some jobs; we lose some jobs, but the net is always lost jobs. How many times is an administration going to come forward and how many times are we going to believe them? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. This body continues, as the House of Representatives does--they are a little smarter in the House; they don't pass these with quite the same numbers in the overwhelming margins, but they continue to do the same thing over and over and over. The American public doesn't like these trade agreements. The American public, in large numbers, under poll after poll after poll--the American people don't like NAFTA, don't like CAFTA, don't like PNTR with China. Why do you think last night, finally, this body stood--63 Members of the Senate, almost 20 of them Republicans, voted to finally stand up on currency and try to create a level playing field in our trade with China? But we don't do it on these other trade agreements. With the lobbying efforts on NAFTA, on CAFTA, on PNTR with China, on the Panama Trade Agreement, on the Colombia Trade Agreement, on the Korea Trade Agreement, the lobbying is overwhelming. Special interest groups line up because they are so excited about passing these free- trade agreements. In the end, we lose jobs every single time. When I came to the Congress 20 years ago, we had a trade surplus with Mexico and, if I recall, a small trade deficit with Canada. That means we sold more to Mexico than we bought from them. We bought more from Canada than we sold to them. Today, it is tens of billions of dollars' trade deficit we have trilaterally with those two countries. The China trade deficit 10 years ago, when China got into the World Trade Organization because we passed PNTR in part--that is part of the reason they got in--our trade deficit with China was something like $80 billion; today, it is almost $300 billion, more than three times the trade deficit with China. So our answer is, let's do more of it. So China undercuts our manufacturing. NAFTA takes away American jobs. CAFTA costs us jobs. Yet the geniuses around here, the people--and the majority leader has been wonderful in this, opposing trade agreement after trade agreement because he gets it--the geniuses around this place, in the White House, in the House leadership, in some of the Senate leadership, Senate Republican leadership, and far too many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, the geniuses around here are saying: Let's pass more trade agreements because it is working. Give me one other issue where people in this body en masse, in huge numbers, say: This trade policy isn't working so let's try more of it. That is exactly what we have done. We continue to pass trade agreements that look a lot like NAFTA. We continue to pass trade agreements that get us in this situation that cost us jobs. I am for more trade. Like most Americans, I want to see us trade more with other countries. But like most Americans, I have a problem with many of the rules that govern our trade policy because these aren't simple--eliminate tariffs. This is a trade policy that time after time favors corporate or investors' interests, and, in some cases, actually undermines our national security and undermines our national interests. When we see the kind of job loss that NAFTA caused and CAFTA caused and PNTR caused, and these trade agreements with Panama and Korea and Colombia cause, we know this is not good for our national interests. That is why I object to these trade agreements: They are more of the same broken promises, the same promises about: Oh, yes, it is going to create jobs. The same promise about: Oh, yes, it is going to expand our markets. It may expand our markets a little bit, but it costs. We may sell some more, but we are buying a lot more from these other countries because the trade agreements simply aren't working. Trade agreements are permanent. They often handcuff Congress and State legislatures from setting new priorities. North American Free Trade Agreement. I have heard Presidential candidates in campaigns say: Yes, they would work to renegotiate or even repeal NAFTA. Then they raise their right hand, get sworn in to be President of the United States, and they kind of forget they promised that. These trade agreements undermine ``Buy American'' policy. How does that work? Because when we pass free-trade agreements, our FTAs, bilaterally or trilaterally with other countries, it doesn't give the same standing to our ``Buy American'' provisions. Do you think countries around the world don't have buy whatever their country is? You don't think the Chinese give special preference to ``Buy China''? You don't think other countries ever give special preference? But we couldn't do that here because that would mean we aren't practicing free trade. Every country in the world practices trade according to their national interests. But what do we do in the United States of America? What do we do in the Senate? What do they do in the House? What do they do in the White House? They practice trade according to some economic textbook that was printed before these pages sitting in front of me were even born. These trade agreements lack any meaningful way to withdraw if the promised benefits don't materialize. We passed these trade agreements in Ohio communities from Springfield to Chillicothe to Portsmouth to Ashtabula to Toledo. These Ohio communities can't understand why they are so buffeted by these trade winds that so often undermine their ability to make a living. These trade agreements were originally negotiated by the Bush administration. I don't blame President Obama for that. But to the rest of the country, hearing the Obama administration talk about these trade agreements sounds like a continuation of the incoherent approach to America's engagement in the global economy that we saw with the Bush trade agenda. Many of us on this floor have criticized the Bush trade policy. The Obama trade policy--I am a Democrat, he is a Democrat. The Obama trade policy is better than it was under the Bush trade agreement. The Obama administration has made these three trade bills a little better--at least Korea a little better than it was--a little better. The Obama administration has actually enforced trade laws when the Chinese cheat on tires, when they cheat on oil country tubular steel, when they cheat on glass, when they cheat on aluminum, when they cheat--not on glass; when they cheat on paper. We have made some progress. There is a new steel mill in the Mahoning Valley in Youngstown, in large part, because President Obama enforced trade rules, trade laws with the Commission Department of the International Trade Commission. It is interesting, though. When the President went to Youngstown to talk about the opening of the steel mill, he talked about the Recovery Act, and the Recovery Act put some dollars and infrastructure around the steel mill, but he neglected to talk about trade policy, which he had enforced for these agreements. That is all behind us. But these trade policies ignore the elephant in the room, which is our trade relationship with China. Last night, as I said, the Senate did the right thing on a strong bipartisan vote on Chinese currency. But, unfortunately, some of the opponents of cracking down-- unfortunately, I guess. Opponents of cracking down on China's currency manipulation are the same supporters of these trade agreements and, on both issues, respectfully, they miss the point. People have heard the same promises from NAFTA and CAFTA and China PNTR: Businesses promise more jobs from increased exports. Yet no one talks about the increased imports that pale in comparison. So when I used to hear President Bush, Jr.'s predecessor, Bill Clinton, always talk about look how NAFTA and these agreements are increasing exports, well, they do increase exports, but they increase imports so much faster. It was President Bush, first, who said some years ago that for every billion dollars of trade, either surplus or deficit, it translated into 13,000 jobs. I don't know if that number is exactly correct--it probably is a little less than that now with inflation what a job is worth in dollars. But if $1 billion in trade surplus creates 13,000 jobs, that means $1 billion in trade deficits costs us 13,000 jobs. So when I hear people say: Oh, these trade agreements, they are increasing exports, we have to tell the whole story. It is akin to a sports reporter on the 11 o'clock news reading the baseball scores and saying: The Yankees scored seven runs tonight. That means maybe they won? Well, it turns out the Indians scored nine so the Yankees lost, which is a good outcome. But the fact is, when we are talking about trade, we don't just brag about exports. We have to look at what the value of the imports was too. We are not talking about that. No one likes to talk about the communities that are left cleaning up after a plant is abandoned, moved to somewhere else. No one likes to talk about the families who are devastated when the plant closes and they lose their jobs. Nobody wants to talk about what happens to our national security when a steel mill closes and the jobs go elsewhere. To keep up, each month the economy must add 150,000 new jobs, just to keep up with population growth. There are 14 million who are unemployed and another 15 million who are underemployed or who have stopped searching for work. What do Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements have to do with that? We did a great thing last night by standing up to China on currency, but then we are giving it away with trade agreements such as these that cost us jobs rather than increase jobs. I do not get it. A good week? It was not such a good week for international trade and for us creating jobs in this country. Most people, when they think about trade, think about goods and tariffs, but these agreements are not just about tariffs. If they were just about tariffs, as I said, these agreements would be relatively short, a simple declaration of tariff rates. Instead, as I said, these agreements are hundreds of pages on procurement rules and financial services and investor-state dispute resolution. What does that mean? What it means is a whole lot of corporate lobbyists lobbied the administration--the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Senate and House committees that work on these things--and struck gold. It means these corporate lobbyists had their way in Washington again, that these corporate lobbyists never lose on these trade agreements. In the end, they almost always get their way, but it so much and in so many ways undermines our public interest and certainly undermines jobs. These are complex agreements. They do not have to be that complex. But then some of my colleagues say we are falling behind when Brazil and Korea and the European Union sign trade deals. What they do not say is that these are not the same kinds of agreements. If they were just about lowering tariffs in a reciprocal way--but they are not--if they were not the United States giving away the store for a little access, if they were just about tariffs, as I said earlier, and strong labor standards, we probably would have had a voice vote and passed them already. But these are not the same deals Brazil or the European Union signs with Korea. Let me explain that for a moment. The European Union-Korea agreement does not have investor-state dispute resolution. Most countries have strong legal systems, and the EU and Korean negotiators decided they did not need to create a new privileged process under the trade deal to resolve disputes. In other words, if Korea has a food safety rule and the European Union has a food safety rule, they do not have to come into conflict because they do not have this dispute resolution that we do in our agreements. Then what happens when it is food safety or product safety? Do you know what happens? The country with the weaker rules wins. What these trade agreements with the investor-state provisions-- something the Europeans and Brazilians didn't do with Korea--with these provisions, it means we are weakening food safety laws, weakening consumer protection laws, weakening the kind of sovereignty that I thought people--particularly conservatives in this body--cared about. When an investor can challenge a law in Korea or the United States under the special privilege process, outside the normal legal system, it can have the effect of chilling nondiscriminatory safety rules. But having a special privilege system outside the normal legal process is exactly what some companies want in these trade deals. In other words, if a company in the United States cannot find a way--if they are unsuccessful at lobbying the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President, unsuccessful in weakening consumer protection measures or undermining a food safety rule, if they have been unsuccessful doing that directly here, through these trade agreements they are able to do that. If Panama has weaker rules on investor protections, has weaker rules on financial consumer protection, weaker rules on food safety laws, then, through these trade agreements, it gives these corporate interests a back door to weaken our safety rules. We fight like crazy around here to have strong consumer protections, to have safe pharmaceutical rules, to have good, strong pharmaceutical safety rules. We fight for those things, but then we are going to allow these trade agreements to undermine that. These agreements affect investment dynamics and corporate decisionmaking. They affect how a company makes decisions in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, so these are important long term for these companies. Yet Congress has a few hours to debate these and vote up or down, with no amendments. These agreements are permanent. They affect the flow of goods and services on a permanent basis across the world for decades to come. These agreements are hundreds of pages, and here we are fitting them into the workweek, voting them up or down. The vote tonight is at 6:30. I don't hear Rush Limbaugh, I don't hear the Washington Post, I don't hear others--conservatives on the other side of the aisle say: I can't believe you are jamming this through so fast, which is what they said on health care, which took months and months. They jammed this through in 48 hours, but that is OK because it is a trade agreement, even though it is this long and nobody has read it. I am almost sure that there is not one Senator out of 100 and maybe none in the 435 in the House of Representatives who actually read this bill. And this is the least consequential. This is the Panama trade agreement. This is not Korea, which is much bigger. This is not Colombia, which is significantly bigger. Yet we decided it is OK to fit this because fast track--the way we do trade agreements--has a whole special set of rules. In my mind, nothing I know of in this body has this special set of rules that trade agreements get. They have to be debated quickly. There is a time limit once they are sent up by the President. There is no hold allowed on a trade agreement. There is no filibuster allowed on a trade agreement. There is no 60-vote threshold. There is a 60-vote threshold on confirming a Federal judge out of Toledo, OH. There is a 60-vote threshold on an Under Secretary of Interior. There is no 60- vote threshold on an agreement of hundreds of pages that will last forever with the Republic of Panama or Colombia or Korea, no 60- vote requirement, no hold, none of the rules of the Senate that might slow this down. Do you know why? Because these are chock-full of special interest provisions that every insurance company and drug company and bank can get their way and get this in permanent law. No scandal there, not with that. We will do it on every other bill but not trade agreements. Two things, and then I want to close with a story. Think about what fast-track authority does. I want to pursue that with a little more detail, about how we have these special rules in the Senate only for trade agreements, for nothing else. First of all, with fast-track authority, in addition to having rules in the Senate that are very different from other rules in order that these pass quickly, we also delegate authority to the executive branch--something we normally don't do. We allow the executive branch to set the substance of the negotiations. The executive branch is only required to notify Congress 90 days before signing the agreement. The executive branch writes the implementing legislation for each trade pact without the committees of jurisdiction having actual markups. In other words, it circumvents the normal committee process. Once the executive branch has submitted the bill, we have to vote for the implementing bill within 90 days. The votes in both Chambers are highly privileged. Normal congressional floor procedures are waived, including unanimous consent. Debates are limited, and no amendments are allowed. The result is that Congress is given little time. In the present case, the Senate has 4 hours to debate each agreement. I am amazed. I mean, where are the conservatives in this country who said: Don't give Barack Obama so much power. You just did when you passed this. Why? Because it is a trade agreement. The rules are always different. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said his No. 1 goal in 2011 and 2012 is to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term President. We don't want to give him any power, we want to criticize him on everything--except, Mr. President, we would like to give you this, and you do whatever you want on these special trade agreements. Just the hypocrisy here on trade is beyond belief. Let me close with what I think may tell the story of the importance of how we practice trade around the world. Some years ago, I flew into South Texas at my own expense, rented a car, and with two friends crossed the Texas-Mexican border just to follow up on what had happened with NAFTA. This was the mid- to late 1990s. I wanted to see how NAFTA was working out for the United States and Mexico along the border where there were so many manufacturing plants. Right near the border, there was an auto plant, a GM plant. This GM plant looked just like a General Motors plant, not much different from Lordstown near Youngstown, not much different from the GM plant in my hometown of Mansfield, which unfortunately is now closed, not much different from any other auto plant. It was modern, the floors were clean, great technology. But there was one difference between the two plants, one major difference: The GM plant in Mexico didn't have a parking lot because the workers were not paid enough to buy the cars they made. That may tell you something. I didn't do this, but go around the world, and in Malaysia, in the Motorola plant, the workers didn't get paid enough to buy a lot of the Motorola electronics they made. Then go back to Central America and go to Costa Rica, and the workers in the Costa Rica Disney plant were not making enough to buy the toys for their children that they made. Go to China, go almost anywhere in the world in these developing countries where we either have trade agreements or where our trade policy has such impact, where companies in the United States shut down--never in world history have companies in one country, to the degree they do here--they shut down in the United States and move to China, move to Mexico, move to Malaysia, move to Indonesia, and then they sell their products back to the United States. How do you build a country's wealth when you do that? And the reason they do is because these workers in Mexico who are building cars, in Malaysia making electronic equipment, in Costa Rica making Disney toys--these workers don't share in the wealth they create. They are not making enough from the jobs they do to buy the things they make. The beauty of our system and what has made the United States a prosperous country with a strong middle class is--partly because of unions, partly because of democracy--is our workers typically earn enough that they can buy the products they make. In other words, if the workers are creating wealth for the company, for their bosses, they get paid enough, they can extract enough of that wealth that they can have a decent standard of living. Not in Mexico, China, Malaysia, or many of these countries that are part of this free-trade regimen. Let me take you to one more place on this little tour around the world. Let me take you to a midwestern meatpacking plant. Most of these meatpacking plants were union plants. They had very little turnover. Workers were making very good wages, and they were safe, by and large, because the workers had demanded safety and the U.S. Government had enforced it. Well, what has happened in the last 10 or 15 years in these meatpacking plants is the union has been busted. Many of the workers are immigrants. They are immigrants who--probably some of them are not legal, but certainly these immigrants who are there are not about to form a union. They do not speak English, sometimes, very well. They are not so certain they are going to be able to stay in this country. They are just not going to speak out. They are hardly ever going to talk back to their boss and will never form a union. Here is what happened. It used to be in those plants--pardon me if my numbers are not precise here because it has been a while since I thought about this--it used to be in these meatpacking plants that the workers would stand there, they would have the vinyl aprons and a sharp knife because they were processing beef, and the carcasses would be hung on the big hooks, and the carcasses would slowly go by, about 150 an hour, something like that. So these workers would be standing there and they would make their cut as the carcasses went by slowly, 150 an hour. After they busted the union, they sped up the line. When it is 150 an hour, that is about the right speed for them to do this work. They almost doubled the speed of the carcasses as they went by, and two things happened: Workers had to hurry, so they were more likely to hurt themselves because they would aim the knife, and because it was moving fast, they might end up glancing off the bone and cutting their leg. The other thing that would happen is workers were much more likely to drop their knives, quickly pick them up, wipe them on their apron, and go back to work. Here is the interesting thing. The line had sped up to 300, more or less, an hour. On Thursdays they slowed the line back. Do my colleagues know why? Because Thursday was the day these meatpacking companies were shipping those carcasses, that processed meat, to Europe, and Europe has higher food safety standards than the United States does. So if these workers could work fast, and if they dropped the knife and wiped it off, the meat might get a little contaminated. That is OK for U.S. food safety standards, but the Europeans, who had higher food safety standards, said, We are not buying your beef unless you slow the line down and make it safer. That is what globalization would be. It is not just workers in Mexico who can't buy the cars; it is not just Motorola workers in Malaysia or Disney workers in Costa Rica who can't buy the products they make; it also undermines our food safety and drug safety and consumer protection. These agreements are not trade agreements. They are special interest laws that never see the light of day because of the peculiar rules of the Senate. We should be ashamed of ourselves for passing these agreements, period, and especially passing them under these provisions. I hope the administration learns something from this. I hope the administration decides, on these trade agreements, instead of being on the side of the largest corporations in the country and in the world, which don't always look out for American interests--I hope the administration and the Members of the House and Senate will decide they want to be on the side of American families, of American communities, of American workers, of American small companies that make goods and want to sell all over the world. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I rise to speak against this agreement. This, my friends, is the Panama trade agreement. There are 1,600 pages. If we want to get rid of tariffs and level the playing field, we would pass about three pages of tariff schedules and build in labor rights so that all of us would pass this by a voice vote. This is 1,600 pages of rules to help insurance companies, to help drug companies, to undercut America's sovereignty. It is based on the same NAFTA trade model that doesn't work with investor-state relations. The same promises we hear in every trade agreement--the Clinton administration and the first Bush administration promised 200,000-plus jobs for NAFTA. We lost 600,000 jobs. Vote no on Panama. It is more of the same. It doesn't work for America and small businesses, and it doesn't work for our workers. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, this is the same story. This is Panama's agreement, but Colombia's is even longer--hundreds and hundreds of pages of rules. I admire the Colombian people. They are our allies, but the Colombian Government not so much. Colombia remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. There were 23 trade unionists killed in 2011, and 51 were killed in 2010. What is happening to them is working. Over the past 20 years, unionization rates in Colombia have been cut in half. When you threaten trade unionists, when you actually murder them, of course, unionization rates are going to go down. The Labor Action Plan commits the Colombian Government to get better, but what we are doing by a ``yes'' vote is rewarding promises, as we always do in trade agreements. But we are doing nothing to establish and enforce concrete results. If you care about human rights, if you care about workers having the ability to freely organize and collectively bargain, you will vote no on the Colombian trade agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I say thank you to Senator Levin. Yes, I try to explain this. I was on some radio calls this morning with stations in Dayton and Cincinnati and all over the State, and the questions they asked were just that: Wait a minute, OK, I understand people being against a proposal, but why would the leader of one political party say about a jobs bill--when unemployment is this high in the Senator's State and my State and millions and millions of Americans want jobs and cannot find them--why would they say: Let's not even put it on the floor for discussion. The rules of this place are peculiar, obviously, but why would you say: I am not even willing to bring it up for a vote. I am not even willing to debate it. I am not even willing to set the stage so we can discuss it. People do not want to hear about process. I understand that. But people do want us to do something about jobs. The first step is, you have a debate--you bring the bill forward, you have a debate, you offer amendments, and then you come up with something. Last night, as you recall, I say to Senator Levin, right before the jobs bill vote, we had a huge bipartisan vote, with 63 votes for the China currency bill. To do what? I know the Senator has advocated for years that we have a level playing field in our dealings with China so that so many Chinese companies do not get an advantage selling here and so that so many Michigan and Ohio companies do not get a disadvantage-- a currency tax; a tariff, if you will--when our companies in Michigan and Ohio try to sell into China. So I guess I am curious as to the Senator's thoughts on why we would not even set up ourselves--why Republicans would not want to at least come together and say, let's debate it. Then maybe we can make some interesting amendments we can come together on, like we came together bipartisanly just 24 hours ago--less than that--fewer than 24 hours ago, to come up with a real jobs bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, we are in morning business, right?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, in an hour or so, the Senate will be voting on our currency bill, S. 1619, the bipartisan bill I am a prime sponsor on, along with Senators Schumer, Graham, and Sessions, and a host of other Senators in both parties, including Senators Stabenow, Snowe, Collins, and Hagan. I thank my colleagues for the vote last week of well in excess of 60 bipartisan votes, allowing us to consider this measure. I am struck by some of my colleagues who dismiss this bill as a ``message'' bill. There are opponents of the bill, and there are always people who don't want to stand up to China. I think they are undercutting our ability to stop the hemorrhaging of our manufacturing jobs. That is their decision to make. Again, I am struck by how some of my colleagues dismiss this as a message bill. I don't know what a message bill means to anybody outside of Washington. I know this bill is a jobs bill. I was talking to an anchor on MSNBC, who said we lost almost 3 million jobs to China in the last decade, most of them manufacturing jobs. This is legislation that will stand up to the Chinese and say: You are not going to game the currency system or export from China into our market and have a 25-, 30-, 35-percent subsidy, and you are not going to put up a tariff using currency as that tariff, by and large, in effect, to add 25, 30, 35 percent to the cost of an American good sold into China. This legislation is all about jobs in industries that have been holding on for their life, such as paper, steel, tires, and aluminum. But it is not just paper, steel, and tires; it is no longer a trade deficit in T-shirts and bicycles. This trade deficit, which has more than tripled in the last decade, is now almost $800 million a day. That means every day companies buy $800 million more in Santa Fe and in Dayton than we sell to China. We buy $800 million more than we sell. We cannot keep doing that. This trade deficit has risen through the economic food chain all the way to advanced technology products. It is not just tires and steel, as important as they are to many workers in this country; it is also jobs in solar, wind, and clean energy components manufacturing, and in the auto supply chain. Those are millions of jobs in our country. What this legislation means in so many ways is that we can be competitive on all fronts with China, Germany, and Japan. We can compete on productivity. We have skilled workers and world class infrastructure. But how do you compete against a 25-, 30- percent subsidy? How can workers in Findlay who make tires or in Chillicothe who make paper or in Defiance who make engines compete with $1 billion in subsidies? As a leader in this effort, Senator Merkley noted currency manipulation is a 20- to 30-percent tax on our exports. If a company in Albuquerque or Atlanta or Ashtabula makes a product and sends it to China, it costs 25, 30 percent more because they put a currency tariff on that product. I find it hard to believe that some of my colleagues--about 30 of them--would want to continue this tax on our exporters. It is, pure and simple, a tariff and a tax on our exporters trying to sell products into the Chinese market. Senator Feinstein spoke about the compelling image she saw from her San Francisco home. Looking out at the San Francisco Bay, she counted the cargo ships departing for Asia, half filled with mostly scrap paper and other scrap, while the incoming ships are filled with goods. That tells you that we buy $800 million a day more from China than we sell to China. It is not because our workers are not productive or that our companies are not efficient or because our scientists and researchers aren't the most innovative in the world; it is because China has a 25-, 30-, 35-percent tax on our products and a subsidy on their products. That is pure and simple. For a State such as mine, trying to get a foothold on clean energy technology research and production, the race against China will only accelerate in the coming years. That is why it is imperative that we not sit idly by while China subsidizes its exports through its currency regime. This is no message bill. This is level-the-playing-field legislation. Let me speak about some other charges that have been made. Some of my colleagues note that China's currency has increased about 30 percent in recent years. No doubt the RMB has appreciated about 30 percent. Since the Senate acted in 2005, the Chinese currency, the RMB, has appreciated about 30 percent. But as the Peterson Institute for International Economics has shown--which is not an anti-free trade, pro-fair trade, liberal, progressive, socialist organization; it is a middle-of-the-road, mostly free trade organization, staffed by sort of elite economists in the Northeast--Even the Peterson Institute for International Economics has shown that the RMB is more undervalued than a year ago because of China's rapid growth in the past few years, as well as inflation and productivity. The Peterson Institute estimates that China's currency manipulation increased from 24.2 percent in 2010 to 28.5 percent in 2011, despite the fact that China's real exchange rate appreciated over the past year. That means it is getting worse. If we want to call it a message bill, it may work with some in this institution but not with the American public. This is getting worse and worse for our manufacturers. I will tell you about one, the Bennett brothers in Brunswick, Ohio, who came to me. I was talking to them in northeast Ohio a couple weeks ago. They run a family company that has been around for about 35 years in northeast Ohio. This company is called Automation Tool and Dye. They were about to have a million dollar sale to an American company looking for their product and, at the last minute, the Chinese came in and undercut them by 20 percent. Why? Because they got a 25-percent, 30-percent subsidy bonus because of their currency. The point is that China is massively and increasingly intervening in its currency. The International Monetary Fund knows it. The IMF has estimated that China's global current account surplus--the broadest measure of its trade balance--will more than double from $305 billion in 2010 to $852 billion in 2016. The problem is getting worse. If one thing is clear since the Senate voted in 2005 to slap tariffs on Chinese goods, it is this: The RMB is pegged to American political pressure. If we can predict anything, we know that if we take the pressure off, China will get worse. If we can predict another thing, we know that if this passes and begins to work its way through the House to the President's desk, the Chinese will respond by significantly appreciating their currency. Some of my colleagues wring their hands, saying we might set off a trade war, and that this is the second coming of Smoot-Hawley. The facts are clear that this is very different. When Smoot-Hawley was enacted by Congress, in those days the United States had a trade surplus. So countries around the world were angered that while we had a trade surplus we were enacting Smoot-Hawley, more tariffs. Today, we have one of the largest trade deficits in world history, so we are in a very different position. As Senator Sessions said, when he heard this criticism that we might set off a trade war, we have been in a trade war for a long time. The Chinese seem to be doing very well. They have declared a trade war. That is why they subsidize water, paper, steel, capital, and land. This features spies, features theft of intellectual property, and that 30- percent stealth subsidy that gets applied to every export China sends to the United States. So we are already in a trade war. The only difference is that today on the floor of the Senate we have taken a big step toward abandoning the failed tactics of unilateral disarmament. Workers in my State know that we have been waving the white flag in this trade war. I remind my friends that the United States has more leverage than any of China's trading partners, as China is overly dependent on access to our market to maintain its own exports and jobs. This isn't Smoot-Hawley, as some want you to believe. This legislation does not mandate sanctions against China or any other nation. It does not slap an across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports tomorrow as China has effectively done to ours. In fact, if this bill becomes law, the duties would apply to less than 3 percent of Chinese imports. When you think about this, of all Chinese exports, about one-third come to the United States. If Senator Durbin is in business in Chicago, and he has a company--or he has a customer in his company who buys one- third of all of their goods, he is going to be good to that customer. He will not declare war on them. The Chinese won't declare economic trade war on us, because we buy so many of their exports. I will close with this. If China is found to be manipulating its currency, this bill sets in motion a series of steps to place pressure on the Chinese Government to stop rigging the exchange rate in its favor. It is simple. According to a recent New York Times op-ed by C. Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute: To be sure, some American corporations will fret that these actions would needlessly antagonize the Chinese and threaten a trade war. . . . I believe these fears are overblown. The real threat to the world trading system is protectionist policies, including undervalued currencies, of other countries, and the vast trade imbalances that result. As Presidential contender Mitt Romney put it, taking action to remove protectionist market distortions would not result in a ``trade war,'' but failing to act will mean the United States has accepted ``trade surrender.'' We can vote yes today and it will mean we will stand up to the Chinese and, more importantly, it will be a victory for American workers, and especially American small manufacturers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, as September ended, so did Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. While it is important to set aside a month for special attention to this epidemic, we must not forget that childhood obesity is a year-round battle. The facts about childhood obesity are startling. Obesity rates have more than tripled in the last 30 years. In Ohio, more than 30 percent of children and adolescents are overweight or obese. Our children living with obesity experience lifelong health problems, including type 2 diabetes, heart problems, and bone and joint problems. Combating childhood obesity might seem like an uphill battle, but with national attention on the issue, we can meet this urgent need. And communities across Ohio and the Nation are doing their part. Public and private partnerships are joining forces to unite in the fight against childhood obesity. We see it with the U.S. Surgeon General's healthy youth for a healthy future initiative promoting healthy eating and physical activity to the Do Right! Campaign in communities in greater Cincinnati. We see it with Let's Move! events throughout the State, and collaborations between Federal and State governments and local communities, organizations, and individuals. Last year, the Senate passed landmark child nutrition legislation, the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act, to help promote health and reduce childhood obesity. This bill will improve the nutritional quality of school meals through an increase in Federal reimbursement for school lunches. It also establishes national nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools so that vending machine food and snacks in the a la carte line are healthy and nutritious. The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act will connect more children to healthy, locally grown produce through farm-to-school programs with the dual benefit of making sure children know how their food is grown and supporting Ohio farmers. Also worth noting is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA, progress in updating the nutrition standards for school meals so they are in line with current nutrition science. I commend the USDA for its efforts and urge it to finalize these new school lunch rules quickly so that children across the country get the benefit of more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products. I am also proud of the proactive efforts of Ohio hospitals in acknowledging their ability to combat the epidemic of childhood obesity. The Cleveland Clinic's 5 to Go! Program is a comprehensive childhood wellness program. A partnership with family health centers, hospitals, schools, and neighborhood partners, 5 to Go! is working in Cuyahoga County to keep children healthy by encouraging them to get 1 hour of exercise a day and consume more fruits and vegetables in their meals. University Hospitals Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital is a national leader in addressing childhood diabetes--one of the more serious side effects of obesity. Through funding awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rainbow is home to the Center of Excellence for Childhood Diabetes, Activity, and Nutrition. Rainbow is holding workshops to educate school nurses on childhood diabetes and hosting events with patients and their family focusing on breakthroughs in treatment and disease management. By teaming up with the Kohl's Community Youth Fitness Program, Akron Children's Hospital is teaching 8 to 13-year-olds about healthy fitness and eating habits through participation in activities and games. In Toledo, ProMedica is focusing its attention on community-based nutrition programs. The Fields of Green Program includes everything from hydroponic and community gardens tended to by neighborhood children to a scholarship program for high school students. And, through a partnership with the YMCA and the United Way, the Summer Feeding Program has increased the number of meals served to children under 18 from 1,500 to over 45,000 in only 1 year. Nationwide Children's in Columbus is an Ohio Healthy Weight Outcome member, one of ten teams selected to participate in the National Health Weight Collaborative. Funded through the Affordable Care Act, the Collaborative's mission is to optimize health outcomes in children by implementing a multilevel obesity prevention and treatment demonstration project in a low-income area. Nationwide and the Ohio Healthy Weight Outcomes Program are implementing the Healthy Neighborhood Healthy Family (HNHF) zone with the goal of reducing the obesity rate in Columbus fifth graders by 10 percent in 5 years. And Cincinnati Children's Hospital is working with both children and their parents to make simple yet effective dietary changes. The hospital is also working with local school districts to increase children's consumption of fruits and vegetables and replace sugary drinks in school lunches. Additionally, through a partnership with U.S. Bank and the Boys and Girls Club, over 3,000 children participated in Cincinnati Children's kids' marathon--an incremental marathon over an 8-week period that included running as well as nutrition and health education. September brought an end to Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, but I look forward to continuing to work with schools and hospitals, teachers and parents, and all Ohioans to combat childhood obesity and ensure a healthier future for our Nation's children.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise, first, to thank my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, for supporting cloture today. It is the second major step in this body, passing the largest bipartisan jobs bill we have seen in this body in years. The bipartisan jobs bill has the potential to create or save around 2 million jobs, without cost to taxpayers, because it is simply standing up for American companies and American workers. For a change, we put American workers and American manufacturers first. It is important to, for a moment, consider how we got here. This effort did not begin this week or even this year. Efforts to combat Chinese currency manipulation have been underway for over half a decade. It began in earnest around 2005. Since then, the situation has grown worse for workers and businesses. In 2005, there was an intense debate inside the National Association of Manufacturers, which was representing a whole range of American manufacturers, from the small tool and die shop in Akron to the medium-size manufacturing company in Toledo, to GM, Ford, and other huge manufacturers. The division was smaller companies, generally--not in every case, of course, but smaller companies generally supported taking action against currency manipulation with China. Larger companies, many of which had already outsourced production to China, generally were opposed to standing up to the Chinese. That was because the Chinese are well known for punishing companies that are doing business in China if those companies actually criticize the Chinese Communist Party Government. So it was an interesting, if unholy, alliance between some of America's greatest, best known, largest, longest existing companies. There was an unholy alliance between them and the Communist Party of China--something that would have made, perhaps, Henry Ford turn over in his grave. Nonetheless, that is what happened. Some of these companies actually left the organization--the smaller ones--because the larger companies dominated an organization like that. They paid the biggest dues and are the most influential people in the country. Some of the smaller companies left partly because they have to stay in a community and do their manufacturing and supply components to companies that outsourced these jobs. What is interesting--and we have talked about this--it has become almost--not almost, it has become a business plan, perhaps unprecedented in world history, where a large number of companies in one country--this country, the United States--shut down production in Steubenville or Springfield and moved production to Wuhan or Xi'an, China, and sell the goods back to the United States. So it is a business plan for many companies to shut down production here, move overseas, and sell the product back. To my knowledge, that has never happened the way it has in this country in the last dozen years, since permanent normal trade relations was approved here to set the stage for China's entry into the WTO. I remember--and the Presiding Officer was in the House when I was-- when that debate happened in 1999 and 2000. What I remember is, the largest corporations in America were--the CEOs were walking the Halls of Congress and doing the bidding of the Communist Party of China, the People's Republic of China, and they were saying that putting China in the WTO would mean China would follow the rule of law. They also said they couldn't wait until they could get access to 1 billion Chinese consumers, although 5 years later it was apparent they wanted access to 1 billion Chinese workers. But the whole idea of putting China in the WTO was to have them live under the rule of law and practice trade under the rule of law, and that is what we have not seen. We have simply not seen the Chinese follow the rule of law. That is why so many economists, including Republican economists and Democratic economists, and including some economists who worked for President Reagan and some economists who worked for President Clinton and President Obama--the ones who are looking at sort of an expansive world--say things like Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute--a pretty much pro-free-trade, middle-of-the-road organization--who said: Some American corporations will fret that these actions-- These actions meaning regulations on dealing with this currency issue, as our bill does-- that these actions would needlessly antagonize the Chinese and threaten a trade war. I believe these fears are overblown. The real threat to the world trading system is in fact the protectionist policies, including undervalued currencies of other countries, and the vast trade imbalances that result. And Bergsten went on to say: Not since World War II have we seen a country practice protectionism to the degree the People's Republic of China does. We were talking earlier about the split in the National Association of Manufacturers--and I am not making too much of it. Most companies didn't leave. But some of the smaller companies, which may or may not have left, have suffered greatly during the gaming of the currency system. Let me cite one example: the Bennett brothers' Automation Tool & Die in Brunswick, OH, a city about 25 miles outside of Cleveland. The Bennett brothers run this tool-and-die shop, Automation Tool & Die, and they had a $1 million contract they thought they were about to sign with a new customer. The Chinese came in at the last minute with a bid 20 percent under their bid. That meant I don't know how many jobs that didn't stay in America but went to China, and that 20 percent was given to them because of currency. As Senator Merkley said on the Senate floor yesterday, this currency advantage given to the Chinese because they purposely keep their currency devalued means when we sell products made in our country--made in Whirlicote, OH--to China, they have, in effect, a 25-, 30-, 35- percent tariff because of the currency undervaluation. When the Chinese sell a product into Chillicothe, OH, they get a 25-percent bonus or subsidy--25 or 30 percent. So that is why we have seen this huge trade deficit grow by multiples of something like three or four times. Last week, there was a column by the former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, Jerry Jasinowski. He was president during the time of this debate in 2005. He has watched as members struggle with this disadvantage of the currency manipulation. He wrote this week that Congress is ``belatedly stepping up to the plate on China's currency manipulation.'' He called this currency manipulation ``an assault on U.S. manufacturing'' that is ``having a deadly impact on the overall economy.'' Because these companies have lived with this, more than 300 companies have signed a petition in support of this legislation according to the Coalition for a Prosperous America. We can see companies such as McAfee Tool & Die in Ohio, and we highlighted some of the ones in different Senators' States and lots of national organizations, lots of State and local organizations, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of companies are supporting this because they know--and all kinds of organizations know--this isn't working for American companies. It is not working for American manufacturing. It is not working for American communities or American workers. I had mentioned what happened up until 2005. In 2007, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, a Democrat; Senator Snowe, a Republican from Maine; Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia; and Senator Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky--of those four, only Senator Bunning has left the Senate--created the Fair Currency Coalition, which pulled together manufacturers and labor united to address a serious problem. We can see some of those here. In the 111th Congress, the Senate introduced several bipartisan bills. Senator Snowe and I worked this year on countervailing duties, legislation similar to what the House of Representatives passed, providing industries a remedy when it comes to imports that are proven to be subsidized by currency manipulation. Since then the Senate combined Senator Snowe's and my bill with that of Senator Schumer and Senator Graham into the bipartisan legislation we have today. This bipartisan legislation is a no-cost job creator. In fact, it is better than that because when we have the biggest bipartisan jobs bill-- passing overwhelmingly 62 to 38 today, with some party leaders trying to block it but still passing 62 to 38--increasing jobs, particularly if we are not spending money doing it, we are obviously saving on the budget deficit. The Economic Policy Institute says this is more than job creating, and it will create more than 1 million jobs. If we have 1 million people going back to work, that means 1 million people who aren't drawing unemployment benefits, who aren't filing for food stamps, and who aren't getting any other kinds of subsidies. They are working and paying taxes, and that, obviously, is why we can't cut our way to prosperity. We have to grow our way to prosperity and grow our way to a more balanced budget. So that is what this is all about. And I would quote a couple of other people--Republicans. David Camp, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who has supported this measure in the past, said the bill doesn't ``presuppose an outcome,'' but sends ``a clear signal to China that Congress' patience is running out, without giving China an excuse to take it out on U.S. companies and workers.'' Mitt Romney, Presidential candidate, Republican, former Governor of Massachusetts, said taking action to remove protectionist market distortions wouldn't result in a ``trade war,'' but failing to act will mean the United States has accepted ``trade surrender.'' That is exactly the point because the strongest objection to this bill and the most frequent and compelling argument from, apparently, the three Democrats and the, I guess, roughly three dozen Republicans who opposed the vote a couple of hours ago is that this bill declares a trade war; that it would lead to some kind of trade war. I first want to remind everybody listening that the United States is already in a trade war. When we see the trade deficit in 10 years triple with a country that is not playing by the rules, it is pretty clear there is a trade war going on, and they are winning in so many ways because we are buying so much from them, and they are buying so little from us. Yes, our exports have increased over the last 10 years, but only marginally. Our imports from China are just growing much more rapidly. In the end, common sense says the Chinese aren't going to initiate a trade war. You don't initiate a trade war if you are China--they might threaten to--because we are their biggest customer. One-third of Chinese exports come to the United States. They have way more to lose than we do if they initiate a trade war. We can predict it, like we can predict the Sun will come up. Whenever we stand up to the Chinese--when President Clinton or President Bush or President Obama would sort of do a start-and-stop in standing up to the Chinese, and then back down--the last President to enforce trade law well was Ronald Reagan. President Obama has done it marginally well, but the other Presidents haven't done it much at all. But whenever we act like we are going to do that, it is so predictable what the Chinese Government will say: Trade war. Trade war. Then some Members of the Senate will stand up and say: Trade war. Trade war. But just because the Chinese say there is going to be a trade war, they always bluster like that. So as certain as the Sun was going to come up on Tuesday morning after the vote Monday night--which was 79 to 19--the People's Bank of China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce--like all birds flying off a telephone wire when one bird does--said this is protectionism, this is a trade war, and all the kinds of things they say. But just because they say it isn't necessarily what they are going to do. They want us to believe they are going to do that because far too often American politicians--Presidents especially--will back down. This bill will begin to help us do what we should be doing in this country, and that is following--as the Presiding Officer has said so many times before and fought for--real manufacturing policy. Thirty years ago, in the early 1980s, between 25 and 30 percent of our gross domestic product was manufacturing. Today it is only about 11 percent. Those manufacturing jobs created an awful lot of middle-class families in Garfield Heights, OH, and in Norwood, OH, and in Grove City, OH. Today a lot of those families struggle because they have lost their $14-, $15-, $18-, and $20-an-hour job making things. Instead, they are working in a service industry, which never pays as much and never has the spinoff effect of job creation that a good manufacturing job has. So I am thrilled about this vote today. What makes me even more excited is I think it is the beginning of the United States having a more coherent manufacturing strategy. We are the only wealthy country in the world that doesn't have a manufacturing strategy. While all of our trade competitors practice trade according to their national interests, we practice trade according to a college textbook that is 20 years out of print. I am hopeful those days are behind us, and I especially thank Senator Graham and Senator Sessions for their stance and making a difference on this vote today. I think this is the beginning of something much better for our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I appreciate the Senator's consistent push for fair trade policies. We have worked on Alabama's and Ohio's issues, from sleeping bags to steel. I appreciate that. The Senator said how important manufacturing is and that we cannot just turn to a service economy or we begin to lose the middle class. I appreciate the Senator's advocacy there. Will the Senator explain, before the debate is wrapped up, what this currency depreciation, if you will, by the Chinese does to our economy. Senator Merkley explained yesterday that when we export to China, their currency advantage--artificial advantage--gets the Chinese a 25-percent tariff on our sales to China, making it harder for a Montgomery or a Dayton company to sell into China. Coming the other way, it is a 25- percent subsidy to the Chinese company--or their government's company-- selling in Mobile or Cincinnati. Could the Senator wrap up the debate and go through that again--to the point of what currency does to manufacturing and the middle class.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Rev. Fred Lee Shuttlesworth, an American civil rights hero who lived much of his adult life in Cincinnati who passed away this week at the age of 89. I come to the floor in support of a resolution with Senator Portman, my colleague from Cincinnati, where Reverend Shuttlesworth lived for many years, and also from Senator Shelby and Senator Sessions, both representing Alabama, where Reverend Shuttlesworth lived his earliest several decades and then the end of his life. Much is known about his life--the beatings, the bombings, the arrests and protests. He was born in 1922 in Alabama. He was a truckdriver who studied theology at night. He became an ordained minister in his twenties. By the 1950s, in his thirties, he was the pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham, the pulpit from which he became the powerful, fiery, outspoken leader against racial discrimination and injustice. When the Alabama NAACP was banned in the State, Reverend Shuttlesworth established the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Churches held weekly meetings, membership grew month by month-- in large part because of Reverend Shuttlesworth's leadership skills-- and the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights became the mass movement for Blacks in the South. He fought Birmingham's racism in the courtroom, bringing suits to desegregate public recreation facilities. He protested segregation of buses in Birmingham. He was beaten with chains and brass knuckles when he tried to enroll his children in a Birmingham school, even though he was, of course, a taxpayer. He would lead Freedom Riders to safety--a critical voice imploring Attorney General Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy to get the Federal Government to show leadership as Freedom Riders were jailed and attacked. Reverend Shuttlesworth was often jailed and later left bruised and bloodied from firehoses and police dogs, the brutal force of Bull Connor's lynch mob. His life and his family were threatened by Connor's ignorant hostility--or indifference more often than hostility. His words: They would call me SOB, and they didn't mean ``sweet old boy. . . . '' [T]he first time I saw brass knuckles was when they struck me . . . they missed me with dynamite because God made me dynamite. So his direct action campaigned continued. He mobilized students to boycott merchants with Jim Crow signs in their storefronts. He worked and he marched with Dr. King, affiliating the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, organizing bus boycotts and sit-ins and marches and acts of civil disobedience. He persuaded Dr. King to bring the civil rights movement to Birmingham, where Dr. King would write his famous ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail.'' In the letter, Dr. King writes of the necessity of Reverend Shuttlesworth's direct action campaign, fighting ``broken promises'' and ``blasted hopes.'' The two words ``broken'' and ``blasted'' meant so much to them personally because both were attacked so frequently. In September 1963, the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed, murdering four little girls, and the movement's grief and responsive resiliency helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The next year, he helped organize the historic march from Selma to Montgomery, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, to fight voting discrimination in Alabama and across the South, galvanizing meeting after meeting with his fiery words. He soon arrived in Cincinnati, coming across the Ohio River, as pastor of the Greater New Light Baptist Church in Avondale. He trained Freedom Riders in nearby Oxford, OH, at the Western Campus for Women then, now affiliated or absorbed by Miami of Ohio, one of our great State universities. He trained those Freedom Riders, thousands of activists who would travel south to register Black voters. Reverend Shuttlesworth fought for racial equality in Cincinnati schools, in city councils and police departments, empowering low-income families through education, jobs, and housing for decades to come. I would like to read from and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial from the Cincinnati Inquirer from October 5, 2011.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I would like to share a couple of words from the Cincinnati Inquirer. This is the beautifully written Cincinnati Inquirer editorial about Reverend Shuttlesworth: He once told the Tampa Tribune it helped to have a ``little divine insanity--that's when you're willing to suffer and die for something.'' They also wrote: Perhaps nowhere is his ultimate triumph more evident than in the renaming of the Birmingham airport to the Birmingham- Shuttlesworth International Airport--a public tribute in a city where once a Ku Klux Klan member who was a police officer warned him to get out of town as fast as he could. Needless to say, the airport was named after Reverend Shuttlesworth, not after the KKK police officer. It was an honor to get to know Reverend Shuttlesworth and to learn from him. In 1998, I first met this historic figure of the civil rights movement--unknown to far too many people--in Selma, AL, during a pilgrimage with Congressman John Lewis, who was beaten perhaps more than anybody in the civil rights movement. It was an opportunity to spend some time with Reverend Shuttlesworth in Selma in the late 1990s. I visited his church in 2006. I heard him preach, and then, at his retirement party a while after that--not too many years ago--I heard him preach again and got the chance to get a tour at his retirement party, a tour of the small museum in his modest church celebrating his life but more set up to honor and commemorate the civil rights movement in the most personal kind of way. It is impossible for me to really describe the feelings I had as he talked to a small group--Connie, my wife, and me--a small group of us as we toured this very small museum in a room at the church. It was just packed with all kinds of mementoes and commemorations of the civil rights movement and Reverend Shuttlesworth's fight in those days in Alabama. From those pictures and his memory, you learn not just about a man's life but about our Nation's history. The passage of the most basic civil rights laws would not have occurred without his vision and fortitude. We honor his legacy in his passing, but we are also charged with upholding a sacred duty to take his lead, and that is because progress in our Nation is never easy. Passage of voting rights or civil rights was not the result of one man's great speech in Washington or one famous march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Exhibit 1 Shuttlesworth `Truly a Man of Courage, Conviction and Integrity' Cincinnati Enquirer Editorial, Oct. 5, 2011 In 1955, the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth was a young pastor in Birmingham, Ala., preaching sermons on equality and working in his segregated city on the issues before him, such as adding street lights to African-American neighborhoods. But after he petitioned the Birmingham City Council to hire African-American police officers, a larger calling took hold of him. He saw his role as helping to lift African Americans--and the rest of his countrymen--from another sort of darkness: that of racial bigotry. He became a restless, outspoken advocate for integration, a co-founder of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, and a leader of the Civil Rights movement. His death Wednesday in Birmingham left a sense of national loss, strongly felt in Cincinnati, where he spent most of his adulthood and served as pastor of two churches. We feel that sense of loss, recognize the depth of his accomplishment and give thanks for the example he set. In Birmingham and Cincinnati, the eloquent Rev. Shuttlesworth appealed to moral conscience and championed everyday causes. He sat at lunch counters with young protesters in Birmingham, held ``wade-ins'' at segregated beaches in St. Augustine, Fla., and later in life established the Shuttlesworth Housing Foundation to help low-income Cincinnatians afford a home. He was focused, undeterrable, bold. He challenged Birmingham's white power structure at every turn. He refused to flinch at bombings of his church and home. He urged civil rights leaders to be more assertive, labeling the 1963 campaign to desegregate Birmingham ``Project C''--for confrontational. He once told the Tampa Tribune it helped to have ``a little divine insanity--that's when you're willing to suffer and die for something.'' But instead of becoming a martyr, the Rev. Shuttlesworth lived to become one of the movement's elder statesmen. The sound of his name alone revived memories of Freedom Riders and police fire hoses, of the relentless drive of young civil rights leaders and the stubborn resistance of the Old South. Perhaps nowhere is his ultimate triumph more evident than in the renaming of the Birmingham airport to the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport--a public tribute in a city where once a Ku Klux Klan member who was also a police officer warned him to get out of town as fast as he could. He replied that he didn't run. And, in Birmingham and Cincinnati, he never did. And he never stopped. As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote to him, ``May God strengthen your spirit and uplift your heart that even your accusers will be forced to admit that truly you are a man of courage, conviction and integrity.''