Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I commend Northampton Community College on the groundbreaking of its new $72 million Monroe County Campus. This undertaking will expand and improve educational opportunities for countless students for generations to come. It is a notable achievement that has been made possible through the persistence, dedication, and cooperation of a committed group of faculty, staff, and administrators at Northampton Community College. Northampton's newest campus, which impressively spans over 200,000 square feet, includes a workforce development training center, an enrollment center building, and a student life building. Given our country's current economic climate and staggering unemployment rate, what Northampton Community College has managed to accomplish today is nothing short of remarkable. Northampton Community College is a public, comprehensive community college that serves more than 36,000 students per year with its main campus in Bethlehem, PA. Currently, there are more than 16,000 students enrolled in their credit programs and an additional 21,000 who are involved in workforce training, adult literacy, or youth classes. This new campus in Monroe County highlights Northampton's dedication to Pennsylvania and higher education in America. Northampton's strong commitment to preparing its students for the demands of today's economy is reflected in the new campus. Their new workforce training center is forecasted to train 1,000 new, incumbent, and displaced workers in the first 5 years of its existence. Northampton also offers many degree programs specifically designed to meet the needs of industries in the region. In 2012 it is estimated to create 541 new jobs, $15.9 million in new economic revenue activity, and $2.8 million in tax revenue. Northampton continues to lead the pack in higher education and has proven to be a model for community colleges across the country. The faculty, staff, and administration, under the leadership of President Art Scott, put students first. This new campus is evidence of this institution's steadfast commitment to preparing students for the 21st century economy. I could not be more pleased and honored to recognize such an exceptional educational accomplishment and ask that you would join me today in celebrating along with Northampton Community College.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I first of all want to thank Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for working with both parties to move these nominations along. I also want to thank Senator Toomey, my colleague from Pennsylvania, for his work and cooperation in moving our Pennsylvania judicial nominees forward. I am grateful for his help and cooperation. I rise to speak about Judge Cathy Bissoon, who is a daughter of Brooklyn, NY. She was born there and became a Pennsylvanian after law school. Cathy Bissoon is of Hispanic origin. Her mother was from the West Indies and her dad was from Puerto Rico. When she was 4 years old and living in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, her father was stabbed to death in a park blocks from her home. Her mother remarried and her family moved to Queens. As I mentioned before, she moved to Pittsburgh after law school. This is a remarkable American story. It is an American story of economic achievement, of overcoming obstacles, and of striving for excellence. Her educational background is stellar as well. She received her jurist doctorate degree in 1993 from Harvard Law School, after receiving her degree in political science summa cum laude in 1990 from Alfred University in Alfred, NY. A quick summary of her career is as follows: Her service as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a position that she held in the Court's Pittsburgh division since the year 2008. From 2007 until her appointment to the bench, Judge Bissoon was in private practice in Pittsburgh as a director of the law firm of Cohen & Grigsby, where she served as the head of the labor and employment group. Previously she was a partner in the law firm of Reed Smith from 2001 to 2007 and an associate in that same firm beginning in 1993. So she has a long record of service as a lawyer and advocate and someone whose career has been marked by distinction in the law as well as a judge. She also served as the Reed Smith law firm director of diversity. It was a diversity initiative she developed to recruit, retain, and promote minority lawyers. From 1994 to 1995 she was a law clerk for the Honorable Gary L. Lancaster of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This is a nomination that has not only received bipartisan support, but it is a nomination I think we can all be proud to advance and vote on today. I urge all my colleagues to give an affirmative vote to Judge Bissoon. I know we are limited to time. As my colleague, Senator Toomey, mentioned a couple of moments ago, we will be moving, we hope, soon to the consideration of two other nominees, and I want to make some comments for the Record for both of those. Mark Hornak was born in Homestead, PA. He received his law degree summa cum laude in 1981 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and graduated second in his class and was editor-in-chief of the University of Pittsburgh Law Review. He received his undergraduate degree cum laude in 1978 from the University of Pittsburgh and was a member of Omicron Delta Kappa Honorary Society, a National Merit Scholar, and on the dean's list. He has been a partner in the law firm of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney since 1982 where he specialized in media, defense, governmental representation, and is a member of the firm's executive committee. As I said before, I will include other references to his career as a lawyer and advocate. I have known Mark for a long time. I know him to be a person of integrity and someone who would serve our State with distinction in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Finally, someone I have known for over 20 years, Robert David Mariani. Bob has been in practice as a civil litigator in my hometown of Scranton for some 34 years. His educational background is equally as distinguished as our other nominees. He received his law degree cum laude in 1976 from Syracuse University College of Law and his undergraduate degree in 1972 from Vilanova University, also cum laude. Since 2001, he has been the sole shareholder in the law firm of Robert D. Mariani P.C. He has been an instructor for 5 years in the Union Leadership Academy Program sponsored by Penn State University, and was sole proprietor in his own law firm from 1993 to 2001. Of course, he was a partner in the same firm, or a similar firm by the name of Mariani & Greco from 1993. When my father served as Governor of Pennsylvania, he nominated Bob to fill a vacancy on the Pennsylvania Superior Court. It was a great honor. I know how high his standards were. Bob Mariani comes to this appointment with great distinction, a long and distinguished career in the law, and I know he will be a great judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. I will conclude by saying I could say more about Judge Bissoon, Mark Hornak, and Bob Mariani, but their record will be amplified by written commentary of their achievements, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a more thorough summary of their qualifications at this time.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am grateful that these candidates have put themselves forward for public service on our Federal bench, and we are looking forward today to a strong vote for Judge Bissoon when we get to her vote this afternoon. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the nomination of Judge Cathy Bissoon, and I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak for a couple of moments about the three pending trade agreements that the Senate is considering, those with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I wish to start by highlighting what I believe the American people are most concerned about right now--certainly the people I represent in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Wherever I go, other than sending us a message that they want us to work together to solve problems they confront in their lives, the No. 1 issue, the No. 1 priority in terms of the work we can and should be doing, and thankfully are starting to move forward on, is a series of steps to improve the job market and to reduce the unemployment rate. As we have so often said, we have more than 14 million Americans out of work. In Pennsylvania, we were on the way last year of lowering the rate of that number substantially. We went from approaching 600,000 people out of work to going below 500,000. Now, unfortunately, the number has shot back up to above 500,000 people out of work. So the No. 1 issue, bar none, is jobs, and that is why this debate about trade and these agreements is so important. Jobs are the key consideration for Americans. They should be the key consideration for us, and they are, in short, the biggest challenge we have. So we need to ask a series of questions, and I have at least three major questions about these trade agreements, but all center on that issue of jobs. We have had a series of debates in the last couple of weeks which I think have been pretty instructive on both jobs and on efforts to achieve bipartisanship. We had a significant period of time we spent on trade adjustment assistance legislation. I was one of the leaders of that, and, thankfully, we were able to pass trade adjustment assistance to help workers who are displaced by unfair trade and, in many cases, have tremendous challenges getting from here to there--getting from a position of joblessness because of unfair trade to training and education and preparation for a new job or a new career. We also just completed a debate about China's currency policy. We know our recent history proves that when China cheats on its currency, which it has over a long period of time, we lose American jobs. So the Senate spoke in a loud voice, in a bipartisan way, to indicate that we are overdue. It is long past time to get tough with China. If they are going to cheat, there will be consequences when they cheat on their currency. So we have had some interesting debates, and we have focused on jobs and we have focused on working together. Finally, let me make a point before I get to the three basic questions I have. The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, released a report today, and the report is entitled ``Nowhere to Go: Geographic and Occupational Immobility and Free Trade.'' It is dated today, October 12. I commend to my colleagues this report by the Joint Economic Committee. I won't go through the whole report, but here is the conclusion of the report itself: Given the already high national unemployment rate and depressed home values still evident in most states, policies that seek to liberalize trade may impose even larger costs on-- older workers and workers who don't have a college education, therefore-- bolstering the need for additional investments in training or other forms of trade-adjustment assistance. So when people lose their jobs as a result of unfair trade and because of the ravages of what happens in the international marketplace, what happens to an individual, to a company, and to a community, if they are older workers and if they don't have an education level that is commensurate with allowing them to adjust and to be able to respond to those dramatic changes, they will be much worse off. I think that is why these trade agreements are so important to debate. We have limited time for debate and we have limited time for full consideration, but I think we are going to have a number of hours to put some questions on the table. The first question I have is will these trade agreements protect and create jobs in Pennsylvania, the State I represent, and across the country? We know manufacturing is the core or probably the most important part of our job creation analysis. If we are making things, producing goods, engaged in advanced manufacturing, in new manufacturing--that we are seeing all over the country--if we are doing that at high levels and with big job numbers, we are moving in the right direction. But, unfortunately, economic policies and trade policies have inhibited and badly damaged our ability to create manufacturing jobs. I know in Pennsylvania manufacturing is especially critical to what is still the largest source of jobs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--that sector of our economy. The benefits to manufacturing jobs, of course, extend beyond individual companies, individual businesses. The economic benefits of a strong manufacturing sector are experienced throughout the economy. They have a ripple effect, multipliers beyond just that company. In Pennsylvania, according to research commissioned by the Pennsylvania Industrial Resources Centers, for every $1 increase in demand for products manufactured in this country, that leads to a gain in gross value to the economy overall of $2.52. So $1 in by way of manufacturing and $2.52 in return. Furthermore, manufacturing jobs create and support middle-income families. We know the wage level is higher and, therefore, those families can benefit tremendously. In 2008, the average annual compensation of a worker in the manufacturing sector was over $65,000. The average pay for the rest of the workforce was $10,000 less. Each good-paying job in the country allows for more money to flow back into the economy. We know that. Given the importance of protecting these critical manufacturing jobs, we must ask ourselves: Will the trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama create jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. All we need to do is look at the history. This is not theory. All we need to do is look at recent history. Trade-related job expansion has been, unfortunately, an unfulfilled promise to the people of Pennsylvania and across the country. In 1993, the United States entered into the so-called NAFTA agreement, North American Free Trade Agreement, which promised to deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs across the United States. Those gains were not realized, especially in a State such as Pennsylvania. From 1993 to 2002, 525,094 workers were certified as displaced under NAFTA, according to the Department of Labor. Overly optimistic job creation estimates were not the only flawed projection. At that time, leaders suggested that NAFTA would expand demand for American exports. That never came to be. In 1993, the United States had a small trade surplus with Mexico. Let me say that word again: We had a ``surplus'' in our trade with Mexico. By 2010, just 17 years later, according to Census Bureau statistics, we had amassed a trade deficit of $66.4 billion with Mexico. Our trade relationship with Canada tells the same story--a widening trade deficit from $10 billion in 1993 to $28.5 billion in 2010. So we know and everyone knows this, that a trade deficit does lead to job losses. In Pennsylvania, we have seen a dramatic decline in manufacturing employment since NAFTA was implemented, losing a total of 308,100 manufacturing jobs. That is one State in that time period; so more than 300,000 jobs lost just in Pennsylvania. With this experience, we need to take a close look at the government's projections for the pending agreements that are before us right now. While the International Trade Commission predicts our bilateral trade with Korea will improve--that is the assertion--the total U.S. trade deficit is predicted to get larger which, if past experience is any gauge, will mean job losses, not job gains. According to the International Trade Commission, the agreement with Colombia means--and I am quoting-- There is likely to be minimal to no effect on output or employment for most sectors in the U.S. economy. That is according to the International Trade Commission. About the Panama agreement, the same commission concluded that the impact of the Free Trade Agreement ``would likely be small because of the small size of the Panamanian market relative to total U.S. trade and production.'' Simply put, even the always optimistic International Trade Commission does not see these agreements as job-creating measures. That is question No. 1, a direct question on jobs. Question No. 2: Will this agreement create a level playing field? I would assert the answer is no to that question. Panama, while a very small economy, has one advantage to lure foreign investment. It remains a tax haven for companies that incorporate within its borders. As recently as 2009, Panama was listed on all major tax haven lists maintained by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the so-called OECD; Global Forum on Taxation; the National Bureau for Economic Research; and the Internal Revenue Service. While the tax information exchange agreement signed since then may address these issues, this same organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, has yet to evaluate whether Panamanian law will allow for effective enforcement pursuant to these agreements. Given the lack of definitive progress, I am concerned that the Panama trade deal remains silent on this very basic issue. Let me move to the question of what happens as it relates to Colombia on this basic question about a level playing field. Additionally, as it relates to Colombia, despite efforts to move that country toward a regime that tolerates workers' rights, Colombia remains one of the most dangerous places in the world for union workers to be working. While it has been greeted with great fanfare, nothing in the so-called labor action plan negotiated between the United States and the Colombian Government--nothing--has required Colombia to establish a measurable system for enforcement of these labor rights prior to ratification or implementation of the agreement. In fact, Colombian companies can skirt many of the provisions in the so-called action plan--for example, by forcing new hires to sign a pledge offering higher salaries based upon a number of conditions, including not joining a union. Given the weakness of this plan, it is not surprising that violence against union workers remains commonplace in Colombia. Twenty-two union members and organizers have been killed in Colombia this year. Six Catholic priests known for working for the rights of the poor have also been targeted for assassination this year, leading the Catholic Bishops Conference of Colombia to call for protection of its clergy. Imagine that: union workers and priests needing protection in a country such as Colombia. Additionally, a June 8 study by the International Trade Union Confederation condemned the ongoing problems for labor organizers in Colombia. One simple comparison speaks volumes. In total, 49 union members were murdered in Colombia in the year 2010--49 people. All other countries combined had 41 killings of this kind. I do not think that needs any more emphasis. I am going to move now to a couple of comments as they relate to this level playing field question as it relates to South Korea. We had a long debate and a good debate and a good consensus on a bipartisan basis as it relates to China's currency policy. I believe we took a positive step forward in passing through the Senate a bipartisan bill to get tough with China when they cheat on their currency. All the while, we did not say much about another country that has had currency problems, and that is South Korea. We know they have their own record on currency, and I am troubled by South Korea's currency manipulation over time. They devalued their currency at least in very specific time periods that we are aware of at least twice--once in 1998 and once in 1988. In fact, the most recent Treasury ``Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies''--a long name for a currency report--this report is dated May 27, 2011. It noted that South Korea intervened ``heavily'' in its currency market during the financial crisis and has continued uninterrupted since. So it has a history, but we also have current information, current evidence, recent evidence that South Korea has been intervening heavily in its currency market. Treasury urged--urged--South Korea to ``adopt a greater degree of exchange rate flexibility and less intervention.'' I think we could get a little tougher than that, be a little more direct and maybe have some consequences, but that is the extent that Treasury is willing to go. So as we debate a trade agreement with a major country such as South Korea, we ought to know something about their currency policies, especially in the aftermath of bipartisan currency legislation as it relates to China. I am pleased the Senate has passed this currency legislation this past week, and we are all hoping the House of Representatives will move quickly to consideration and passage of the currency legislation. But we should not be entering into a trade agreement with South Korea at a time when we know their currency policies are at best suspect and I think worse than that. Finally, let me lead to the last question of the three. The third question I have is: Does the agreement provide new opportunities for manufacturers in Pennsylvania as well as other States to export their goods? The benefits of the agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama have been, in my judgment, overstated, while the risks have been largely ignored. Rather than opening a new market for Pennsylvania farmers or Pennsylvania manufacturers, I fear the benefits to the United States are likely to be minimal at best. There are specific reasons the South Korea deal fails to deliver for Pennsylvania exporters as well. First, the most recent benefits are based upon an overly optimistic projection for agriculture. These projections, compiled by supporters of the agreement, assume that a cut in tariffs will immediately equal a growth in market share. We know from past experience that Asian markets, including South Korea, have come up with a host of unjustified nontariff restrictions to keep U.S. goods, particularly beef, out of their country. These barriers to free trade are likely to limit export potential and are largely unaddressed in the agreement. There are other troubling clauses, as well, dealing with, in this case, the beef industry. The South Korea agreement will allow American beef packagers to use Canadian or Mexican cattle and then export the packaged Mexican and/or Canadian beef as ``American'' beef. This policy, while great for beef packagers, undercuts U.S. ranchers. Another problem with the Korea deal is which goods will qualify for the ``Made in South Korea'' designation or sticker. Which will qualify for that? And therefore, if they have that, they are allowed to enter the U.S. duty free. Under the rules of origin in annex 6-A of the agreement, 65 percent of the value of many goods, including automobiles, shipped duty free to the United States can come from outside--just imagine this--outside of South Korea and still be considered ``Made in South Korea.'' That defies description. It is internally inconsistent at best, and it is contradictory for sure. This standard is lower than the European Union agreement, where only 55 percent of content can be foreign and once again places our companies at a comparative disadvantage to international competition. Furthermore, this policy opens the door for products primarily made from Chinese parts to enter the United States duty free. That makes no sense at all. Earlier I posed these questions. The first I posed was: Will these agreements create a substantial number of new jobs? They will not. If previous agreements are any indication at all, the South Korea, Colombia, and Panama agreements will not create jobs in the way they are projected to and will, in fact, lead to job losses, especially in manufacturing. The second question: Will the agreements help create a level playing field? They will not. The agreements fail to address critical issues such as violence against union members, as well as currency manipulation by, for example, South Korea. The third question: Does the agreement provide new opportunities for American manufacturers to export? Proponents have overstated the benefits. Certain industries and firms are likely to benefit for sure, while others will not. While it is clear that in its failure to address nontariff barriers to trade, the agreement leaves American firms unprotected on an unlevel playing field. Finally, based upon this set of questions and, more importantly, the answer to those questions, I will vote against the agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. It is my job as a Senator from Pennsylvania to fight for Pennsylvania jobs, and for too long the needs and the concerns of the jobs of Pennsylvania's workers have been last on the list when it comes to trade agreements. The fact is that past trade agreements have failed Pennsylvania and our workers, and I refuse to support new foreign trade agreements without reasonable debate and adequate answers for the questions that I pose and especially as it relates to jobs and the impact on workers. Instead of moving ahead quickly with what is a broken model, we need to focus on the biggest picture: formulating a strategy that helps American manufacturers, that leads to job creation, and that creates a stronger middle class. We need a trade policy in the United States of America. We do not have one right now. We need one that is bipartisan in nature. To make real, sustained progress, Washington needs to have a strategy. We must develop and commit ourselves to a national manufacturing strategy as part of a trade policy that includes job- creating trade agreements, not job-killing trade agreements. Manufacturing is the heart and soul of our Commonwealth and our country. Our future's success depends upon developing policies that allow our people to create jobs and compete in the global production of goods. I know our workers are up to it. If we give them the tools and the agreements and the policies to do just that, they will outcompete anybody in the world, any country in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise just for a few moments to make a few comments regarding the pending legislation that deals with the currency policies that China has had in place which have proven to be adverse to American workers. I was saying on the floor yesterday, and I will say it again, that this is not a complicated issue. When China does not play by the rules, when they cheat on the international stage on their currency policies, Americans lose jobs. We have lost far too many of them for us to just sit back and do nothing or sit back and just discuss and urge and plead instead of taking action. But what I failed to do yesterday was put a couple of basic numbers on the table. I mentioned in some of my comments yesterday that we had a hearing in the Joint Economic Committee, which for those who are not as familiar with the workings of that committee, it is a House-Senate joint committee where we have Senators and House Members, obviously, from both parties meeting and participating in hearings on a whole range of topics, most of them dealing with the economy and jobs. Yesterday, we had the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who testified broadly about a lot of issues. But I asked him about currency, and one of the things he said--I thought this was a pretty significant statement. I am just reading something Chairman Bernanke said in pertinent part. This is not, obviously, a full statement. But when I asked him about currency, China currency and their policy, he said: I think right now, a concern is that the Chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a more normal recovery process in the global economy. The Chinese currency policy is blocking that process. I should add here, ``process'' meaning the recovery. Then he goes on to say: So it is to some extent hurting the recovery process. That is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, someone whose job it is not to comment on public policy on a regular basis necessarily or to take positions on one side or the other on public policy; but the fact that he made that statement, which made it abundantly clear that this is not simply a problem for our workers when we lose jobs, when we hemorrhage the jobs we have lost, but this currency policy that China has in place is an impediment to the recovery, the economic recovery of the world. So I thought it was a critically important statement that he made as further evidence that this bill we are working on is the right way to go. I do not want to imply that he endorsed the bill; he did not. But I thought it was interesting that he focused on the economic recovery worldwide and not only on the adverse consequences for our workers, our companies, our jobs. Two other notes, and then I will sit down. One is the impact in a State such as Pennsylvania. I have the privilege to represent the people of Pennsylvania. So I want to make sure the record is clear in terms of what China's policies, both on currency, and more broadly on trade, have meant in the context of Pennsylvania workers. A report released just recently by the Economic Policy Institute--and we hear the so-called EPI quoted a lot--estimates that from the year 2001 through 2010 our trade deficit with China has led to the loss of 106,970 jobs in Pennsylvania, almost 2 percent of total employment in Pennsylvania. Across the Nation, the same trade deficit has led to a loss of 2.8 million jobs since 2001. Basically, you are talking about less than a decade. Because of the trade deficit with China, we lost 2.8 million jobs nationally, and a little shy of 107,000 jobs in one State--the State of Pennsylvania. Some would say, well, you should be careful how you say that because we are not saying that the currency policy they have in place--which I assert is cheating--that the job loss could be attributed to that solely. I am not saying that. But there is no question--and I think the record is replete with evidence and examples--that much of that job loss can be attributed to their currency policies, as well as other policies they have in place. I will not even get into the infringement on copyright and intellectual property, and the whole range of other issues where we have disagreements with other policies emanating from China. Two more points, finally, about EPI. The Economic Policy Institute did an analysis, and they released the report on June 17, 2011. They wanted to make a determination that if China were to revalue its currency and play by the rules, to the extent of a 28-percent level-- and some people think the manipulation they are doing amounts to more than 28 percent--but if they are able to revalue their currency up to that level, what would happen? Here is what EPI found: If only China revalued to 28.5 percent, the growth in U.S. gross domestic product would support 1.631 million U.S. jobs. If other Asian countries also revalued [at that level, 28.5 percent] then 2.250 million U.S. jobs would be created. I mentioned the study yesterday. I said: What if their estimates are off? What if, for some reason, you had to scale down that estimate? Well, if 1.6 million jobs--if they are off by even a lot, that is still a big job number. If you add the other Asian countries that are impacted by the policies in China, you are over 2.2 million jobs. Even if that is off, it is still a lot of jobs. This is a jobs bill. We talk about creating new consequences for China cheating on currency. This is a job creator if we do it--if we can pass the bill and implement the policy. We can create a lot of jobs over the next several years at the same time. This has an impact on job creation and, ultimately, on GDP. I know that when I go back to Pennsylvania, people will say to me: Let me get this straight: You have a bill that deals with getting tougher on China, relating to their currency policy; you have bipartisan support in the Senate, and it is a job-creating bill. Why won't this pass, and why don't you have this enacted into law? I believe we have a lot of momentum for passage. I hope the bipartisan support we have on the Republican side of the aisle, with a number of Democrats, will result in passage of this legislation, especially when you put it in the context of two points I made--one, the job impact or the job loss that has resulted from China cheating on its currency policy over all these years; secondly, when you put it into the context of not just our economy but the world economy--when we have the Chairman of the Federal Reserve saying their policy on currency is impeding--well, I will read what he said: . . . the Chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a more normal recovery process in the global economy. . . . Blocking recovery in the global economy. That is compelling testimony for anyone who cares about and is concerned about creating jobs here, strengthening our recovery and, obviously, helping the recovery worldwide. I think the evidence is overwhelming. The support for this legislation is as broad based as any I have seen for any bill I have ever considered in the almost 5 years I have been in the Senate. We need to finish this debate this week and get a vote. I hope we will continue to have an overwhelming vote that reflects the overwhelming support across the United States.

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

Mr. CASEY. We have been dealing with an issue that relates to China's currency policies. I know that has been the pending business, but I have been wanting to address another issue for a number of days now and I am grateful for this opportunity. It is an issue that a number of people here in both parties are very concerned about. It relates to Syria. I rise to talk about the situation in Syria, which is a place of ever increasing violence, and this violence has taken the lives of more than 2,600 Syrians. I spoke a number of months ago at a hearing about a Pennsylvanian. His name is Hazem Hallek, a doctor who lives outside of Philadelphia in a suburban community. His brother Sakher lived in Syria and visited the United States for a medical conference earlier this year. Upon his return to Syria, demonstrations against the Assad regime were beginning to intensify. Sakher was not engaged in politics, nor did he want to be engaged in politics. But despite this, he went missing and was soon found dead in a ditch in a village south of the town of Aleppo. Sakher was subjected to unspeakable torture before he was killed. His visit to the United States was enough for the Assad regime to target him for death. So his brother, a constituent of mine, Hazem, has asked me to do everything I can to support democratic change in Syria and to protect civilians who continue to be hunted down by this brutal regime. I believe--and I know this is a broad-based point of view in this Chamber--Democrats and Republicans alike believe that now, more than ever, it is critical that the international community, led by the United States--and the United States has done a lot already but needs to do more--show support for the Syrian people who continue to live under this dictatorship. The Syrian people, especially the democracy and human rights activists, feel defenseless against the tanks, guns, and the bullets of the Assad regime. The United Nations Human Rights Council passed an important resolution which called for the deployment of three human rights monitors to bear witness to the terrible crimes in Syria. I was very disappointed, and I know others were as well, but unfortunately we weren't surprised to see that Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council Resolution just last night. This resolution had been watered down so much that observers had taken to calling it the so-called monsoon resolution. Yet the Russians and the Chinese still refused to recognize the terrible actions of the Assad regime and show support for the embattled people of Syria. I am an original cosponsor of Senate Resolution 180, which was introduced in May. This resolution expresses support for the peaceful demonstrations and universal freedoms in Syria and condemns the human rights violations perpetrated by the Assad regime. This bipartisan resolution has 25 cosponsors, but it has been held up by one Senator who will not let us pass through by unanimous consent--the language we use around here for letting legislation pass without a rollcall vote, so-called unanimous consent--one Senator, holding up a resolution to show our solidarity with and support for the Syrian people who have been living through the most horrific of nightmares, torture, killing, and abuse, for all these months. There is a lot we can do and that we should do. There is also a lot we should be debating here in the Senate. But I can't understand, on an issue of such importance, how we cannot come to consensus on something this basic, to show fundamental solidarity with the people of Syria, especially at this hour. We cannot let another day pass without the Senate expressing its outrage over the behavior of the Assad regime. It is not enough just to condemn it in words. It is very important the Senate go on record to pass this resolution. I have spoken in the past very highly of Ambassador Ford and his team in Damascus; he is our Ambassador from the United States to Syria, and I was proud to support his nomination. Instead of conferring legitimacy on Mr. Assad and his regime, Ambassador Ford is the most high-profile opponent of the Assad regime, sending out regular condemnations through press releases and Facebook postings. But what has been even more impressive is the personal courage demonstrated on an almost daily basis that Ambassador Ford and his staff have demonstrated in traveling throughout the country and engaging directly with the democratic opposition in Syria. Last week, Ambassador Ford met with the leader of the opposition national democratic gathering in Damascus. Ambassador Ford's vehicles were attacked, and he was forced to stay inside the building until security forces arrived 3 hours later to escort him from the premises. He has attended the funerals of human rights activists, observed the aftermath of government massacres, and engaged directly with the people of Syria. He will say that he is just doing his job, like good soldiers say often when we commend them for their valor and bravery and service. But I am glad the Senate finally did its job last night in confirming Ambassador Ford. Long overdue, by the way, but it was finally done. Ambassador Ford serves as a shining example of the best our Foreign Service has to offer to the world. Countries that have representatives remaining in Damascus should join Ambassador Ford on his visits with opposition figures and human rights activists around the country. He should not be the only one who bears witness to this horror. Other diplomats should join him on his travels throughout Syria. We have seen some positive developments among other countries in the international community. I want to acknowledge the increasingly positive role played by Turkey, which is reportedly considering sanctions against Syria. Turkey is Syria's largest trading partner, and sanctions could have a serious impact in Damascus. Turkey has also provided safe haven in border camps for more than 7,000 refugees who have fled from Syria to Turkey. Turkey's concrete support for the Syrian people, combined with ongoing diplomatic pressure, is a critical element in isolating the Syrian regime. We know some of the history here, and it is a history of a lot of horror and death. Twenty-nine years ago, Bashir al-Assad's father unleashed the government's security forces on the community of Hama to repress unrest in that city. The killing that took place in February of 1982 was both indiscriminate and massive in its scale. Some estimate that more than 10,000 Syrians were killed as security forces literally razed the city. Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, dedicated a chapter entitled ``Hama Rules'' in his book, ``From Beirut to Jerusalem,'' to the horror seen in this town in 1982. Assad's Hama rules were meant to send a chilling effect to all who would dare to question the authority of that Assad regime. Bashar al-Assad has proven today, and certainly over the last several months, if not years, that he is incapable of reform. When faced with the democratic movement inspired by the wave of change sweeping across the region, the younger Assad responded with his own 2011 version of Hama rules. As the world watched, as I said before, over 2,600 Syrians have been killed in a number of communities. Whether it is in Hama, or Homs, Rastan, Talbiseh, and several other towns across the country, Assad's rules seem to be focused on the use of militias that have been deployed most recently in Rastan to conduct the most repressive operations that we can think of. These gangs receive informal support from the Syrian security services and have been implicated in Syria's crimes and atrocities. The Syrian people have asked for international monitors to be deployed in the country in order to bear witness and perhaps to provide a deterrent against the wrath of these militias. In the intervening 29 years since the massacre at Hama, Syria has changed indeed. The Syrian people have shown that they will not be cowed by violence. The opposition has made remarkable progress. Hama rules no longer work in Syria. The opposition has stood up and voted with its feet, every Friday turning out to demonstrate and face the wrath, the terrible, deadly wrath of this regime. Moreover, scores of security forces have abandoned the regime and have come to the side of the opposition, something that did not happen in 1982 when the elder Assad brutally applied his Hama rules. In recent weeks we have seen emerge elements among the opposition who have resorted to violence. One cannot blame the Syrian people for defending themselves in the face of unspeakable violence. But I do hope, though, that the aspirations of the Syrian people can be met through a commitment to nonviolence, as difficult as that is, and an understanding that democratic change comes not from the barrel of a gun, as we have often said on this floor, but the desire of all citizens to chart a new course, the course of peace. In summary, the international community can do more to support the Syrian people during this darkest of hours starting right here in this Chamber, in the Senate. This week we sent a strong message in confirming Ambassador Ford. Today we can pass a resolution denouncing the behavior of the Syrian regime. More importantly, the international community can and should do more. Here are some of the measures I believe should take place in the coming days and weeks. No. 1, the United Nations has proven to not be the best international institution to address the strife in Syria, but key regional organizations could have a positive and substantial impact moving forward. The Arab League should suspend Syria's membership and call for President Assad to step down. The Gulf Cooperation Council should explicitly say that President Assad is no longer the legitimate leader of the country. No. 2, concerned countries in the West should work together with the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to establish an international Friends of the Syrian People as a contact group for the region which can serve as the main point of contact for the democratic opposition and the Syrian people. Participation in such a group would not necessarily limit the options of individual members and would not preclude bilateral efforts to take separate action in support of the Syrian people. It would, however, send a clear message of international solidarity in support of nonviolent change in Syria. No. 3, the Syrian people have asked that international humanitarian observers be deployed in the country to monitor the situation and perhaps to serve as a deterrent against violence in the country. Similar to the OSCE human rights monitors deployed to Kosovo in 1998 to bear witness to the violence wrought by the Milosevic regime, this international team of monitors, primarily composed of individuals from the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, could address a central concern of the Syrian people and would be a welcome alternative to military intervention from the outside. No. 4, finally, key countries in the international community need to cut off commercial ties with the Assad regime. The United States has done its part, as has the European Union. Turkey may announce new sanctions. But many countries continue to conduct business as usual with the Assad regime. For example, there are reports that India is considering the purchase of crude oil from Syria. The timing of such a purchase is ill-advised and we hope India can look to identify other sources of energy in the region, especially at this time. The stakes have been raised in Syria as never before. The opposition is understandably tired and to some extent beaten down, and there is some despair that is starting to set in among the abused population of the country. At this critical time, the newly constituted Syrian National Council needs to show the Syrian people that it can deliver results in the international community. The establishment of a Friends of the Syrian People group, a contact group as I said before, and the deployment of international humanitarian monitors, would demonstrate that the Syrian National Council is effective, and it would send a critical message to the Syrian people. Our options to leverage change in Syria are limited but they do exist. We should be making every effort to build increased international pressure on and isolation of the Assad regime. Mr. Hallek and his family and thousands of other families across Syria have suffered enough. They have suffered so much and they deserve nothing less than our support, our solidarity, and our help in this dark hour. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak this afternoon about the legislation that is before us, the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act, which got an overwhelming vote yesterday. There are not many times when a piece of legislation on a specific topic gets the kind of overwhelming support to move forward as we saw yesterday in the vote that took place, and now we are considering the bill. When you go across Pennsylvania, if you drew a line down the middle of our State and moved to the east, a lot of communities were devastated by flooding. Other than that issue, the No. 1 issue for the people of our State--and I think the people of the United States in total--is the issue of jobs. In their frustration, they look to Washington for action and for solutions. Too often what they see when they turn on the television set or read about what is happening here, they see a lot of fighting, a lot of bickering, a lot of back and forth and, frankly, a lot of politics but not enough action on the question of jobs. What we have before us is not some esoteric bill about currency, although it is somewhat about that. Obviously, it truly is not that. This is a bill that speaks directly to the frustration Americans feel and I know the people of Pennsylvania feel. There are not many places in Pennsylvania I can go where I talk about this issue of China for many years cheating on currency and us losing lots and lots of jobs because of it. Hundreds and thousands of jobs are lost because of that. There are not many places in our State where I can go to talk about that where the point of view that I express doesn't receive unanimous support. This is a very real issue for people. This isn't far off. They know that, just as in other aspects of life, especially on something as consequential and significant as international trade--most people understand that when we are involved in that kind of endeavor, we have to play by the rules. Every country should play by the rules. When we have a country as big and as significant in the international economy or the international marketplace as China not playing by the rules, cheating time after time after time, giving their workers and their industries an unfair advantage, I think most people know what that means. It is not just a question of fairness and playing by the rules; it is the impact of that cheating, as Americans lose jobs and have lost jobs. So we have to take action. The time is up. We have been talking about this for years. We have been pleading with China in one way or another, urging them, pushing them, but the time for that is over. The time to act is now. This is a prudent piece of legislation. It does a couple of things. Basically what it does is to at long last help American manufacturers and our workers by clarifying that our trade enforcement laws can and should be used to address currency undervaluation. It also provides an opportunity for us to improve oversight by establishing objective criteria to identify misaligned currencies and imposing tough consequences for offenders. So it doesn't put into place a new rule for international trade; it just says that if you violate the rules, there are going to be consequences and that our Treasury Department and our Commerce Department are going to take action no matter what administration is in office, a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. I can point to a number of Senators in both parties--and I think I am one of them--who have been urging this administration and the prior administration to take stronger, more decisive action. For a variety of reasons, they haven't done that. That is not to say they haven't been working on it and not to say they haven't been pushing their counterparts in China, but I think we have been far too timid in the approach we take because, again, this isn't some far-off issue. This is about American jobs and whether we are going to stand by and allow more and more--tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more--American jobs to be lost in the next decade as we have seen hemorrhage from our society in the last 10 years. One of the causes, one of the substantial factors in that job loss--not the only but one--is the cheating China does on its currency. It is as if we are telling our workers and our companies: Look, we are going to have a foot race with Chinese companies and Chinese workers, and we are going to have this competition, as we have every day in the international marketplace, but China is going to start at the--if this is a 100-yard dash, they are going to start at the 20- or 25- or 30-yard line and then we are going to start the race and see how we do. It is completely unfair to our workers. It undermines their ability to compete even if they are working as hard as they can, even if they have a high skill level, even if the company has invested time and training in those workers, has invested capital in the equipment and the technology. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the company does to improve its production, to improve its efficiency. It doesn't matter what the workers do. They can go to school and learn and prepare and get trained. But if they are at a 15- or 20- or 25-percent disadvantage--by the way, those are the lowest estimates. This has been a problem of above 30 percent or higher at times. But no matter what the percentage is, we know there has been a lot of cheating and we know it is costing us jobs. So it is time for action. This morning at the Joint Economic Committee hearing, we had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. I asked him about currency, and I actually read to him some statements he has made in the past about currency and about the adverse role China has played, the role about which I am as frustrated as any American. I asked him about that. The summation of his comments has been reported already, but in addition to commenting about the impact on our workers and our companies, he talked about the impact of China's currency policies on the global economic recovery. So this isn't just an adverse consequence for America, for the United States, this is an impediment to a full and robust recovery around the world. So this isn't just limited to the impact on our workers and our companies, it has worldwide reach, worldwide impact, and worldwide consequences. So the United States is unwilling, so far, to crack down on China's currency and to crack down on what I would assert is manipulation. Some will say: Well, it might be something different than that, but I think it is basic manipulation--cheating. I think it is a step we have to take now, to have rules in place for how we react to their cheating and then to have very tough consequences. That is what is in the bill. Unfortunately, this inability to respond appropriately or assertively or aggressively is one of many, I would argue, pieces of a flawed trade strategy that have been a prevailing point of view over the course of two administrations. We are going to have some debate about trade coming up, and we are going to see some interesting alliances, some interesting coalitions here. But our flawed trade strategy--if we can even call it a strategy--has failed over many years, failed our workers and failed our companies. We will get to the debate on the trade agreements later, but at least today and this week we can finally make progress on an issue that has cost the American people lots and lots of jobs. Let me give my colleagues a sense of what could happen if we are able to pass this legislation. In a report dated June 17 of this year from the Economic Policy Institute--one of the many think tanks across Washington of various points of view that have studied this issue--and I am broadly summarizing, but one of the many conclusions they reached about this issue is that if China revalued its currency by 28.5 percent--now, many would say it is a bigger problem than a 28.5-percent or 28.5-percent advantage their workers and their companies have--if they revalued to that level, at 28.5 percent, the growth in our gross domestic product in the United States would support 1,631,000 U.S. jobs. If other Asian countries also revalued their currency, then 2,250,000 American jobs would be created. So even if someone could prove those numbers are off by 10,000 or 20,000 or even if we could debate the number being off because some might reach different numbers--but I have seen numbers that high, and I have also seen numbers in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. So any policy we can enact here--in this case, being appropriately tough with China on the cheating they do on currency--if passage of legislation such as this, the one we are considering, leads to the creation of 1.6 million jobs just as it relates to having China play by the rules, why wouldn't we pass legislation to do that? People are saying over and over to us, please do something about jobs. And sometimes the response is, well, we are trying, but we can't get agreement or we are trying, but we don't have all the solutions. We finally have a piece of legislation that will create jobs for sure and has broad and substantial bipartisan support. We should pass this bill because it will send two messages that are badly needed right now from us to the American people--No. 1, that we are focused on job creation in the near term, not 10 years from now but in the next year or two. So it is a very specific answer to their request of us as their elected representatives that we focus on enacting legislation that will create jobs. Secondly, the message we will send to the American people is that we finally get it. Finally, Democrats and Republicans can come together on a very serious issue of great consequence to families who have been devastated by job loss; that we are finally coming together, Democrats and Republicans, working together to have a unanimous vote on a job-creation bill. It is that simple. Anyone who tries to make it more complicated than that is probably trying to mislead because it is that simple. We need to focus our attention in the days ahead to get this legislation passed and to finally take action in a way that is directed at job creation in a bipartisan way. Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 22, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 22, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 22, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 22, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 22, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Educational Outcomes for our Military and Veterans.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 22, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The European Debt and Financial Crisis: Origins, Options and Implications for the U.S. and Global Economy.''

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 22, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Seniors and Persons with Disabilities--An Examination of Court-Appointed Guardians.''

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask an affirmative vote on this amendment. Trade adjustment assistance is very simple. We have a job crisis in the country. This program for decades now has helped people get through crises and, very importantly, has allowed them to be trained and retrained for the jobs of the future. We need this program, our workers need it, and our economy needs it. I commend the work of Chairman Baucus and my colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown. I ask for an affirmative vote on this amendment. My colleague from Ohio.

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, the conflict here with regard to the amendment that has been proposed is that on our side of this debate, we think this should be a broad array of help for workers. If a worker loses his or her job and we can provide eligibility for trade adjustment assistance, we shouldn't limit that just to the 17 countries with which we have a trade agreement. Say if we have a problem with massive job loss as a result of what China is doing, either because they are cheating on currency or not playing by the rules--as we know they have not in many instances. I have a table here that indicates that in fiscal year 2012, when you look at the estimated number of workers certified under trade adjustment, whether they are import-related certifications or whether they are all other certifications, you add it up and there are more than 287,000 people who are impacted. A lot of those are impacted by way of unfair trade from China.

Mr. CASEY. I wanted to speak generally about the matter that is before the Senate on trade adjustment assistance. I especially appreciate the work that has been done by the Presiding Officer from Ohio over many years, including his time in the House of Representatives and here in the Senate as well. I want to make two comments, one about one of the amendments we will consider today by the Senator from Florida, but also to speak more broadly about this legislation. When the Senate is considering legislation, we do not every day do a good job of trying to put ourselves in the position of other people, workers and people who are suffering through a tough economy. When the Senate is doing its best work, part of the way we get there is by trying to figure out and understand, as best we can, what it is like to lose a job or suffer from--we are dealing with natural disasters and natural disaster assistance as well--but try to understand the people we represent. I know we cannot do that with full knowledge because many of us have never had to suffer through that kind of experience. I think it is important we try our best to understand what this legislation is all about. This is legislation which basically says the American people, through our government, are going to do everything possible to help folks when they lose a job, and especially when they lose a job as a result of unfair foreign competition. I have seen it in Pennsylvania for decades. We have been getting hammered because we have not often stood up for our own workers. We have not fought battles to help them get through the horror of job loss because of unfair foreign competition. All we are saying is we are going to try to help them to cross that bridge from losing that job in many cases they had for years or decades. So, No. 1, we are going to try to help them in that crisis. No. 2, we are going to do everything we can to retrain them. They have to go to the training. This is not something we can hand to them. They have to work at the training and prepare themselves. I think most Americans believe when someone is in crisis, you try to help them, but you also want to make sure they can help themselves through training and retraining. I think we should consider here what it would be like for one of us. Each of us has a salary and has health care here in the Senate and we have a pension plan, so we are doing pretty well. Imagine what it is like, though, to work in a plant for decades doing the same work, and you do that work with pride and dignity; you take care of your family; you work in a job that has a sustaining wage. You do that for decades, the same job virtually every day, every year, but you have two things: You have the ability to provide for your family and you have some dignity. Imagine when a hurricane, or unfair foreign competition, which our government has not done enough to fight against, sweeps through your factory and wipes you out before you can even think about it. It wipes out every job, or a lot of jobs. Sometimes physically it lifts the equipment off the floor and moves it to another country. That is what we are talking about here. So someone who has been doing this work for decades, in some cases, and all of a sudden they are not only without a job--that is bad enough--but they are faced with the prospect of not being able to transition because they have been in the same job and they have not had access to education or training that would allow them to transition. It would be nice if we had an economy everyone could transition, that you could get an educational level--and this is what it should be if we are doing the right thing providing this--that we have an educational level and an exposure to an immersion in skills and other advantages that will allow you to absorb that shock, allow you to pivot when someone with unfair trade wipes out your job. That is the ideal. That is what we hope we can develop in our education, our training system, training strategies. That is why workforce development is so important, so people have the broadbased skill level and they can absorb those shocks. But a lot of people can't. All we are saying with trade adjustment assistance is we are going to help you with what we hope will be a short-term crisis for you and your family, and we are going to try to provide the training opportunities. We are going to try to provide training opportunities so people cannot just get a new job but maybe can get a job because they have developed a skill that will allow them to have the same income for their families that they are used to but at least--at least--provide some short-term help for folks, and then give them skills for the long term. That is what this is all about. This is not complicated. It is all about that. I understand we have a lot of folks here who have concerns about the legislation. They have concerns about one or the other aspect of it. But I hope we would not limit our horizons to helping all the folks who are adversely impacted. For example, if we look at one of the provisions--this is why I want to get to the amendment itself that we are talking about. Here is what it does: The underlying amendment covers workers whose firms shift production to any country--any country--including China or India, not just countries with which the United States has entered into a free- trade agreement. Look, I do not think we should be treating workers we are trying to help under trade adjustment assistance any differently if they do not fall within that category of only the 17 countries with which we have free-trade agreements. So I think we should make sure that--of course, this is one of the changes the underlying amendment will validate, that we are trying to help anyone in that category who has been so adversely affected. So I do not think we should limit it to just 17 countries. We trade with countries all over the world, and we should do our best within the limits of this legislation to make sure it applies to a lot more than 17 countries, and that is the effect of the underlying amendment. The Rubio amendment would only cover workers who lose their jobs due to trade with those 17 countries with which we have a trade agreement. In some ways--this is my own opinion on it--it puts the burden on the workers to somehow prove they are in the right category when the burden should be on us to make sure we are doing everything possible to help them--again, short-term help for the crisis, long-term help by way of skill development. We have 14 million people in the country out of work; 14.4 million is what I saw at last count. Of the 14.4 million people, almost 4.5 million have been out of work for 1 year or more. Just imagine that. That is bigger than the population of a number of States. In Pennsylvania we have 12.5 million people. If we can just consider more than one-third of a State's population being out of work for more than 1 year. So we have a lot of people who are out of work a long time, and they are especially disadvantaged if they happen to work in those industries that are particularly sensitive to or adversely impacted by trade with countries that are not playing by the rules. We are going to have a discussion today, as well, about the introduction of currency legislation as it relates to China, where a number of us, including the Presiding Officer--and it is a bipartisan bill--think we have to get much tougher as it relates to Chinese currency policy. If China cheats, that costs jobs. So we should be very tough in those instances, and I think we can be, and do it in a bipartisan way. But I would hope, with a program that works, we would be doing everything possible to keep it expanded for people affected by countries beyond just those 17. I know the Senator from Florida is concerned about those workers. I just hope we can keep the provisions in place to protect all our workers as best we can and not just start to limit it to 17 countries at a time when we need help for folks-- short term with the crisis but longer term with skill development so they can transition and start a new worklife, even if they are 45 or 50 or 55 years old. A lot of these folks are in that age category. I yield the floor.