[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14691-14717]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE OVERSIGHT REFORM ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1619, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1619) to provide for identification of 
     misaligned currency, require action to correct the 
     misalignment, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 694, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 695 (to amendment No. 694), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 696, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 697 (to (the instructions) amendment No. 
     696) of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 698 (to amendment No. 697), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act, S. 1619, of which I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor. I wish to thank my colleague and 
friend, Mr. Brown, the Senator from Ohio, for his leadership in 
bringing forward this very important legislation.
  This legislation is about jobs. We all talk about ways we can 
increase job opportunity in America. Yes, we have to do a better job in 
our infrastructure and rebuilding America, our roads, our bridges, our 
schools, our energy infrastructure, our water infrastructure. That is a 
very important part of job growth in America. We have to help our small 
businesses.
  The President is right to focus a program that will help small 
businesses because that is the job growth energy in America. But 
another area that is critically important for us on job growth is 
trade.
  I represent the State of Maryland. The Port of Baltimore is an 
economic engine of our State, where we employ many people because of 
the Port of Baltimore. We want to see products that not only come into 
America, but we want to see products that leave America for the 
international marketplace. American manufacturers, producers, and 
farmers can outcompete their competition anywhere in the world as long 
as we have a level playing field. If we have a level playing field, we 
will not only keep jobs in America, we will create new jobs in America 
because we can outcompete the world. But we can't do it if we give away 
a huge advantage to other countries. Currency manipulation allows other 
countries to have unfair competitive advantage over American 
manufacturers, producers, and farmers. That is what this bill is aimed 
at: to give us a level playing field, to allow us to be able to compete 
fairly.
  I also wish to acknowledge that this legislation is bipartisan. I 
think it is nonpartisan. This is legislation that makes sense for our 
country to keep jobs and create jobs. The legislation provides 
necessary mechanisms to help halt currency manipulation committed by 
any country. Currency manipulation is an unfair trade practice that 
reduces the price of imported goods while raising the price of American 
goods.
  We are talking about giving a discount to our competitors. How do we 
expect an American manufacturer to be able to compete with an imported 
product if they get a discount on the price? That is what happens when 
they arbitrarily undervalue their currency as a foreign competitor, and 
that is what is happening to American manufacturers. Trying to end this 
practice is just common sense and will finally allow us to address our 
net exports,

[[Page 14692]]

helping us reduce trade imbalances and, most importantly, create jobs 
in America.
  Of course, China is one of the largest abusers of this type of 
manipulation. Despite a pledge from China in 2001 to adhere to open and 
fair trade, it continues to violate global trade rules which, in turn, 
erodes the U.S. manufacturing base and economy.
  One of these market-distorting practices is China's effort to keep 
its currency severely undervalued. Unlike other currencies, the Chinese 
yuan does not fluctuate freely against the dollar but is artificially 
pegged in order to boost China's exports. Bringing the Chinese yuan to 
its equilibrium level at 28.5 appreciation is essential to creating 
much needed jobs in this country as well as a fair and global 
marketplace.
  Let me repeat this. Because of what China does on pegging its 
currency to ours, not allowing it to freely fluctuate, Chinese 
products, in effect, get a 28.5-percent discount. If a company is 
manufacturing a product and trying to compete with an imported Chinese 
product, how can they do that if their competitor gets a 28.5-percent 
discount? That is what is happening in America today.
  This legislation would allow those who are being harmed by this 
unfair trade practice to be able to bring a trade remedy against that 
unfairly imported product.
  Inexpensive Chinese imports have caused a great deal of harm to the 
U.S. manufacturing sector. New studies show that 2.8 million American 
jobs, including 1.9 million manufacturing jobs, were lost or displaced 
over the past decade due to the growing U.S. trade deficit with China, 
fueled, in part, by currency manipulation.
  So we have documented millions of jobs that we have lost and that 
have been lost because we have allowed, without challenge, China to 
give discounts to its manufacturers bringing products into America. 
Again, if it is a level playing field, American manufacturers and 
producers can compete. But they can't compete with such an unfair 
trading practice.
  Many U.S. industries have been hard hit by unfair trade practices and 
currency manipulation, impeding their ability to compete here and 
abroad. The Alliance for American Manufacturing says that addressing 
this currency manipulation would lead to the creation of up to 2.25 
million American jobs, an increase in the U.S. gross domestic product 
of $285.7 billion, a 1.9-percent--or $190 billion--reduction in our 
annual trade deficit; finally, an annual deficit of $71 billion, or 
between $600 to $800 billion over the next 10 years, if sustained.
  No wonder this is bipartisan. No wonder this is nonpartisan. Here, by 
just standing up for American manufacturers and allowing them to be on 
a level playing field, we can not only increase jobs in America, we can 
not only reduce the trade imbalance, we can also reduce the budget 
imbalance. All that can be done if we can establish a level playing 
field to give our manufacturers, producers, and farmers the opportunity 
to challenge this unfair practice. That is what this legislation does.
  With figures such as this, this bill is seemingly a noncost, 
bipartisan, long-term jobs measure. This would not only spur economic 
growth but economic stability that would ensure a better and more 
secure future for U.S. manufacturers, workers, and communities. This is 
to keep jobs here in America but also give us the opportunity to create 
more jobs, helping our economy grow. Simply put, this legislation will 
allow U.S. manufacturers the ability to use existing countervailing 
duty laws to obtain relief from injury caused by imported goods which 
benefit from currency manipulation as export subsidies while also 
providing the U.S. Treasury a new framework by which to identify 
misaligned currency.
  In September 2010, the House adopted a similar measure with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. Passage here in the Senate will lead 
to real consequences for countries that abuse currency manipulation, 
and empower the United States to create a more level economic playing 
field.
  We can get this done. This is something that can get done. The House 
has already passed it. We have bipartisan support in the Senate. We 
have the votes to pass it. I urge my colleagues, let us get this done. 
Don't try to put other amendments on it. All they are going to do is 
make it difficult for us to achieve something great for our economy and 
great for American production. Let's get this matter up for a vote and 
not try to do all these unrelated amendments.
  I applaud my colleague Senator Brown from Ohio. He is on the floor. I 
mentioned earlier I thank him for his leadership for not only bringing 
this bill together but keeping the bipartisan group together so we can 
show we can get this done. Now we need the Members of the Senate to say 
it is time for us to vote on this bill. Let's get it done. Let's send 
it to the President for the President to sign it. Let's do something 
that will not only create jobs but help us deal with our trade 
imbalance and deal with our budget imbalance.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I appreciate the words of Senator 
Cardin. He sits on the Finance Committee and was a long-time member of 
the House Ways and Means Committee and understands these issues as well 
or better than almost any Member of the Senate. I appreciate his work 
on that, and his leadership. He said a couple of things I want to 
emphasize.
  He said, first of all, this is the biggest bipartisan jobs bill we 
have considered this year, 79 votes out of 98 when it advanced to being 
considered on the Senate floor. He has talked about this is a discount 
we give to our competitors. Imagine two gas stations in Schenectady, 
NY, or in Frederick, MD, or in Akron, OH. One gets its gasoline and 
pays 25 or 30 percent less for its gasoline than does the station 
across the street. The station that does not get the 25- or 30-or 35-
percent subsidy goes out of business almost in a matter of days. That 
is the kind of unfair competition we face because we have given this 
discount to our competitors.
  The second is Senator Cardin mentioned what this does with our budget 
deficit. It is pretty clear this is not a jobs bill that costs a lot of 
money. That is why we got 79 votes. That is why so many Republicans 
joined all but three Democrats in moving this bill forward. We save 
money. If a thousand more people go to work in Cleveland, OH, or in 
Buffalo, NY, or in Baltimore, MD, that is a thousand people who are not 
receiving unemployment benefits, who do not have to apply for food 
stamps, a thousand people who are paying taxes instead of being 
consumers of public services.
  When you look at the lost jobs because of this trade policy, because 
China has gamed the currency system for so many years and 
administrations of both parties have failed to enforce laws or use the 
tools they have--in addition to this extra tool, this very compelling, 
very effective tool we are giving them--it clearly has meant that we 
have been behind the eight ball in that way and we have lost the 
opportunity when we have not enforced these trade laws.
  When you look at the number of jobs lost and the number of jobs 
estimated to be gained, it is in the millions over time. This is 
exactly what the Senate should be doing this week, moving this bill to 
the House. There are 250 cosponsors in the House, 60 Republicans, 
roughly, 190 Democrats, roughly. Republican leadership has some 
difficulty with this bill, apparently. In the Senate, that is not an 
issue. In the House, among rank-and-file Members there is huge support.
  As we pass this bill later this week, next week at the latest, we 
hope to move it to the House where it can be passed quickly.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 14693]]


  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, as the manager of this bill and the 
sponsor of S. 1619, I am, first of all, pleased with the bipartisan 
support we have seen. We have five Republican and five Democratic 
sponsors as the lead 10 sponsors and another dozen or so sponsors in 
addition to that.
  The support from Senators Graham and Sessions and Burr--all three 
southern Republicans--and Senators Snowe and Collins--northern 
Republicans--joining with the first five Democratic sponsors, Senators 
Schumer, Stabenow, Casey, Hagan, and myself, have set the bipartisan 
tone here. That is why we had 79 votes in the first go-round on the 
bill.
  But what concerns me most, and what I hear from people in the House 
of Representatives--and I have heard it from opponents in the Senate, 
and I have heard it from large multinational corporations that have 
outsourced so many jobs to China--is this is going to start a trade war 
with China. That seems to be the thrust of their comments: This is 
going to start a trade war.
  First of all, I don't know where they are that they think that 
because most of America thinks we are in a trade war right now with 
China and, frankly, China is doing pretty darn well. It is not going 
that well for American workers, and it is not going that well for 
American manufacturers.
  Go to downstate Illinois or Albuquerque or Akron and look at the 
number of plant closings. In many cases, companies--large companies 
especially, because smaller companies can't do this the same way--will 
shut down their production in the United States--they will shut down 
production in Youngstown or Dayton--and they will move to Wuhan or 
Xian, China, start production there, and then sell their products back 
to the United States. I don't know that that has ever been done in 
world history.
  So the trade war was started by the Chinese, waged by the Chinese, 
and that is why we have lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in my State. 
That is why we have seen the trade deficit triple in the last 10 years 
with China. That is why we go to the store and darned near everything 
we pick up, including sometimes American flags and things you can buy 
at the Capitol Visitor Center, are made in China. It is clear China has 
cheated. They cheat on currency. They just cheat, pure and simple. It 
is long overdue that we do something about it.
  They were admitted to the World Trade Organization because of a very 
bad vote 10 years ago that too many of my colleagues cast in support of 
China doing that for PNTR. The Presiding Officer, as I did, voted 
against it. The Presiding Officer from New Mexico was prescient enough 
to see that. But they said, if you let China into the WTO, they are 
then going to be a trading partner and they will play fair. Well, they 
never have accepted, frankly, the basic governing rules from the World 
Trade Organization. They don't follow the rule of law. So when we say, 
no, we are not going to let them do that, we are accused of a trade 
war. Excuse me, I don't understand that.
  It is a little bit like two sort of real-life examples. If somebody 
is eating your lunch and you take their dessert away, they are 
complaining? Of course they are going to complain. They want their 
dessert. But they can't say you are starting a war when they are 
already eating your lunch.
  Or if you have two gas stations, you go to Springfield, OH, and there 
is a gas station on one side of the street and another gas station on 
the other side of the street, the one gets a 30-percent discount on its 
oil for its gasoline from Shell, and the one from Exxon on the other 
side of the street doesn't get a subsidy on its oil or its gasoline, of 
course, the one is going to put the other out of business.
  That is what we do to China. We give them a 20- to 30-percent 
discount because they cheat on currency. And you call that a trade war 
because we are saying, no, we are taking that discount away? It is 
China that has played this protectionist game.
  Mr. Fred Bergsten, who is the director of the Institute for National 
Economics, the Peterson Institute, hardly a flaming liberal--free fair 
trade group; it is a conservative, generally free trade organization--
said that China's currency policy is the most protectionist policy of 
any major country in the world since World War II. And for us to say, 
Let's play fair, we are starting a trade war? It doesn't make sense.
  Let's debate the real issues. Let's not call names. Let's not say so-
and-so is starting a trade war, so-and-so is protectionist, so-and-so 
is doing class warfare. We want more exports, we want more trade. But, 
remember, currency undervaluation makes our exports more expensive when 
we sell them into China and puts our manufacturers at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  I think this legislation makes so much sense. That is why it got 79 
votes. That is why it has such a high number of bipartisan cosponsors. 
That is why people in this country understand that passing this 
legislation to level the playing field, to give our manufacturers an 
opportunity, makes so much sense.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  (The remarks of Mr. Carper are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to talk on 
the pending legislation with regard to China. In these times of deficit 
and debt, I think we should not launch a trade war with China. We are 
here because we borrowed too much. We have a spending habit that has 
weakened our economy. That spending habit was aided by China, but we 
can only blame ourselves for much of the economic weakness the United 
States now faces.
  A trade war with China would put in jeopardy a number of jobs from my 
State of Illinois. Illinois exports to China in 2000 totaled about $533 
million. Roughly 2,500 people received their employment by virtue of 
sales to China 10 years ago. Today, exports to China total about $3.18 
billion. The number of people employed by sales to China has grown from 
around 2,500 jobs to 15,000. In a State with a higher than average 
unemployment, where unemployment is growing faster than almost any 
other region of the country, I do not think we should put these jobs at 
risk with an unnecessary trade war with China.
  When we look at Illinois very directly, we see a major Peoria 
employer like Caterpillar, whose sales to China last year totaled about 
$3.2 billion roughly related to about 10,000 jobs in the direct and 
contractor and subcontractor area for sales to China. With Motorola, 
based in Schaumburg, sales totaled about $2 billion directly to China, 
impacting about 7,000 jobs. For Boeing, headquartered in Illinois, 
sales to China totaled about $3 billion--around 10,000 jobs directly 
related to sales into the Chinese market.
  This bill would seek to blame all of our economic ills on a power 
overseas despite so much of the weaknesses related to our own 
overregulation, a flawed health care bill, and too many taxes that are 
causing small employers--the engine of employment in our country--to 
hold back on hiring an American full time. I believe this bill places 
the blame in the wrong place and diverts the needed attention of the 
Senate from where it should be placed in fixing our economy.
  For 10 years, I served in the House of Representatives. In 2005, 
during that rendition of anti-Chinese legislation, I decided to form a 
bipartisan caucus, the China Working Group, with Democratic 
Representative Rick Larsen of Washington. We decided to bring together 
the three warring China tribes of the House of Representatives. That 
would be the panda huggers, a very small number of Members; the dragon 
slayers, a very large number of Members, especially on my side; and the

[[Page 14694]]

panda slayers, who are growing in number, who dislike almost anything 
related to China. We welcomed everyone to discuss China because of its 
growing role in the world because, according to one of our leading 
banks, China could be the largest economy on Earth, replacing a status 
that the United States had until our policy was misplaced and that we 
have had since around the 1870s.
  Should we trigger a trade war with the coming largest economy on 
Earth? I would say we should not. In the 21st century, China can be the 
source of the greatest ill or greatest good for the United States, 
depending on how we manage this relationship.
  One of the key audiences I listened to, as chairman of the China 
Working Group, with Congressman Larsen, was Americans who actually sold 
American-manufactured goods in China. Oftentimes, we would ask: Is your 
No. 1 concern with regard to selling more goods in China related to the 
currency? Overwhelmingly, they would say it was not their No. 1 
concern. Their No. 1 concern instead was the comprehensive theft of 
intellectual property by Chinese entities from U.S. patent holders. 
This is most clearly evidenced in the Hollywood DVD industry but also 
elsewhere. When you look at this issue in a serious way, you find 
currency is not the No. 1 issue, although I admit it polls rather well. 
But our job is to actually add employment to the United States, and one 
of the key audiences we should listen to is people who sell U.S. goods 
in China.
  If you delve into the intellectual property issue and the 
comprehensive theft of intellectual property, you will find that China 
has some fairly reputable intellectual property laws, but they are not 
enforced. A common thing you hear about China is a phrase that is often 
used in the Chinese language. It goes something like this: The 
mountains are very high and the Emperor is far away, meaning despite 
laws that may be on the books in Beijing, they are not enforced in the 
provinces where so much theft of intellectual property happens.
  I would argue that a bipartisan agenda that would add to jobs and 
strengthen our relation with China would be a greater enforcement of 
intellectual property laws between the United States and China. There, 
we would actually have allies, such as the man who is most likely to 
become President of China, Xi Jinping, who wants China to be a strong 
innovator, and he knows China cannot be an innovative nation if it 
represents a comprehensive theft of intellectual property worldwide. He 
knows China's intellectual property law has to be actually enforced in 
the provinces if they are to have technological development. His 
interests are actually in line with the interests of U.S. exporters, 
and here we could have a very productive dialog which actually stops 
the theft of intellectual property in China and enhances the export 
potential of Americans.
  I worry that we are diverting the time of the Senate from the big 
game, which is the joint committee and its work on reducing the 
deficit. I have heard that the President of the United States has 
called Senators, asking that this bill not come up. When you look at 
the prospects for this legislation in the House, you will learn the 
prospects for this legislation are dim at best.
  What should we do rather than trigger a trade war with a country that 
is about to be the largest economy on Earth? What should we do rather 
than trigger job losses at Caterpillar and Motorola and Boeing, at 
Schaumburg and Peoria and in Chicagoland? I think instead we should 
focus the Senate legislation on passing the Gang of 6 legislation that 
would reduce the net borrowing of the United States by $4 trillion. We 
should adopt the Collins moratorium on job-killing regulations costing 
over $100 million to reassure the engine of our job economy--small 
businesses--that they should go ahead and begin to hire Americans 
again. We should do the big idea that is in the bipartisan deficit 
commission report of tax reform, wiping out all special interest tax 
provisions and then using the money, A, to lower the deficit and, B, to 
lower the top rate from 39 percent to 29 percent. We should also 
rapidly pass, as has now been proposed, the Panama and Colombia and 
South Korea Free Trade Agreements that open new markets for the United 
States. Particularly in the case of Colombia, the markets would be 
opened for Illinois corn growers. For South Korea, I think it would end 
the beef impasse we have had and also open high-technology aviation 
markets for the United States.
  When I talk about the Gang of 6, when I talk about the Collins 
amendment, when I talk about tax reform, when I talk about free-trade 
agreements--these are all positive agreements on which large numbers of 
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate can agree and which would pass 
the House of Representatives, rather than the underlying legislation 
which the President of the United States has indicated he would rather 
not come up, which has a dismal future in the House of Representatives, 
and which directly puts at risk any job subject to Chinese retaliation 
from this legislation.
  I also note that when you read the basic text of this legislation, it 
is not serious because it has a big waiver in it. Even if it made it to 
the President's desk, given his calls to legislators on this issue, 
there is no doubt in my mind that the President would execute the 
waivers in this legislation.
  So what are we doing? We are probably advancing a well and poll-
tested piece of legislation in the Senate. I imagine some people would 
want to take advantage of that dialog. But have we made it into enacted 
law? Overwhelmingly, likely no. Are we actually going to take any 
legitimate action? Even by the terms of the legislation and its waiver, 
it would be exercised by the chief executive officer of the United 
States, and therefore no action would be taken. But we would open the 
very people whom we want to crawl this economy out of recession--U.S. 
exporters--to vulnerabilities for retaliation by the Chinese. Sometimes 
you have to think about the basic principle of medicine when you look 
at legislation; that is, first, do no harm.
  As Europe crumbles in a wave of outdated and out-of-gas socialism, 
threatening our economy, as we teeter on the edge of a new recession 
because of too many regulations--10 new taxes in the health care bill--
and an uncertain political future for deficit reduction under the 
bipartisan joint committee, ladling onto that--and our markets and the 
future of our retirement savings--a trade war with the second largest 
economy on Earth would be unwise at best and put the jobs of many 
Americans at risk at worst.
  That is why I oppose this legislation. That is why, regardless of the 
action in the Senate, I do not think it is going anywhere in the House. 
Certainly, given the action and calls of the President to certain 
legislators, it doesn't appear to have any real future in enforcement 
if it ever even did make its way to the White House.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my 
freshman colleague, Senator Kirk. I think he recognizes from his days 
as a foreign policy expert, when he worked for the government on 
foreign policy, that a Presidential waiver is essential. My guess is he 
would have attacked this bill if it had not had a waiver for the 
President, saying there is no way the President could possibly look out 
for national security at the same time as he executes this legislation.
  So that clearly is a nonstarter around here. Everybody recognizes 
that not having a Presidential waiver--because there is a case 
sometimes when the President does need the authority when it comes to 
national security, and I am concerned about national security in our 
trade with China. I have seen China, over a period of years--with our 
acquiescence as a nation, frankly--I have seen China build more and 
more national security infrastructure and in some cases seeing our 
national security infrastructure weakened because we don't do as well 
with steel and chemicals and all the things that go into our national 
security apparatus. So I am, in fact, concerned about that.

[[Page 14695]]

  I am also concerned; I hear two things, two main arguments. I have 
sat on the Senate floor as the manager of this bill for several hours 
over the last couple or 3 days and listened to this debate. It seems 
the Republicans' opposition--most Republicans voted for this, so I 
don't want to say it is overwhelming, but the people who have spoken 
against it have mostly been conservative Republicans who seem to pay a 
lot of attention to Club for Growth and those most conservative parts 
of their party. But I have heard two things. I have heard ``trade war, 
trade war, trade war,'' and that is interesting because that echoes the 
words of the People's Bank of China. It echoes the words of the 
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China. It echoes the 
words of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the Communist Party of the 
People's Republic of China. It mimics their words when I hear them say 
``trade war, trade war, trade war.''
  But what also concerns me is I listen to this debate and hear some of 
the opponents of this bill kind of playing the ``blame America first'' 
game. They seem to say this is not China doing this to us, this is us 
doing this to us--or perhaps we doing this to us, to be more 
grammatically correct. I am aghast that China games its currency 
system, that China undercuts our manufacturing because they ``cheat,'' 
and that there are some Members of the Senate who stood up right here 
and took the oath of office to the United States of America who are 
blaming America first for what China is doing to us.
  I can see blaming our government for not enforcing trade rules 
better. President Obama, while he has not come out yet for this bill, 
has enforced trade laws better than any President since Ronald Reagan, 
who actually probably set the gold standard for trade enforcement. We 
haven't seen it since President Obama. I am a bit intrigued that my 
colleagues are blaming the United States for this. It is a little like 
if there are gas stations on Detroit Avenue in Cleveland, in Westlake 
or in Rocky River or in Cleveland, one on each side of the road and one 
gets the gas 25 percent cheaper than the other from the supplier--from 
ExxonMobil or Shell--they can put the other one out of business. Do we 
blame the one that doesn't get the discount for going out of business? 
Is that what we are doing? To blame America first on this is blaming 
the United States when China cheats, and I don't buy that. I don't 
think there is any credence in that argument.
  I appreciate Senator Kirk's admonition, and I appreciate his 
celebration, if you will, of Caterpillar and many of these companies 
that are exporting tens of millions and, in a few cases, billions of 
dollars to China. More power to them. I want them to do more exports.
  Look at this chart. Look what happened. Exports to China have gone 
up. The year 2000 was when this Senate and the House--where the 
Presiding Officer from New Mexico and I sat--voted no on this when 
PNTR, permanent normal trade relations, with China was passed. Look 
what happened since then. Exports to China went up. I am glad U.S. 
exports with companies all over our States--Senator Kirk mentioned a 
handful in Illinois--went up. Look what happened to imports. Look at 
the number of imports that went up. Do we know why? Part of that reason 
is China has cheated on currency. When we did the first vote on Monday 
night--and all of us predicted what the Chinese Government is going to 
do. They are going to squawk and say: trade war, trade war, trade war. 
I didn't know a bunch of American politicians would mimic what they 
said and say: trade war, trade war, trade war.
  Here is what happened--listen to this--an article in the South China 
Morning Post on October 5, the day after that vote: In a rare move, the 
central bank, the People's Bank of China, the China Ministry of 
Commerce, the People's Republic of China's Foreign Affairs Ministry 
took simultaneous, coordinated action yesterday to express Beijing's 
strong opposition to the bill, aimed at forcing Beijing to let its 
currency float. They accused Washington of politicizing global currency 
issues.
  Where I come from, they say when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, 
the one that yelps is the one you hit. Of course, the Chinese are going 
to yelp because they don't like this. We are saying to them they have 
to follow the rules--no more breaking the rules. They cannot cheat the 
way they have cheated.
  Of course, in the Communist Party, in the People's Republic of China, 
the Ministry of Commerce is going to squawk. Of course, the People's 
Bank of China is going to squawk. These are all arms of the Chinese 
Communist Party and arms of the Chinese Government. Of course, they are 
not happy when we do this. It does not mean it is not the right thing 
to do.
  It bothers me when I see American politicians mimic what the Chinese 
Communist Party officials are saying, their government is saying: trade 
war, trade war, trade war. This is not a trade war. Fred Bergsten, head 
of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is a trade 
official--I believe an economist. He is very smart. The Peterson 
Institute for International Economics is a generally conservative 
operation that generally plays it straight on trade. If anything, they 
are a bit too free trade, in my mind, instead of fair trade. Fred 
Bergsten said:

       I regard China's current policy as the most protectionist 
     measure taken by any major country since World War II. Its 
     currency manipulation has been undervalued by 20 to 30 
     percent.

  Here is the key point:

       That is equivalent to a 20 to 30 percent subsidy on all 
     exports and a tariff on all imports by the largest trading 
     country in the world.

  The 30-percent penalty is why our exports don't go up very much. The 
25-percent bonus for the Chinese is why our imports go up so much. We 
cannot sell into China's market very well because they are cheating. 
That is why our exports don't grow as much, and they can sell so much 
into our markets because we are giving that 25 or 30 percent bonus.
  This isn't a trade war--well, it is a trade war. The Chinese declared 
trade war on us in 2000 and look how they benefited from this trade 
war, and we are just going to stand here and allow them to do that? It 
doesn't work. That is why this legislation is so important.
  Last point. There are an awful lot of American businesses that think 
we need to fix this. I hear my friend from Illinois and other Senators 
come to the floor who oppose this bill. There are only 19 who voted no 
out of the 98 who voted. I have heard them come to this floor and talk 
about exports, that their businesses have exported. Some have and more 
power to them. I hope they can export more and create more jobs in the 
United States. We need to understand that those are mostly large 
companies that have in some cases the wherewithal to outsource jobs to 
China and in other cases to be able to export large numbers.
  There was a historic split in the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the largest trade organization for American 
manufacturers, over the last several years on what to do about this.
  Many of the small companies such as Automation Tool & Die in 
Brunswick, OH, and a company in Dayton that does printing, where I just 
spoke to Jeff Cottrell, who owns that company and has a number of 
employees in Dayton, OH--those companies understand currency undercuts 
them. The Bennett brothers at this company in Brunswick told me in 
Cleveland a couple days ago why they support this bill. They said they 
had a contract they thought was a million-dollar contract, and they 
began to change their assembly line, their production facilities, their 
production operation capacity. At the last minute, a Chinese company 
came in and underpriced them by 20 percent and got the contract. Why 
did they underprice them 20 percent? Because we gave them a 25-percent 
bonus to do it. We have disarmed this trade war that we are not 
beginning. We are playing defense and we are fighting back.
  I think the American public overwhelmingly says fight back when they 
play the games, fight back when they game the system. Don't blame 
America on this one. Stand for American interest. It is good for our 
exporters, big

[[Page 14696]]

companies and small companies alike. It is good for American 
manufacturing. We know what that means to workers in Chillicothe, 
Zanesville, and Toledo. We know what it means for our local vitality 
and prosperity. It means so much as we begin to restore American 
manufacturing.
  I ask for support for S. 1619.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, exports are absolutely critical to our 
economic growth in this country. In fact, there are nearly 10 million 
good-paying American jobs that are related to exports. The President, 
Members of Congress, and so on talk about that a lot. But I am 
disappointed we are not moving forward with an aggressive agenda to 
actually open new markets for our exports.
  I am encouraged that the administration, finally, this week, sent 
forward three trade agreements that do just that--the Korea, Colombia, 
and Panama trade agreements. These open markets to U.S. workers and 
farmers, those who provide services, so it is going to be good for jobs 
in this country. The President's own metrics indicate these three 
agreements alone will create 250,000 new jobs. We need them badly.
  I also want to congratulate Chairman Dave Camp and the House Ways and 
Means Committee for reporting out all three of these agreements this 
afternoon. My understanding is, each agreement received a strong 
bipartisan vote, and I am hopeful those agreements will now come to the 
Senate for us to be able to move forward--again, opening these critical 
markets that will create over 200,000 jobs for Americans.
  I will tell you, these three agreements were all negotiated and 
signed over 4 years ago. During that interim period, the United States 
has been absent from the kind of trade-opening negotiations we ought to 
be involved with. This President--for the first time since Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt--has not asked, as his predecessors did, for trade 
promotion authority to be able to negotiate new agreements. So we are 
losing market share.
  Every day there are American workers who do not have the same 
opportunities to compete in foreign markets as those workers from other 
countries do because the United States is not actively engaged in 
opening markets. We need to do that.
  Right now, we have no ongoing bilateral trade agreements. We have one 
multilateral agreement, which I support moving forward on--the Trans-
Pacific Partnership--but, frankly, there are over 100 bilateral 
negotiations going on right now, and America is not a partner in any of 
them. We need to get engaged because it is so critical to growing our 
economy.
  During the debate we have had over the last couple of weeks on trade 
adjustment assistance, where I was supportive of a version of trade 
adjustment assistance to get the trade agreements moving, we had a 
discussion about giving the President trade promotion authority. We 
were not able to get support from the administration for that. This is 
critical to move forward. It is because growing goods and services is 
absolutely critical to our economic health.
  Over 95 percent of consumers in the world, of course, live outside of 
our borders. We want to access those consumers, we want to sell more to 
them. Export growth and a healthy trading system depends on these 
export-opening agreements, but it also depends on having a healthy 
international trading system where all the players play by the 
international rules. So the export-expanding agreements are good. We 
need to do more of that. We should be much more engaged, but we also 
have to insist that everybody plays by the same rules.
  Today the Senate is debating legislation that has to do with one of 
those rules, and that is the issue of currency, and specifically the 
issue of China and their currency manipulation. China is a country, as 
you know, where we have a persistent and unprecedented trade deficit. 
It is also a very important trading partner for us. So it is critical 
we keep that strong trade relationship but do it on a basis that is 
fair for us and for China.
  I consistently hear about this China currency issue when I am back in 
Ohio. I hear about it a lot from manufacturers and the workers at those 
plants who tell me it is just not fair that in the global marketplace 
Ohio products are not able to compete on a level playing field.
  Just this year I have worked with a lot of Ohio companies that are 
facing various problems, including Ohio candle makers, steel 
manufacturers, diamond saw blade producers, rare earth magnet 
manufacturers, and others who are concerned about getting a fair shake 
in the global economy and want to be sure they are not competing with 
unfair Chinese competition.
  Again, I believe in the benefits of trade. I know they work. I 
believe in reducing barriers, but I also believe opening export markets 
and vigorous enforcement of trade laws go hand in hand. They both 
should be something that the United States pursues.
  China's undervalued currency does provide, in my view, an export 
subsidy, making Chinese exports to the United States less expensive in 
the global marketplace and making our exports to China relatively more 
expensive.
  I have long had concerns about this. Actually, when I was before the 
Senate Finance Committee in my confirmation hearings to be U.S. Trade 
Representative years ago I stated that I believed China currency does 
affect trade, and I stated that China should revalue their currency. I 
still believe that. I believe this administration should label China a 
currency manipulator because I think it is clear there continues to be 
manipulation.
  The legislation before us today is not the perfect answer, and I do 
hope the Senate will permit my colleague, Senator Hatch, to offer his 
amendment, which I think is a constructive amendment to improve parts 
of the legislation. But I do support the bill with the expectation that 
it is compliant with our international trade obligations and that it 
gives the administration the flexibility it needs to implement this 
bill in a smart and sensible way.
  However, I would also say this bill has been described on this floor 
many times over the last couple days as I have listened to the debate 
as doing more than it does. We should not overstate it. It does not 
address some other issues that, frankly, I think would make a bigger 
difference in our important trade relationship with China.
  One of these issues would be indigenous innovation, which I believe 
to be an unfair practice that China is currently practicing. Also, 
there is the issue of violations of intellectual property rights. It is 
not so much that the laws are not in place; it is that many times there 
is not adequate enforcement of the intellectual property laws that are 
in place. Of course, there is the issue of anticompetitive practices 
and subsidies that continue with regard to state-owned enterprises. I 
am also working with Senator Wyden and others--a bipartisan group of 
Senators--on combatting transshipment and customs duty evasion 
problems, which involve companies from various countries but include 
China.
  So we have a growing list of complex issues facing our relationship 
with China. I believe they should all be addressed together. I hope the 
next round of diplomatic and commercial negotiations with China will 
bring about some of that discussion and bring about some solutions, not 
just more broken promises.
  I understand the JCCT, called the Joint Commission on Commerce and 
Trade, between the United States and China will meet in November--next 
month--and that the next round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic 
Dialogue will take place next year. I urge the administration to use 
these negotiations as leverage to get some of these real results that 
are so necessary.

[[Page 14697]]

  We should also look at multilateral approaches, including the World 
Trade Organization, and certainly the International Monetary Fund. I 
will tell you, as someone who has sat across the table in negotiations 
with tough Chinese negotiators, endless dialog is not the answer. 
Sometimes that is what occurs. We are not just looking for more talk. I 
think it is important we get serious--both U.S. leaders and Chinese 
leaders--about some of our lingering trade problems that we have had 
through the years so we can have a healthy trade relationship based on 
mutual respect.
  Each country is important to the other. We cannot overlook the fact 
that China continues to be a very vital U.S. export market, despite the 
issues I talked about. Right now, China is the third largest export 
market for Ohio goods, for instance. The State I represent sends over 
$2.2 billion a year in exports to China. With 25 percent of Ohio 
manufacturing jobs dependent upon exports, this is incredibly important 
to us.
  One out of every three acres of land in Ohio is planted for export, 
so agricultural exports are also important. There is also an important 
issue with China that relates to investment both ways: our investment 
in China and Chinese investment here. Let me read to you from an 
editorial that was in the Cleveland Plain Dealer last Thursday. Its 
title is: ``Chinese investors are welcome here.''

       If Greater Cleveland is going to prosper in the 21st 
     century, it has to build strong two-way connections with the 
     rest of the world. The region has to sell more of its 
     services and products abroad and welcome talent and capital 
     from overseas. That's the path to jobs and wealth.

  The editorial goes on to talk about the collaboration between Chinese 
companies and investors looking to build relationships with Cleveland's 
world-renowned medical device industry.
  Just last week, the mayor of Toledo, OH, Mike Bell, returned from a 
12-day trade mission to Asia in order to boost job creation in 
northwest Ohio. Since Mayor Bell's trip, plans have been announced for 
increased commercial ties between Chinese and Ohio job creators and 
companies, including launching a new international business center in 
downtown Toledo.
  These are just a couple of examples in my State of the importance of 
this relationship and why it needs to be taken so seriously. This 
relationship is vital to the future not just of our two countries but, 
in my view, to the global economy. So we need to be sure, again, it is 
a healthy relationship. It needs to be fair. It needs to be on a basis 
where, again, there is a level playing field on both sides. So it is 
time for our trading partners to play by the rules so that, indeed, we 
can have a fair trading system.
  Trade is key to growth. But, again, it is only one part of a broader 
problem that is holding back our economy today, holding back Ohio 
manufacturers from hiring and innovating. Another big issue that has 
come to the attention of this Senate time and time again is the 
incredible regulatory burden that is placed on Ohio's job creators. So 
in order to be successful in trade, we need to have more open markets. 
We talked about that: a level playing field. But, also, we need to be 
more competitive at home or else we are not going to be able to create 
the jobs in this century that we need to keep our economy moving 
forward.
  At a time when we have over 9 percent unemployment, it is critical we 
be sure our economy is more competitive. This regulatory burden is one 
issue that I think all sides can agree ought to be addressed.
  I am joined today by the junior Senator from Nevada, my friend and 
colleague, to offer a couple of amendments designed to give American 
employers some relief from the regulatory mandates that continue to 
hold back our economy and hinder job creation.
  There is no official counting of this total regulatory burden on our 
economy, and estimates do vary. But one study that is often cited is 
from the Obama administration's own Small Business Administration where 
they report the regulatory costs exceed $1.75 trillion annually. That 
is, of course, even more than is collected by the IRS in income taxes 
every year. So it is a huge burden. We can talk about what the exact 
number is, but the fact is this is something that is forcing Ohio 
companies and other companies around our country to have higher costs 
of creating a job.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the annual cost of 
a narrow set of rules--these are just what are called the major rules 
that are reviewed by OMB over one 10-year period--registers at $43 
billion to $55 billion per year.
  I have been encouraged by what the current administration has 
recently been saying about regulations. I have been less encouraged 
about what they have done. The new regulatory costs on the private 
sector are real, and they are mounting.
  Compared to historic trends, we have seen a sharp uptick over the 
last 2 years in these new so-called major or economically significant 
rules that have an economic impact of over $100 million on the economy. 
They also have an impact, of course, on consumer prices and American 
competitiveness.
  George Washington University Regulatory Studies recently told us that 
this administration has been regulating at an average of 84 new major 
rules per year, which, by way of comparison, is about a 35-percent 
increase from the last administration and about a 50-percent increase 
from the Clinton administration.
  These figures do include the independent agencies which must be 
included in the calculations. So there has been an uptick in 
regulations, and continues to be, again, despite much of the rhetoric 
to the contrary. One commonsense step we can take to address this issue 
is to improve and strengthen what is called the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995, UMRA.
  I worked on this along with some of my colleagues who are now in the 
Senate back when I was in the House. It was a bipartisan effort that 
basically said Federal regulators ought to know the costs of what they 
are imposing. We also ought to know what the benefits are, and we ought 
to know if there are less costly alternatives.
  The two amendments I am offering today are drawn from a bill that I 
introduced back in June called the Unfunded Mandates Accountability 
Act. It is an effort that now has over 20 cosponsors. Again, it seems 
to me it is a commonsense effort that should be bipartisan.
  The first amendment would strengthen the analysis that is required in 
some very important ways. First, it requires agencies to specifically 
assess the potential effect of new regulations on job creation, which 
is not currently a requirement, and in this economy it must be. Also, 
to consider market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to 
regulation, again, something we need to look at.
  It also broadens the scope of UMRA to require a cost-benefit analysis 
of rules that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million 
or more. It requires agencies to adopt the least costly and least 
burdensome alternative to achieve the policy goal that has been set 
out. So, currently, agencies have to consider that, but they do not 
have to follow the least costly alternative. We simply cannot afford 
that, again, because of the tough economic times we have.
  The second amendment extends those same requirements to the 
independent agencies. This is incredibly important, and these are 
agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the newly 
formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, agencies that are very 
important on the regulatory side and are currently exempt from these 
cost-benefit rules that affect all other agencies.
  On this issue I was very pleased to see that President Obama issued 
an Executive order in July which was specifically related to 
independent agencies. That order and the accompanying Presidential 
memorandum called on independent agencies to participate in a look-
back, but also, very importantly, called on independent agencies to 
evaluate the costs and benefits of new regulation just as, again, all 
executive agencies were already required to do.

[[Page 14698]]

  It is a step in the right direction, but the problem is that the 
President's order is entirely nonbinding because a President cannot 
require independent agencies to do that. Congress can. We can do it by 
statute. And independent agencies do not answer to the President. So 
since this order was issued in July--by the way, we have not seen a 
rush by independent agencies to pledge to comply with these principles. 
Again, they are not required to, so this amendment, this second 
amendment, would effectively write the President's new request into law 
so it can be effective.
  Independent agencies would be required under UMRA to evaluate 
regulatory costs, benefits, and less costly alternatives before issuing 
any rule that would impose a cost of $100 million on the private sector 
or on State, local, and tribal governments. The fact is, independent 
agencies are not doing this on their own. According to a 2011 OMB 
report, not one of the 17 major rules issued by independent agencies in 
2010 included an assessment of both cost and benefit. Not one.
  Closing this independent agency loophole is a reform we should be 
able to agree with on both sides of the aisle. Certainly, the President 
should agree with it since it is part of his Executive order and 
memorandum, and this is the right vehicle to do it.
  This a jobs issue again and a commonsense approach. No major 
regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on American 
employers on State and local governments without a serious 
consideration of the costs, the benefits, and the availability of less 
burdensome alternatives. These amendments move us further to that goal.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the two 
amendments filed by my good friend from Ohio, Senator Portman, my 
amendment No. 674, and above all the issue of the day, jobs.
  Americans have had to endure great hardship over the past few years. 
This recession has robbed millions of people of their jobs, their 
homes, their businesses, and their sense of security. No State has been 
hit harder than the State of Nevada. My State has the unfortunate 
distinction of leading the Nation in unemployment, foreclosures, and 
bankruptcies. And there is no question that the status quo of 
dysfunctional government must end.
  People from all over the country are struggling just to get by and 
are desperate for real solutions. The underlying legislation takes the 
wrong approach to job creation and can be very detrimental to economic 
growth in our country. Inciting a trade war with China will not create 
jobs.
  In my home State of Nevada, a trade war would hurt tourism. It would 
stifle growth in renewable energy development and increase costs to 
consumers at a time when they can least afford it.
  Working to sell American goods in foreign markets is what we should 
be fighting for. Instead, it seems job creation and economic growth 
have taken a back seat to political posturing and grandstanding in 
Washington. It is clear that the approach this administration and its 
supporters have taken for economic recovery has failed miserably. Out-
of-control spending, a health care law no one can afford, and seemingly 
endless streams of regulation are crippling employers, stifling 
economic growth, and killing jobs. Instead of fighting for measures 
that create and protect jobs, this administration has created more 
government that continues to impede economic growth at every turn.
  This government continues to tax too much, spend too much, and borrow 
too much. The American public and businesses alike are waiting on a 
plan that can plant the seeds of economic growth and bolster job 
creation. Instead, all they get from this government when it comes to 
job creation is a big wet blanket.
  They need Washington to provide relief from new burdensome and overly 
intrusive regulations. Congress must help job creators by ensuring 
every regulation is vetted with a full understanding of the impact it 
will have on businesses across the country.
  So I am pleased to join with Senator Portman in this fight to rein in 
excessive government regulation and to implement a market-benefit 
analysis for all agencies, both executive and independent, so the 
American public will know the true cost of these regulations. As 
President Obama said: We must rein in government agencies and force 
them to help businesses when they refuse to do so. I could not agree 
more.
  There are a number of actions Congress can take immediately to help 
bolster our Nation's economy. The adoption of Senator Portman's 
amendments is one of those actions. I look forward to continuing to 
work with him on these issues. I believe our best days are still ahead, 
but we need to change course now. We need to roll back the regulations 
that are tying the hands of entrepreneurs across America. We can help 
hasten an economic recovery by embracing progrowth policies that place 
more money in the pockets of Americans.
  I would also like to highlight another issue that would help create 
jobs and provide certainty for the businesses across the country; that 
is, Congress should pass a budget. Congress has not passed a budget in 
nearly 2\1/2\ years. Passing a comprehensive budget is one of the most 
basic responsibilities of Congress, but it has failed to accomplish 
this task.
  America desperately needs a comprehensive 10-year plan that offers 
real solutions to the economic and fiscal problems in this country. We 
cannot lower unemployment rates in Nevada or restore the housing market 
without a holistic approach to reining in Federal spending and lowering 
the national debt.
  Congress passed another continuing resolution that lacks a long-term 
approach to restoring our Nation to fiscal sanity. Instead, this bill 
funds the government for just a few more months. Congress cannot 
continue to function without a measure of accountability to hold 
Members of Congress to their constitutionally mandated responsibility, 
which is why I introduced the no budget, no pay amendment, amendment 
No. 674.
  This measure requires Congress to pass a budget resolution by the 
beginning of any fiscal year. If Congress fails to pass a budget, then 
Members of Congress do not get paid. How can Congress commit to a debt 
reduction plan without a budget? Any serious proposal to rein in 
Federal spending and create jobs starts with a responsible budget.
  At home in Nevada and across this country, if people do not 
accomplish the tasks their jobs require, they do not get paid. Somehow 
this very basic standard of responsibility is lost upon Washington.
  The no budget, no pay amendment is not an end-all solution to our 
economic difficulties. It is, however, an important measure that 
Congress should adopt in order to show the American people that Members 
of Congress are serious about restoring our country to a period of 
economic prosperity.
  Nevadans work hard for their paychecks. So should Congress. And since 
the majority believes the legislation before us today is a jobs bill, I 
encourage them to take up other measures that will help with job 
creation, such as opening our country to energy exploration, 
streamlining the permitting process for responsible development of our 
domestic resources, and taking the aggressive step of reforming our Tax 
Code. Let's make the Tax Code simpler for individuals and employers. 
Cut out the special interest loopholes while reducing the overall tax 
burden for all Americans.
  Instead of looking for new ways to tax the American public, we should 
make our Tax Code more competitive and provide businesses the stability 
they need to grow and to create jobs. The continual threat of increased 
taxes feeds the uncertainty that serves as an impediment to economic 
growth. These are all things that both this administration and Congress 
could do immediately to boost economic recovery.
  Let's give the American people a government that works for them. 
Removing impediments to job creation will

[[Page 14699]]

get Americans working again and ensure our children and grandchildren 
have a brighter future.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to talk on the bill that we 
are debating on the floor about China currency. Let me say a few 
things. To me and to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
very little we could do could be more important in both the short term 
and the long term than to require China to pay a price if they continue 
to flaunt international trade rules and manipulate their currency, 
causing their imports to America--their exports to America, our 
imports, to be much cheaper than they should be, and causing American 
exports to China--their imports of our goods--to be more expensive than 
they should be.
  In the short term, it has been estimated by EPI that 2 million jobs 
could be created over 2 years if we pass this legislation and China's 
currency were no longer misaligned. But there is a long-term issue, and 
that is this: The bottom line is, what is our future in this country? 
It is good, high-paying jobs. It is companies, large and small, that 
create high-end products, products that take a lot of know-how, 
products that take a lot of skill to create, products that basically 
are the high end in terms of both manufacturing and services. That is 
our future.
  Those are our crown jewels. When I ask--as many of us have asked the 
question--how in a worldwide economy can America compete, the answer is 
those companies. I admit that most of those companies are not large; 
they are smaller companies. They are small business people with great 
ideas for new ways of providing a service or creating a product. They 
are the people who employ about 65 percent of the new jobs in America. 
They are our future. Some of them will grow into very large companies. 
Many will stay employing 100, 200, 300, or 400 people. But they are on 
the front lines of world trade.
  What have we found over the last decade? In almost 10 years, since 
China joined the WTO, we have lost 2.8 million jobs, simply due to the 
Chinese Government's manipulation of currency. We have lost thousands 
more jobs elsewhere, because China steals our intellectual property. 
China has a mercantilist policy of taking an industry and nurturing it 
with local subsidies and making products so cheap that they export and 
overwhelm our market. That is what happened with solar cells, solar 
panels. They can take an advantage such as rare earths and oppose WTO 
rules and say to companies, if you want these rare earths, which you 
need for your products, you have to make it in China.
  They do this over and over. Why do Senator Brown and Senator Graham 
and I and many others feel so strongly about this? Because we know if 
the present trend continues, as Robert Samuelson, the economist, noted 
in an op-ed in the Washington Post the other day, basically it is a 
disaster for America. If, when a young entrepreneur creates a product 
or service, that entrepreneur is overwhelmed by a Chinese product that 
has unfair advantage, we don't have a future. That is it. Many people 
worry about the budget deficit as the biggest problem America faces. It 
is a large problem and I hope we solve it. I will work hard to solve 
it. But, to me, the No. 1 problem America faces is how do we become the 
production giant we were over the last several decades but no longer 
seem to be. We are indeed a consumption giant. We consume more than 
anybody of our own products and other people's. But you cannot be a 
consumption giant for many years on end if you are not also a 
production giant.
  What is a major external factor that contributes to making us a 
consumption giant rather than a production giant? It is the Chinese 
manipulation of currency, because it discourages production in America 
and encourages consumption of undervalued Chinese goods at the same 
time. The anguish that many of us feel about the future of this country 
translates directly into this legislation. I know there are lots of 
academics who sit up in their ivory towers, editorial writers, who love 
to look at this legislation and without even examining its consequences 
say that is protectionism. This is not protectionism. In fact, this 
legislation is in the name of free trade, because free trade implies a 
floating currency. That is what was set up at Bretton Woods. That was 
the equilibrium creator when things got out of whack. But it doesn't 
exist for China. A lot of countries have pegged their currency in the 
past and we paid no attention, because if you have .01 percent of GDP, 
and you are worried your tiny little currency will be overwhelmed, to 
peg it by world trends, that doesn't create much trouble. When you are 
the second largest economic power in the world, largest or second 
largest exporter in the world, to peg your currency totally 
discombobulates the world trading system.
  Given the danger to the future of our country, and given the danger 
to the continuation of world trade by China continuing its currency 
manipulation, why isn't there more of an outcry? That is the question I 
ask myself. I don't have a good answer. Perhaps it is because those 
editorial writers and big thinkers don't talk to the manufacturers of 
high-end products in New York State I talk to, who see they cannot 
continue against China unfairly because of currency manipulation. 
Whether it is a ceramic that goes into powerplants, which I talked 
about yesterday, or even a high-end window that is used for major 
office buildings and museums, China uses its currency manipulation to 
gain unfair advantage over our companies up and down the line. Maybe 
those in the ivory towers don't talk to the manufacturers on the ground 
as so many of us do because that is our job and that is our living. 
Maybe it is because global companies have fought our provision in the 
interest of their shareholders.
  I don't begrudge the big companies. Their job is to maximize their 
share price. If firing 10,000 American workers and moving them to 
China, and creating those 10,000 jobs in China gives them more 
profitability, in part because of currency manipulation, yes, that is 
what corporations are supposed to do. But that is not in America's 
interest. It may have been in General Electric--a company that has lots 
of New York presence and that I like very much--it may have been in 
their interest to sign a contract for wind turbines and give to China 
intellectual property in return. But it sure wasn't in the interest of 
the workers in Schenectad, even if it might have been in the overall 
interest of the GE shareholder. Maybe it is because the Business 
Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce, which is dominated by the 
larger manufacturers and service companies and the larger financial 
institutions. They don't care about American wealth and jobs; they care 
about their own profitability and sales and share price, and if China 
has an unfair advantage, so be it. That is not their job. Maybe that is 
the reason. That is beginning to change, by the way.
  When I last visited China, I met with the heads of the China 
divisions of many of our largest companies, and I had met with the same 
people several years before--and intermittently some of them in 
between--and their tone has totally changed. They are exasperated with 
China's mercantile policy. One of the manufacturers, who had been one 
of the leaders in saying don't touch China, because they exported a ton 
of goods there, had a different tone. He said: We can only export 
certain of our goods--the ones China doesn't make--and the rest we have 
to make in China and in certain provinces. That is a large, huge 
multibillion dollar U.S. company.
  Another company, a major retailer, told us they cannot run their 
stores the way they wish in China because China dictates what they can 
and cannot have on their shelves. Half of the products on their shelves 
in American

[[Page 14700]]

stores cannot, by Chinese Government dictate, be on the Chinese store 
shelves. Some of our large companies are sort of realizing that letting 
China get away with all of these violations of free trade, all these 
violations of WTO, no longer serves their interests, though, 
admittedly, they have not come around to support our bill.
  Then there are those who are fearful that the Chinese will retaliate. 
That one drives me the craziest. I grew up in Brooklyn. When there were 
bullies and you didn't stand up for yourself, they bullied you and 
bullied you some more. If you stood up to them, yes, there was going to 
be some retaliation, but it was a lot better than giving in. That is 
what we have done with China. Will China retaliate if this bill becomes 
law and hundreds of American companies grow to have countervailing 
duties imposed? Yes. But the Chinese know they have far more to lose in 
a trade war than we do. Their economy is far more dependent upon 
exports--just look at the percentage in terms of GDP--than ours. They 
are far more dependent upon the American market than we are on the 
Chinese market, as important as it is to many of our companies.
  While China will retaliate in a measured way, they will not create a 
trade war. It is not in their interest; they cannot afford to. I have 
news for those who are worried about a trade war: We are in one. When 
China manipulates its currency, steals intellectual property, and uses 
rare earths to lure businesses and takes our intellectual property and 
brings it to factories in China, subsidizes them against WTO rules, and 
then tries to export the product here, as they are doing with solar 
panels, that is a trade war, as millions of Americans who have lost 
their jobs realize. So we are in the war. We may as well arm ourselves 
so that we might win.
  The bottom line is very simple: I hope this bill moves forward. I 
hope it goes through the House. A large vote in the Senate tomorrow 
will be a message to the House--Senator Brown's bill and, of course, 
his and ours have been combined. But Senator Brown's bill passed in the 
House a few years ago, and I hope the President rethinks things and 
signs it, because if he does, my prediction is that China, which never 
backs off when it is in their own economic interest, will, because it 
will no longer be in their economic interest because penalties will be 
imposed and equality will be imposed upon them once this bill is law. 
So they will let their currency float--maybe not as quickly as we want 
but far more quickly than it happens now, once this bill becomes law.
  In my view, the arguments that have been raised against America 
taking action to deal with unfair Chinese currency manipulation are 
outdated, wrong, and ineffectual. I have been arguing the other side, 
our side, for 5 years. When Senator Graham and I first started talking 
about currency manipulation, imposing a tariff, both the Wall Street 
Journal and New York Times editorial boards--one very conservative and 
one very liberal--said China should be allowed to peg its currency. We 
have made progress in the strength of our intellectual arguments. We 
have to take that strength and translate it into action. Millions of 
American jobs, and ultimately trillions of American dollars of wealth, 
and nothing less than the future of our country are at stake.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. I rise to speak in opposition to the Chinese tariff bill 
being proposed by my colleague from New York. I understand the 
frustrations that motivated this legislation, and I share serious 
concerns over China's currency manipulation and trade practices. I have 
worked for years to ensure that trade happens and that free trade 
happens on a level playing field. We still have a long way to go.
  The answer to these frustrations with China is not to start a trade 
war that will raise prices on many goods for American families at a 
time when they are already struggling, especially when this approach 
has already been tried and failed to gain any positive results for 
American workers. The absolute last thing our floundering economy needs 
right now is retaliatory tariffs on American products that will destroy 
more jobs. If we want to strengthen our currency, we should start by 
getting control of our own monetary policy. We don't need to start a 
trade war with China; we need to stop the class warfare that is 
preventing jobs from being created right here in America.
  American workers are the best in the world, but they cannot fairly 
compete in a global economy when the U.S. Government is keeping one arm 
tied behind their back. The solution is to free American workers, not 
to try to tie up our competitors with more misguided policies that will 
hurt American families with higher prices on household goods. The U.S. 
Government needs to give American workers the freedom to work, and that 
freedom starts with the freedom to get a job.
  If President Obama and the Democrats want to know who is preventing 
jobs from being created in America, all they have to do is look in the 
mirror. Let's be clear about a few things: Other countries are not 
threatening to massively raise taxes on our Nation's job creators and 
drive jobs overseas. President Obama is. Other countries did not jam 
through a health care takeover bill that is raising the cost of health 
care, making it harder for businesses to hire people and adding 
trillions of dollars to our national debt. The Democrats in Congress 
did. Other countries did not force us to pass the Dodd-Frank financial 
takeover with thousands of new regulations that are raising costs on 
American consumers and crippling businesses. Democrats in Congress did. 
Other countries are not writing hundreds of new regulatory rules that 
are destroying jobs in our Nation's energy sector and keeping us 
dependent on foreign oil. The administration's EPA is. Other countries 
are not blocking Boeing from creating thousands of American jobs in the 
State of South Carolina. The President's National Labor Relations Board 
is. Other countries are not forcing 28 U.S. States to require employees 
to join labor unions that make businesses less competitive. Democrats 
are the ones protecting labor bosses and hurting workers in America.
  The Wall Street Journal has called this Chinese tariff bill ``the 
most dangerous trade legislation in many years,'' and for good reason. 
If we pass this bill, it is likely to spark a trade war. It is unlikely 
to create new jobs in America but will result in higher prices for U.S. 
consumers. Businesses will pay more for raw materials from China, which 
will increase prices on their goods and reduce employment. President 
Obama and the Democrats should know better after seeing the results of 
the tariff that was put on Chinese tires in 2009. In response, China 
retaliated with tariffs on American auto parts and poultry. This well-
intended bill will have the same unintended results.
  I understand the economic frustrations people have with China, but as 
so many of Obama's policies have done, this bill will only make things 
worse. This bill doesn't export the best of what American workers have 
to offer, it exports bad economics. Taxes and tariffs do not create 
jobs, competition and markets do. Freedom will work if we let it.
  I urge the Senate to reject this bill and start helping American 
workers compete more freely here in America and around the world 
instead of simply trying to hold others back.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask that the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I have just a couple comments with regard to those

[[Page 14701]]

of the Senator from South Carolina. He was the ranking member on the 
Economic Policy Subcommittee on which also sat the Presiding Officer 
from Oregon in 2009 and 2010. We held a series of hearings on 
manufacturing policy, and there were some agreements between Senator 
DeMint and me on having a manufacturing strategy. We are the only major 
industrial country in the world without a real strategy on 
manufacturing. There are three ways to create wealth in this society: 
manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. Manufacturing has been a 
dominant force and a significant creator of the middle class, and I 
think we agree on that. We agree we want more of it in our country. 
Thirty years ago, more than 25 percent of our gross domestic product 
was manufacturing. Today that number is less than half that, and there 
are countries around the world--Germany, for instance, which has had a 
manufacturing strategy, and they have almost twice the GDP and twice 
the workforce.
  So while Senator DeMint and I disagree on this China trade bill, I 
agree with the other Republican Senator from his State, Mr. Graham, who 
has been a significant leader. He and Senator Schumer have worked on 
this for, I believe, more than half a decade on responding to the 
cheating the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China 
have done in the world trade structure. I don't believe, in any way, we 
are starting a trade war. Almost any economist will tell us the Chinese 
have been committing a trade war for a decade. That is why our trade 
deficit is three times what it was 10 or 11 years ago. It is why so 
many manufacturing jobs in Senator Graham's and Senator DeMint's State 
of South Carolina, the Presiding Officer's State of Oregon, and my 
State of Ohio have been lost, not only because of China's currency, but 
that is clearly a significant contributing factor. I go back to the 
illustration of gas stations, one across the street from the other, in 
Akron, OH. If one gas station could buy its gasoline with a 25-percent 
discount, it would soon put the other gas station out of business. That 
is really what has happened with China. China understands they have a 
25-percent advantage given to them because they game the currency 
system. I know what that means. The Presiding Officer from North 
Carolina has seen what has happened to manufacturing in her State, a 
major manufacturing State. Our trade problems are not so much with 
companies in China, they are with the government. It really is our 
companies against the government. When they can game the system with a 
25-percent bonus--when they sell into the United States, they get a 25-
percent bonus, and when we try to sell into China, we get a 25-percent 
penalty on our companies' products--that hardly seems fair to me.
  So as Senator Graham and Senator Schumer, the two leaders in this for 
many years, have said, they just want to level the playing field. They 
don't want us to have an advantage over China. Let's play fair and 
straight. Really, that is what the question is, and that is what this 
currency bill will finally do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wonder if my colleague from Ohio 
would consider a bit of a discussion for a few minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Love to.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I found it very interesting, listening to some of the 
debate today, that there seems to be some policymakers in the Senate 
who haven't come to understand that when another nation pegs its 
currency, rather than letting it float, it does so deliberately to put 
in effect what is essentially a tariff against imports. In our case, 
that is a tariff against American imports, and in some cases it 
provides a subsidy to exports.
  Now, here we are in America. Why would we say it is OK for China to 
peg its currency in a fashion that puts a tariff against American 
products and subsidizes Chinese exports to America? Because that is 
guaranteed to strip jobs out of America. Why would some Members of this 
Chamber consider that to be just fine? I am puzzled by that, and I am 
wondering if the Senator could help me understand.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I appreciate that. I was listening to one of the 
previous speakers who opposed this bill and characterized the bill as a 
China tariff bill. The Senator said it exactly right. When we sell to 
China, it is as if they put a tariff on our products. When we buy from 
them, we give them a 25-percent bonus--excuse me--when we try to sell 
to them, they ban that import. When we buy from them, they have a 25-
percent bonus. It is putting us at such a disadvantage, as the Senator 
said.
  Mr. MERKLEY. In Oregon, we recently had the shutdown of a company 
called Blue Heron. It has operated for the better part of a century, 
making paper. The point Blue Heron was making was that because of the 
pegging of the currency, the paper they tried to sell to China faced a 
25-percent tariff, while China's paper enjoyed a 25-percent subsidy if 
it was sold in the United States, and it created an absolutely unfair 
international trade playing field that was going to be putting American 
papermakers out of business. No matter how efficient they could 
possibly be, China, with this subsidy, could sell into the U.S. market, 
undercutting American products. Well, that plant shut down. It is one 
of a series of paper plants that have shut down. I think the Senator 
has some similar situations in Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. We do. The Senator from Oregon and I have talked 
about this, that there is a gentleman who worked for a paper company 
who illustrated to me what China has done. It was a specific kind of 
paper, a glossy, coated paper for magazines. The Chinese bought their 
wood pulp in Brazil, they shipped it to China, milled it there, and 
sold it back to the United States, and they undercut Blue Heron and 
Ohio paper companies because they had that 25-percent subsidy.
  There is no way, when labor costs are only about--labor is only about 
10 percent of the cost of paper production--there is no way they could 
possibly buy something as heavy and voluminous as wood pulp, ship it 
across the ocean, mill it, ship it back in the form of paper, and not--
the only way they can undercut prices is by huge subsidies. There may 
have been other subsidies to it. It may have been water and energy and 
capital and land, but it surely was that 25-percent subsidy these 
companies have when they undercut our manufacturers.
  I just know that in 15 years, I say to the Senator, or 10 years, we 
will look back on the history of our country and say: Why did we let 
one country undercut our manufacturing base so substantially and lose 
all those jobs and lose all that technology? When the products are 
invented in this country, the production is done offshore, and so much 
of the innovation that is done on the shop floor ends up in that 
country rather than here, it makes it harder for us, when we lose that 
innovative edge, to catch up.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I think it is important to understand as well that the 
pegged currency isn't the only tool China is using to create an unlevel 
playing field against American products. Another is that they use 
something economists call financial repression. That is a fancy word 
for artificially lowering the interest rates on savings on a level 
below inflation. So if you are a Chinese citizen and you are saving 
money and the inflation rate is 5 percent, the interest rate you are 
going to get is going to be less than 5 percent. It is a way, 
essentially, of taxing the entire nation, and then the Chinese 
Government takes those funds and they give massive subsidies to 
manufacturing in China. Those subsidies include grants, and they 
include below-market loans.
  So on top of the huge tariff on American products which basically 
stems from this currency manipulation, we have these huge subsidies to 
domestic manufacturers who export to the United States. China is 
supposed to disclose those subsidies under WTO, but it may come as a 
surprise to some in this Chamber that China doesn't do it. They only 
did it one year, in 2006. So they are taking the structure that was set 
up and they are abusing it. This adds

[[Page 14702]]

to, on top of the currency manipulation, further driving jobs out of 
the United States, discriminating against U.S. products.
  Isn't there a time when we as policymakers need to stand for American 
workers, stand for the American middle class, and say we are not going 
to allow another nation in a major trading relationship to break the 
rules in order to discriminate against the very products that put 
American workers out of work?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. As a result of the work Senator Schumer did early 
on this bill, with the cosponsorship of the Senator from North Carolina 
who is presiding, this bill really is the first major bipartisan jobs--
major, biggest jobs bill we have brought in front of this Chamber, and 
this is a chance to finally begin to look toward ways of 
reindustrializing our country and building manufacturing that matters 
in places such as Buffalo and Charlotte and Portland and Toledo.
  This bill is a real opportunity. I think that is why we got 79 votes 
on the first go-round on Monday night. I think it is why we have so 
many Republican sponsors of this bill. It is a result of the work 
Senator Schumer and Senator Graham have been doing for years to begin 
to build that foundation, and that is why the passage of this bill is 
so important.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, for 
his work, along with the work my colleague from New York, Senator 
Schumer, has done. It is time we stand for workers across our Nation 
who have been systematically losing the good-paying manufacturing jobs 
because China has been pegging its currency and discriminating against 
American products to subsidize the export of their own. This must be 
discussed in every corner of our Nation and must be discussed here on 
the floor of this Chamber because it is affecting the success of 
American families in Oregon, in Ohio, in New York, in North Carolina, 
and throughout our Nation.
  Thank you, Madam President. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, if Washington is going to force new 
regulations on the job creators of this country, I think America needs 
to know the cost of those regulations. That is why I rise today to 
discuss an important amendment, an amendment I am offering to the 
underlying China currency bill. It is Barrasso amendment No. 671. This 
amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment--it is cosponsored by 
Senator Manchin and Senator Blunt--will force the U.S. Government to 
look before it leaps when it comes to issuing job-crushing regulations.
  Simply put, the administration would be required to do a 
comprehensive and transparent jobs-impact analysis--a jobs-impact 
analysis--before issuing any job-crushing regulations.
  Job creation in this country has almost come to a halt. The Labor 
Department reported that zero jobs were created in August. The economic 
recovery that was promised by the administration failed to materialize. 
Unemployment remains at 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate 
in China is 4.1 percent. Our economy is stagnant. China's economy is 
growing. It has been this way since President Obama took office.
  The President blames the American people by saying the country has 
grown soft. In September, he stated in a TV interview in Florida:

       The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, 
     great country that has gotten a little soft and, you know, we 
     didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over 
     the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track.

  Yet, despite the repeated assurances of improvement, President 
Obama's own economic policies have failed. The only people who have 
gained from these policies live in countries overseas. We see it in 
China. These are people who are benefiting from American companies 
moving operations outside the United States. Why? Well, it is to escape 
Washington's redtape.
  The President's stimulus plan failed to produce the 3.5 million jobs 
the President had promised. His so-called green jobs initiative gave us 
more red ink but never came close to the 5 million new jobs he 
predicted.
  All the while, the Washington bureaucracy that he controls has 
continued to churn out extensive as well as expansive new regulations 
that amount to an assault on domestic private sector job creation. The 
facts are inescapable. Since President Obama took office, America has 
lost approximately 2.3 million jobs. We have been in an economic 
crisis, a crisis that extends to America's confidence in the President, 
confidence in this President to do anything that will change the 
current course.
  What the American people want is leadership, and they have rejected 
the President's insistence that the only way forward is through more 
spending and more Washington redtape on those in this country who 
create jobs.
  In September, the President addressed a joint session of Congress. He 
actually said he wanted to eliminate regulations, regulations he said 
put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time, he said, they can 
least afford it. Well, we heard this same message from the White House 
time and time again. The rhetoric coming out of this White House simply 
has not matched the reality.
  In fact, Washington continues to roll out redtape each and every day. 
The redtape makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector 
to create jobs while making it easier to create jobs in foreign 
countries such as China. The President said his administration has 
identified over 500 reforms to our regulatory system, he said, that 
would save billions of dollars the next few years.
  Well, I appreciate that the White House may have identified wasteful 
regulations, but it will not help our economy unless the White House 
repeals those wasteful regulations. The President's jobs plan does 
nothing to fix the regulatory burdens faced by America's job creators. 
His jobs plan actually adds to the burden on job creators in this 
country.
  The President has tried to justify this increasing avalanche of 
redtape. He said he does not want to choose between jobs and safety. 
Well, in today's regulatory climate, the choice is a false one. 
Washington's wasteful regulations are not keeping Americans safe from 
dangerous jobs. The American people cannot find jobs because no one is 
safe from the regulations coming out of Washington.
  For every step our economy tries to take forward, Washington 
regulations continue to stand in the way. The expansion of the Federal 
bureaucracy is suffocating the private sector economy. Federal agency 
funding has increased 16 percent over the past 3 years, while our 
economy has only grown 5 percent over the same 3 years.
  The regulatory burden is literally growing three times faster than 
our own economy. This massive increase in Washington's power has only 
made the U.S. economy worse and China's better. Americans know 
regulating our economy makes it harder and more expensive for the 
private sector to create jobs. The combined cost of new regulations 
being proposed by the Obama administration in July and August alone was 
$17.7 billion. Much of this cost was borne by Americans working in red, 
white, and blue jobs.
  Those who try to justify these policies claim they will help us 
create green jobs at some unknown time in the future. Our economy, our 
job market, is not a seesaw. Pushing one part down does not make the 
other side pop up. This administration's out-of-control regulations 
scheme is dragging down large portions of our economy.
  Now the President has promised to stop this kind of overreach. 
President Obama issued an Executive order at the start of this year. 
Way back in the beginning of 2011 he said he wanted to do that, to slow 
down Washington's regulations.

[[Page 14703]]

  Let's see how effective the President has been with his Executive 
order. Well, it has failed. In the month the President issued his 
Executive order, way back in the beginning of 2011, all of those months 
ago, hundreds of new rules and regulations have been either enacted or 
proposed. For every day that goes by, America's job creators face at 
least one new Washington rule to follow.
  When the President announced his Executive order, he said he wanted 
to promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. These are very 
laudable goals, but a new rule every day does nothing to promote 
predictability and is the very definition of uncertainty. The main 
source of uncertainty in the economy right now is Washington 
regulations.
  To make things worse, the people most victimized by this uncertainty 
are the very people the President claims he wants to help. The 
President said last year that when it comes to job creation, he wants 
to ``start where most new jobs do, with small businesses.''
  Well, the sentiment is right, but, again, what has he done about it? 
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, businesses with fewer than 
20 employees, well, those businesses incur regulatory costs that are 42 
percent higher than larger businesses which have up to 500 employees. 
These figures do not include the avalanche of new regulations coming 
down the road.
  Since January 1 of this year, over 50,000 pages of regulations have 
been added to the Federal Register. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has 
said the President's new health care law alone will produce 30,000 
pages of new health care regulations. At whom are many of those aimed? 
Well, it is these same small employers the President claims to want to 
help.
  The President said he will keep trying every new idea that works, and 
he will listen to every good proposal no matter which party, he said, 
comes up with it. Well, I have a pretty simple idea. If the President 
wants to know which proposals will work to create jobs, maybe he should 
require his regulatory agencies to tell him how their own actions will 
affect the job market.
  The amendment I am offering is going to do just that. It is a 
bipartisan amendment. It is based on a bill that I have introduced 
called the Employment Impact Act. This amendment will force every 
regulatory agency to prepare what is called a jobs impact statement--a 
jobs impact statement--for every new rule proposed.
  The impact statement must include a detailed assessment of the jobs 
that would be lost or even gained or sent overseas upon enactment of a 
rule coming out of Washington. Agencies would be required to consider 
whether new rules would have a bad impact on our job market in general. 
This job impact statement would also require an analysis of any 
alternative plans that might actually be better for our economy.
  The amendment requires regulatory agencies to examine and report on 
how new rules might interact with other proposals that are also coming 
down the road. The problem with Washington regulations is not only that 
they are too sweeping, but there are also too many. It makes no sense 
to look at any one individual rule or regulation in a vacuum and then 
enacting hundreds of them without identifying and understanding their 
cumulative impact and effect.
  The cumulative effect of those regulations is going to spell death by 
a thousand cuts for hard-working Americans who are trying to work, 
trying to support their families. In keeping with the principles of 
transparency that President Obama regularly proclaims is a priority for 
him, this bill, this amendment, will require every jobs impact 
statement prepared by a Federal agency to be made available to the 
public. The American people deserve to know--have a right to know--what 
their government is actually doing.
  Federal agencies in Washington need to learn to think, to think about 
the American people before they act. Requiring statements from these 
agencies on what their regulations will do is nothing new. For 40 years 
the Federal Government has required an analysis of how Federal 
regulations will impact America's environment. They have to file what 
are called environmental impact statements. What I am asking for is 
simply a jobs impact statement.
  Past generations of legislators rightly recognized the importance of 
America's land, air, and water. It is equally important that we 
recognize the importance of America's working families as well. 
America's greatest natural resource is the American people. We are 
talking about people who want to work, who are willing to work, who are 
looking for work, and yet cannot find a job.
  This amendment, the Barrasso amendment, will force Washington 
bureaucrats to realize Americans are much more interested in growing 
our Nation's economy than they are in growing China's economy.
  I urge a vote and adoption of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I rise today to, first of all, congratulate all of my 
colleagues, the 79 Members who came together to vote to proceed to a 
very important measure, a jobs bill that is currently before us.
  The great news is that it is a jobs bill that will cost us zero 
dollars to be able to implement in terms of about 2.25 million new 
jobs, new jobs that will come. Why? Because we are saying as a group, 
as the Senate: Enough is enough, and we want China as well as other 
countries to follow the rules. We want them to follow the rules so when 
our companies and our workers are competing in a global economy they 
will have a level playing field and the ability to compete. We know if 
the rules are fair, if there is a level playing field, we in America 
will compete, and we will win. We know that.
  The biggest violator on any number of trade issues we know of right 
now is China. When they joined the WTO 10 years ago, the whole point of 
them being able to join the world community under a world set of 
economic agreements was to make sure they would have to follow the 
rules like everybody else. But ever since that time they have done 
nothing but flagrantly violate the rules.
  When China does not play by the rules, it costs us jobs. It puts our 
businesses in Michigan, our workers in Michigan and across the country 
at a severe disadvantage. It has to stop. We in Michigan have been 
through more, deeper and longer than any other State in the Union, and 
we are coming back because of a great work ethic and ingenuity and 
ideas and entrepreneurship. We are moving forward and creating new 
ideas. More clean energy patents are being created in Michigan than in 
any other place in the country.
  We just had news today that, in fact, we are--last year 2010--the 
fastest growing high-tech sector. There are more high-tech research and 
development jobs in Michigan than any other place in the country. So we 
know how to compete and we know how to win.
  But we are in a global economy, where our companies are competing 
against countries. When we have an entity, a country like China that 
does not believe they need to follow the rules--whether it is stealing 
our patents, whether it is blocking our businesses from being able to 
bid to do business in China, or whether it is the huge issue of 
currency manipulation, which is in front of us today, we know the rules 
matter. We know it is our job to stand for American businesses and 
American workers, and that is what the bill in front of us does.
  It says to China and any other country involved in currency 
manipulation that we have had enough. It directs Treasury to take 
action; to look around the globe, determine where there is currency 
misalignment, and to prioritize the countries that are most egregious 
in their actions--we know China is at the top of that list--and then it 
requires them to act.
  It requires Commerce to work with our businesses to act. We have had 
enough talk. We have had enough of hearing about give China time. We 
are now past 10 years when they entered

[[Page 14704]]

the WTO, and every time we start talking about this, they say: Well, we 
are going to change it. We are starting to change it.
  There are those in Congress who say not only has it not changed but 
maybe it is even getting worse. The point is, we are losing jobs as a 
result of the way China cheats. Enough is enough.
  How do they do that? In this case, when we say currency manipulation, 
eyes glaze over. The reality is, because of the way they value their 
money--their currency--they are able to get an artificial discount. 
Their products appear to cost less coming to the United States--the 
same product made the same way. Ours artificially gets an increase in 
the price. It can be up to a 40-percent difference, not because of 
anything other than the fact that they do not value their currency the 
way every other country in the world does in the world economy. They 
always make sure they peg it in a way that they get a discount, no 
matter what.
  That is illegal under the WTO. It is unfair. It is cheating. That is 
what this bill fixes. A real-world example: We have some great auto 
parts manufacturers in Michigan, and a very common story would be that 
a part breaks and to get another part, it costs $100 in Michigan, but 
the Chinese were able to peg their cost at $60--not because it was any 
different, other than the fact that they value their currency in a way 
that allows them to have it appear that it costs less. So this is 
something we intend to take action on.
  We know right now that if the Chinese currency was revalued, if they 
did what everybody else does and followed the rules, we would see up to 
$286 billion added to the U.S. GDP right now. We would see 2.25 million 
U.S. jobs being created if China and others around them followed the 
lead and revalued their currency--2.25 million jobs. We don't need a 
line item in the budget to do that.
  We are not talking about a new program. We are simply talking about 
leveling the playing field and stopping China from cheating. We can 
create those jobs. Our deficit would be reduced by between $621 billion 
and $857 billion, at no cost to taxpayers. At a time when we are 
struggling with the largest deficit we have ever had, and we are 
struggling with how we address that, the ability to have up to $857 
billion reduced in our deficit at no cost to taxpayers--that sounds 
like a pretty good deal to me. People in Michigan would say: Why has it 
taken so long to be able to address this?
  Now is the time that we have a strong, bipartisan coalition. I am so 
proud of all our colleagues who have come together from every part of 
the country, every part of our economy, whether it is manufacturing, 
agriculture, textiles or those involved in high tech, saying it is time 
for us to stand for America, for American jobs, and for American 
businesses. That is what this is all about. What else are we hearing 
about this particular effort? The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben 
Bernanke, said:

       The Chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a 
     more normal recovery process in the global economy. It is . . 
     . hurting the recovery.

  Again, that is something we can do to reduce the deficit and create 
jobs. China is proceeding with a policy that is hurting the recovery, 
at a time when we need to get everything out of the way so we can come 
roaring back as a country. We are the greatest country in the world. We 
have tremendous challenges right now, economically, that we will work 
our way out of. But one of the first things we can do is say to China: 
Stop cheating.
  We also have C. Fred Bergsten, a former Assistant Treasury Secretary, 
saying this:

       I regard China's currency policy as the most protectionist 
     measure taken by any major country since World War II.

  Over the years, we have debated fair trade and free trade, whether it 
is protectionist to stand up for American businesses or workers, and 
here we have an expert saying to us that China's policy on currency 
manipulation is the ``most protectionist measure taken by any major 
country since World War II.''
  The reality is, we can compete with anybody and win--and we will. But 
it is our job to make sure there is a level playing field. This is 
about American competitiveness. This is about being a global economy 
and making sure the rules are fair, making sure everybody is following 
the same rules, and then let's go for it. I will put America's 
ingenuity and entrepreneurship, research and development, and skilled 
workforce up against anybody's.
  Some say--and we have heard from the highest levels of the Chinese 
Government--it could spark a trading war if we stand for our businesses 
and require there be a level playing field. We know we have a 
complicated relationship with China. We borrow funds to offset our 
debt. But we also are the largest consumer market in the world. They 
want to be able to sell to us. I cannot believe they will decide that 
they suddenly don't want to sell to the United States all those things 
they make, the largest consumer market in the world. The difference is, 
they would not be able to cheat, to get artificial discounts that will 
hurt an American small business that is making the same product.
  As for the American textile industry, I had an opportunity to visit 
some folks who make denim for jeans and folks in the cotton industry 
and talk about competitiveness and what this protectionist policy in 
China is doing to the American textile industry, which is beginning to 
come back--and will come back if, in fact, there is a level playing 
field on trade. But they are up against a situation where they 
artificially are facing a 28- to 30-percent discount because of 
currency manipulation. Yet they are still competing. Can you imagine if 
the rules were fair?
  This is about American competitiveness, and it is about the fact that 
we are responsible for making sure there is a level playing field for 
American businesses and American workers. We will not have a middle 
class in this country if we don't make and grow products. We want to 
make products here and grow products here and the jobs will be here and 
then we are happy to export products. We want to export our products, 
not our jobs. That is the difference. We are sick and tired of 
exporting our jobs because of the fact that China does not follow the 
rules. Enough is enough. After more than 10 years, they have not had to 
step up and do what they are supposed to be doing under the agreements 
they have entered into. Enough is enough.
  Again, I look forward to our final vote on this legislation. I think 
this is a very important moment, at a time when there are many 
disagreements, and there have been many difficult times in the Senate--
being able to move forward and take action, the fact that colleagues on 
both sides are standing together on behalf of businesses and workers at 
every corner of this country, saying we are going to fight for American 
jobs and businesses, large and small, and we are going to make sure we 
create a level playing field so we have the competitiveness structure 
we need in this country, because we know if we have that level playing 
field, there is nothing that can stop American ingenuity and American 
workers, who are the best in the world and will continue to be.
  I urge adoption of this bill and congratulate all my colleagues who 
have been involved with this issue for many years--colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle. I am very pleased we have been able to get the 
legislation to this point. It is now time to act on behalf of American 
workers and American businesses.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we discuss our relationship with China, 
it strikes me that we are ignoring one of the most critical issues 
impacting U.S.

[[Page 14705]]

competitiveness in regard to China--namely, China's inadequate 
protection of U.S. intellectual property, or what I call IP.
  Let's remember that intellectual property is our Nation's No. 1 
export. American IP underpins the knowledge economy, providing our 
workers and companies with a significant competitive advantage. In 
short, IP equals jobs for American workers. It is that simple. Studies 
have shown that IP-intensive industries employ more than 19 million 
workers, create higher paying jobs across all skill levels, and support 
more than 60 percent of total U.S. exports. That is why throughout my 
service here I have endeavored to ensure that U.S. innovators and 
content creators are able to operate in an environment in which their 
IP, or intellectual property, is adequately protected.
  I am pleased to have been the lead Republican sponsor of the recently 
enacted America Invents Act, which resulted in long overdue reforms to 
our Nation's patent system that will strengthen our economy, create 
jobs, and provide a springboard for further improvements to our 
intellectual property laws. I was very pleased to see Senator Grassley 
take that over as the new ranking member of the committee and do such a 
great job with it. And I want to pay tribute to the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as well and to my colleagues in the 
House who saw the importance of that particular new law. It is the 
first time we have modified the patent laws in over 50 years, and that 
was a historic event.
  So it is pretty apparent that I take a great interest in intellectual 
property and all aspects of it. I am the chairman of the Senate 
Republican High-Tech Task Force. I have to say it is really a privilege 
to work with these brilliant people who work in the intellectual 
property area, and while many of them are in Silicon Valley out in 
California, we have our own Silicon Valley in Utah that is becoming 
very well known, a lot of innovation. So we have most of the really 
great companies right there in Utah as well.
  U.S. leadership in innovation has not gone unnoticed by our economic 
and strategic competitors, who are adopting and evolving innumerable 
tactics to steal, expropriate, or otherwise undermine our intellectual 
property rights. Few, however, have been as overt in these efforts as 
China. The statistics on counterfeiting and piracy alone are 
staggering. According to a recent report by the U.S. International 
Trade Commission, firms in the U.S. IP-intensive economy that conducted 
business in China in 2009 reported losses of approximately $48.2 
billion--that is billion with a ``b''--in sales, royalties, or license 
fees due to IP infringement in China. Now, that bears repeating: $48.2 
billion in losses for U.S. companies due to intellectual property 
infringement in China.
  Perhaps most disturbingly, the ITC report noted that companies 
reported that an improvement in IP protection and enforcement in China 
to levels comparable to that in the United States would likely increase 
employment by 2.5 percent. Think what that would do for our country. 
That amounts to almost 1 million U.S. jobs. And these aren't just jobs, 
these are really good jobs. These are jobs that would benefit our 
country a great deal.
  But counterfeiting and piracy does not stop at China's border. Based 
on U.S. border seizure statistics, China is the primary source of 
counterfeited products in the United States. These counterfeited 
products from China run the gamut. We are talking about counterfeit 
toys, fake drugs, fake auto and aircraft parts, counterfeit computer 
chips, and counterfeit software, music, movies, and games--in essence, 
anything and everything that has value in the sights of Chinese 
counterfeiters. Imagine if you are flying on an airplane and the parts 
they thought were valid and good parts all of a sudden quit working. 
This is a very important point I am making.
  Clearly, this is not incidental. It is pervasive. Given China's 
system of government, it is fair to draw the conclusion that piracy and 
counterfeiting have explicit or implicit government approval, for there 
is little doubt that China would deal severely with any other activity 
they found objectionable well before it became pervasive. If they 
wanted to, they could clean this up. I hope they will because it is 
very much to the disadvantage of our country.
  It is becoming clearer every day that China's failure to protect U.S. 
intellectual property is part of a well-coordinated government-led 
national economic development plan. Nowhere is this more obvious than 
in China's adoption of plans to promote ``indigenous innovation.'' 
China's indigenous innovation policies disadvantage U.S. innovators 
through rules and regulations which mandate the transfer of valuable 
technology and rules which provide preferential treatment for 
intellectual property which is developed in China. In addition, there 
have been continued attempts to use technology standards as both a 
means to erect barriers to U.S. technology and as a means to unfairly 
acquire very valuable U.S. technology.
  This is not to say China has not made any progress in combating the 
theft of U.S. intellectual property. Certainly the commitments made at 
the recent JCCT meeting regarding indigenous innovation and government 
procurement were a positive step, as was the recent agreement by the 
Baidu Web site to license legitimate content from certain IP owners. 
But while these actions are a good start, there is a lot more that 
needs to be done.
  We can debate currency manipulation all day long, but if we want to 
foster immediate job growth in the United States, we should focus our 
energies on working to find ways to staunch the bleeding when it comes 
to the theft of American innovation by China. Again, we are talking 
about close to 1 million good-paying U.S. jobs which stand to be 
created if we can get this problem under control.
  I stand ready to work with my colleagues on this important set of 
issues, but these are important issues, and it is time for China to 
grow up and get into the world community and do what is right. It is a 
wonderful land. They have tremendous capacities. They are brilliant 
people. A lot of their engineers were educated here. They are people 
who really deserve to be leaders in the world community if they live in 
accordance with the basically honest rules of the world community. But 
right now they do not live in accordance with these rules, and they 
could do a much better job on intellectual property than they have 
done.
  I have been there a number of times, and each time I have gone there, 
I have raised the intellectual property issues and I have raised the 
piracy issues. They always say they are going to do something about 
these issues, but when push comes to shove, they really don't do what 
really needs to be done.
  Another important issue we need to discuss is enforcement, and that 
is why I filed amendment No. 679. My amendment requires the Comptroller 
General of the United States to submit an annual report to the Congress 
on the trade enforcement activities of the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative--or we refer to it as USTR. This is a simple amendment 
that serves a vitally important purpose.
  USTR is a relatively lean agency as compared to much of the bloated 
Federal bureaucracy. It is at the front lines in our efforts to open 
new markets to U.S. goods and services providers, and it leads the way 
in holding our trading partners accountable when they fail to live up 
to their trade commitments. It is a tough job. U.S. companies face an 
unrelenting onslaught of governments and NGOs which collaborate in 
seeking new ways to hamper America's economic competitiveness by 
undermining our intellectual property rights, by imposing unwarranted 
phyto-sanitary measures that have no basis in science, by enacting new 
technical barriers to trade, imposing unfair pricing and regulatory 
regimes upon our industries, and other equally harmful measures. Our 
goal, of course, should be to eliminate every single one of these. But 
the reality of the situation is that, in a world of limited resources, 
we must prioritize.
  To my mind, the No. 1 priority should be removing barriers to our 
exports of goods and services, and eliminating foreign government 
practices

[[Page 14706]]

which most impact U.S. jobs and economic well-being. Unfortunately, 
that has not been the case under this administration. Unfortunately, 
that is the situation we find ourselves in.
  To cite an example, most people realize that China is an enormous 
problem for U.S. innovators and content creators. Our companies face 
policies designed to foster Chinese innovation at the expense of U.S. 
innovators, the imposition of standards-based barriers, the continued 
refusal to direct adequate resources toward stemming counterfeiting and 
piracy in both the online and physical realms, and other policies, 
laws, and regulations that diminish the value of U.S. intellectual 
property. To date, this administration has not filed a single 
intellectual property-related enforcement action against China.
  Similarly, Chile continues to flagrantly violate the terms of our 
bilateral free-trade agreement with regard to crucial protections for 
intellectual property. Despite the direct and demonstrable harm to 
American innovators and workers, no dispute settlement process has been 
initiated with regard to Chile's failure to adequately protect 
intellectual property in accordance with the terms of our free-trade 
agreement that we have entered into with them.
  In contrast, after 3-plus years of devoting significant resources to 
intensive negotiations with the Government of Guatemala, the Obama 
administration announced the initiation of the first ever bilateral 
labor dispute against an FTA partner. The administration also recently 
announced that it will investigate allegations by a Peruvian union that 
the Government of Peru has violated its labor under the United States-
Peru Free Trade Agreement. To me, these actions demonstrate skewed 
enforcement priorities.
  It is hard to believe that Guatemala's alleged failure to adequately 
enforce its own domestic labor laws is anywhere near the top of the 
list when it comes to trade barriers facing U.S. companies and workers. 
I also find it hard to believe that expending critical enforcement 
dollars to defend the interests of a Peruvian labor union should be 
among the top trade enforcement policies for this administration.
  China, India, Brazil, Russia, and Chile are some of the many 
countries where we face very real threats to American industry and 
competitiveness due to unfair trade practices and barriers. But instead 
of focusing on these immediate, ongoing, and very real economic harms, 
the administration seeks yet again to instead score political points 
with labor union leadership.
  I can hardly blame them for that, in a sense, because the trade 
unions in this country are the biggest supporters of the President and 
of the Democrats, but it is outrageous to not put our country first 
under the circumstances. It really is outrageous. I think even the 
trade unions are going to have to stop and think about, is this 
administration doing what is right with regard to our interests in all 
of these countries I have mentioned.
  It is outrageous to direct the limited resources of our most 
important trade agency toward activities that have little to do with 
opening new markets or protecting U.S. jobs. This inability to 
prioritize based upon what is best for workers in the economy, as 
compared to what is best for building labor union support, is another 
unfortunate example of the administration's inability to lead on trade.
  My amendment requires the Comptroller General, on a yearly basis, to 
detail the enforcement activities undertaken by the USTR and assess the 
economic impact of each such activity, including the impact on 
bilateral trade and on employment in the United States. It would also 
include an assessment of the cost of, and resources dedicated to, each 
such activity.
  I am hopeful my amendment will assist this and future administrations 
in setting rational enforcement priorities. By providing an objective 
measure of the likely impact on trade and employment of any enforcement 
activities undertaken, it will also be an important resource for this 
and future Congresses in the conduct of our oversight responsibilities.
  I would hope all of my Senate colleagues could support an amendment 
which provides us with important information and insights which will 
help us in ensuring that USTR utilizes taxpayer funds in the most 
effective manner possible toward opening markets and removing barriers 
to U.S. companies and workers.
  I rise again today in support of my amendment No. 680. First, allow 
me to further explain some of my underlying concerns with the current 
bill's approach.
  We have heard many estimates of job losses in the United States 
associated with our trade deficit with China, following China's entry 
into the WTO, the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, most of 
those estimates are highly unreliable and should be taken with a large 
amount of skepticism.
  We have heard numbers coming out of the labor-backed Economic Policy 
Institute, or EPI, saying that 2.8 million U.S. jobs have been lost or 
displaced because of trade deficits with China since that country's 
entry into the WTO, with 1.9 million of those jobs estimated to have 
been in manufacturing. Unfortunately, those estimates come from an 
unreliable static analysis which essentially says imports displace 
labor used in domestic production and, therefore, lead directly to job 
loss and unemployment.
  Looking at this particular chart here, you can see from that chart 
the relation between U.S. imports, which is the blue line, and the 
unemployment rate, which is the red line, and you can see how it has 
shot up since 2008, and it is still wavering at the top--does not seem 
to conform the jobs and unemployment claims being made with some of the 
numbers being used in our current debate. If anything, a casual 
observer might even say that when import growth is strong, it tends to 
be associated with a strong underlying economy, one in which 
unemployment is relatively low.
  You can see from this chart that the imports were going up throughout 
the first part of 2002 to 2008, when they hit the pinnacle and then all 
of a sudden drop down with this administration. Now they are coming 
back up. But the unemployment rate has now gone up tremendously, and it 
doesn't seem to be coming down very far. So there is a correlation 
here. And, frankly, one that concerns me, as the chart suggests, 
following the pro-growth tax relief of 2003, the economy began to pick 
up some steam, imports correspondingly grew, and the unemployment rate 
fell until the financial crisis hit. That unemployment rate went down. 
The 2.8 million job loss number from the labor-funded think tank, or 
the 1.6 million job loss number the majority leader recently mentioned 
here on the floor, and many of the other job loss numbers associated 
with the China currency issue that are being offered by many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the floor, are highly unreliable and 
often not much different from numbers simply picked out of thin air.
  The jobs numbers do not account for dynamic flows of workers from 
industry to industry, and the message being delivered is that if a job 
and an industry went away and net imports were going up, then the job 
must have been lost or displaced because of trade. Well, that is 
foolish.
  What happened to the displaced worker? The analysis doesn't take that 
into account, and merely suggests, misleadingly, that the worker is 
unemployed. What happens to the dollars that are associated with 
financing any increased net increase in imports? The analysis doesn't 
take that into account.
  If we run a higher trade deficit, finance it with dollar outflows, 
and foreign countries recycle the dollars back into Treasury bills to 
finance the President's stimulus spending spree, does the analysis take 
into account the resulting jobs that the President claims become 
``saved or created''? No. Those jobs numbers are only convenient when 
advocates of the stimulus, such as the EPI, wish to promote more debt-
fueled government spending.
  I do not dispute that there are important dynamic effects of 
international

[[Page 14707]]

trade on the U.S. labor market. I do dispute many of the numbers being 
tossed about and offered as estimates of job losses stemming from trade 
with China. I do dispute that dealing with our bilateral trade deficit 
with China is the most important thing we can do for jobs today, as the 
Senate majority leader has suggested. Those doubts, of course, are not 
reasons to not act on the Chinese currency issue, but they do lead me 
to doubt the job creation priorities of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle.
  The President has been actively campaigning for congressional 
consideration and passage of the so-called American Jobs Act--right 
now, today--yet the majority leader here in the Senate refuses to let 
us consider the President's proposal right now, despite the minority 
leader having introduced a proposal for Senate consideration. 
Evidently, Senate Democrats believe that construction of a new 
mechanism to use to confront China and raise prospects of trade wars is 
more important to jobs than the President's plan. I don't think so.
  The President states--rightfully so--that unemployed American workers 
don't have 14 months to wait for action on jobs. Yet we are considering 
a currency bill that, at best, would set in motion a lengthy process of 
currency misalignment determinations and perhaps ensuing trade 
sanctions. If anyone believes that the process set up in the currency 
bill to confront any currency misalignment in existence today will lead 
to job creation right now or in the next 14 months, then I suggest they 
do not understand much about international trade, labor markets, and 
the often painfully slow processes of international trade negotiations.
  It took President Obama over 2\1/2\ years to send free-trade 
agreements to Congress, bills that were all set to go from the day he 
took office. Do you believe the legislation before us, even if it went 
into effect right now, would lead to a fundamental misalignment finding 
immediately, along with rapidly ensuing dialogue and action that would 
lead to job creation right now? Even if the legislation before us today 
were implemented today, it would likely take months and years before it 
achieved any results.
  It is important to confront existing currency misalignments and 
global imbalances, the sources of which include persistently high 
amounts of U.S. debt made significantly worse during the past 3 years 
of deficits in excess of $1 trillion that were used wastefully on so-
called ``stimulus'' and commercially non-viable green energy 
experiments that just plain did not work. People are starting to wake 
up to this type of approach to government.
  To say that the issue of China's managed currency peg is the most 
important issue for job creation today is telling, and it certainly 
does not speak well for how the President's jobs act is perceived by 
his Senate Democratic colleagues as a job creator.
  My concerns go beyond some of the claims related to job creation. I 
am afraid the current bill will be ineffective, and could actually end 
up harming our exporters through retaliation. That is a real fear, it 
is a real concern, especially since the Chinese have said they will 
retaliate. We don't need that right now, with the economy the way it 
is. But that is what they are going to do if this bill passes, even 
though some might think that is the right thing to do. And I am not the 
only one with concerns. Today, according to an article by the 
Associated Press, the White House finally publicly stated that it has 
concerns with this legislation. While we still don't know what those 
specific concerns are, we do know that they believe approval of the 
bill would be counterproductive.
  We know that. Why doesn't the administration come out and say it? Why 
is it the President cannot lead on these issues? Why is it he always 
calls on Congress to lead on these issues? That is why we elected him 
as President--or should I say, that is why they elected him as 
President, because I did not vote for him, even though I like him 
personally. I did vote for my colleague, John McCain.
  Similar concerns were expressed in an opinion editorial by the New 
York Times entitled ``The Wrong Way to Deal with China.'' They call 
this bill a ``bad idea'' and ``too blunt of an instrument.'' 
Specifically, they state that the bill is very unlikely to persuade 
China to change its practices, noting that it will instead ``add an 
explosive new conflict to an already heavy list of bilateral 
frictions.''
  That is the New York Times. My goodness. That is pretty much the 
Bible for folks on the other side, and they do write very effectively 
on some of these issues.
  I agree currency manipulation is a serious problem, and I have 
proposed a better way to address it. My amendment empowers the 
administration to work within existing frameworks to mitigate the 
effects of currency manipulation and stop it from occurring. If our 
negotiators cannot make progress in the WTO and IMF--we go there 
first--we must go outside these organizations and align with other 
like-minded countries to confront the Chinese currency interventions 
together.
  I could not agree more with my colleagues who have introduced the 
bill we are debating that China's beggar-thy-neighbor's currency 
policies do harm the United States and our workers, and from that 
standpoint, I commend my colleagues. But massive currency interventions 
harm many other economies and their workers as well. We should join 
together in a pluralistic way to counter China's actions and negotiate 
a long-term solution to stop the fundamental misalignment of 
currencies, whether by China or any other country. If we did that, it 
would bring tremendous worldwide pressure on China, rather than acting 
in a bilateral fashion, which this bill will do. My amendment would 
allow that to occur. I would be happy to give credit to the other side 
if they would accept that amendment. They have to know it is a 
prescient, worthy amendment--something that would make a difference, 
rather than just making talking points or creating a trade war with a 
country that we should work toward getting along with.
  Appreciating the Chinese currency will help address global 
macroeconomic imbalances and serve China's long-term economic interests 
as well, while ensuring that American businesses, farmers, 
manufacturers, service providers, and workers compete on a level 
playing field.
  I just introduced this amendment yesterday around noon and I am 
pleased many of my colleagues have reviewed my substitute bill and they 
do support it and support a different approach. I think, if we want to 
work together, it is a perfect way of doing it because it gives what 
the folks want on this side and brings the right kind of pressure, 
without causing a huge trade war that is going to be very much to our 
disadvantage.
  In addition, since the introduction of my amendment, many business 
associations, advocacy groups, think tanks, and others have come out in 
support of my substitute bill. I did not file that for political 
reasons. I did not file that to just cause trouble. I filed it because 
these ideas in that bill are far superior to the ideas in the 
underlying bill. I think my friends on the other side ought to look at 
it and tell me where they can improve it and take it over, if they 
will. The fact is, it is far superior to what the underlying bill is.
  Many agree my approach is our best chance at solving this problem 
that we all find so frustrating. To those who think this is more of the 
same old approach, I say absolutely not. The old policies and the old 
Exchange Rate Act have not worked and they need to go. On that I think 
we all agree.
  My proposal does not say try and work this out with China and hope 
for the best. Instead, my approach directs our negotiators to work with 
others and challenge China until a solution is agreed to. My approach 
does not prevent the United States from taking unilateral action, but 
it does demand that the administration seek out those countries that 
will join our efforts to combat currency manipulation so our actions 
are more effective and bring worldwide pressure on China to do what is 
right and to be more fair. We do need a bold, new approach, and we

[[Page 14708]]

need to empower our negotiators to work within the WTO and IMF to 
ensure a level playing field for American businesses and workers. But 
if they cannot do that there and these institutions cannot handle this 
problem, then we must join with other like-minded countries to act in 
concert to counter China's currency policies outside the WTO and IMF.
  This bill is going to cause a tremendous dislocation if it passes, 
and it is going to cause a trade war that is much to our disadvantage. 
It may make good populist talk, but it will be very much to our 
disadvantage and, in the end, will not do what they want it to do. My 
bill will. It may take some effort, but my bill will.
  If they cannot confront these existing currency misalignments and 
global imbalances the way we are suggesting, if they cannot do that 
there and these institutions cannot handle this problem, then we have 
to join other like-minded countries to act in concert to counter 
China's currency policies outside the WTO and IMF.
  That is what leadership is all about. That is what real executive 
branch leadership should be about. That is what a real USTR should be 
about. But we also need a partner. We need an administration that will 
lead on this issue. If I have an objection to this administration, it 
is that they do not lead on anything. They didn't send up a budget or 
the one they did failed 97 to zero. But they have not taken it 
seriously. They just wait for Congress to act and for Congress to do 
these things. That is what we elected the President to do, to send up 
his approach to this. That is what we elected him for and he ought to 
do that. But they do not, for some reason.
  We also need a partner. We need an administration that will lead on 
this issue. My amendment will hold the administration accountable until 
they achieve results and that is whether it is this administration or a 
successive administration. We are debating which approach will better 
solve the chronic currency manipulation problem with China. My approach 
has been endorsed by Americans for Tax Reform, which said that the 
Hatch amendment ``offers a sensible approach that utilizes the 
mechanisms created by the international trade community to resolve such 
disputes.''
  The Emergency Committee for American Trade says the Hatch amendment 
``will more effectively address concerns about currency misalignment by 
China and other countries, without opening the door to many harmful 
effects on U.S. business and workers.''
  The Retail Industry Leaders Association also supports my amendment, 
as does the Financial Services Roundtable. This amendment is already 
generating significant support. Why don't my friends on the other side 
take it, declare victory, and go from there? They can refile it in 
their name. That will be fine with me. I don't care who gets the credit 
for it, I just care that we handle it in a way that makes sense rather 
than make a bunch of political points that frankly will irritate the 
daylights out of our friends from China.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and let's all agree to 
hold the administration accountable and work with the other like-minded 
countries to challenge China's currency practices.
  I am happy to yield the floor at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks by the senior Senator from Ohio I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I said to Senator Inhofe I will be 
no more than 10 minutes and I appreciate his courtesy and his being 
here.
  I rise in opposition to the Hatch amendment. I respect and appreciate 
my colleague from Utah and his proposal to negotiate a solution with 
China and other nations on currency. I have worked with him on the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, as the Presiding 
Officer has, and I appreciate his concern on all these issues and his 
wide range of knowledge. My firm belief, however, is his amendment is 
not going to work. I know he generally does not want to take the same 
direction we do in standing up to the Chinese. I think, when we talk 
about multilateral negotiation, we are pretty much saying to the 
Chinese: Please stop the strategy, however unfair and in violation of 
international norms, that has helped your country accumulate enormous 
wealth. Please stop. We hope you will stop. Please stop, or we are 
saying please stop what Fred Bergsten says is the ``most protectionist 
policy any major country has taken since World War II.''
  We have tried this. We now have the ability to do multilateral 
negotiations. Senator Hatch is right. The administration has not 
particularly led on that.
  He is also right to add that the Bush administration also did not 
particularly lead on that. Before that, the Clinton administration did 
not particularly lead on that.
  We have the ability, without amendment No. 680--because it would add 
nothing significant to the procedures and the steps that are already in 
place as a matter of current law and practice--to do these 
negotiations. We have an administration, a Treasury Department that may 
change political parties from time to time but doesn't change 
strategies in dealing with the Chinese. It is always: Please stop. We 
hope you will do something differently. We would like it if you would 
change what you are doing. We think it would be better if you are not 
cheating on currency and cheating on international trade policies. We 
would like, now that we let you into the World Trade Organization, that 
you actually follow the rules of the WTO. We think it would be great if 
you follow the force of law and the rule of law.
  Saying those things has gotten us nowhere. That is why, while I 
respect Senator Hatch, amendment No. 680 doesn't get us anywhere. It 
doesn't change the law. It just delays. We know how the Chinese like it 
when we delay because every day we delay is one more day where the 
Chinese cheat, where the Chinese have an advantage, where the Chinese, 
the People's Republic of China, the Communist Party, can again take 
advantage of American workers and American companies.
  The Treasury Department already has specific reporting obligations. 
They already have ample authority to consult and engage bilaterally, 
multilaterally, and plurilaterally under the Exchange Rates and 
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988, which amendment No. 680 would 
repeal.
  I appreciate what Senator Hatch wants to do, but the fact is, we have 
to make the Chinese understand, other than occasional pleading, 
occasional begging, the occasional polite requests--we have to make 
them understand, if they do not stop manipulating their currency, if 
they don't stop intervening to keep a weaker renminbi, the United 
States will defend itself. The United States cannot turn the other 
cheek on this one.
  The Presiding Officer said the other day the Chinese steal our lunch, 
and if we take any of it back, they get all upset at us, although the 
Presiding Officer said it better than I just said it. But the fact is, 
the Chinese have not played fairly. I used the example on the Senate 
floor of what currency manipulation means in very simple terms. If 
there is a gas station on Summit Street in Akron and there is a gas 
station across the street--there are two Marathon stations--one of the 
Marathon stations gets its oil from Findlay, OH, at a 30-percent 
discount and the other station doesn't, the Marathon station that gets 
a discount is going to put the other one out of business, pure and 
simple.
  As Senator Merkley said the other day, there is a tariff on goods we 
sell to China, and there is a subsidy on goods China sells to us. How 
do we compete with that? Amendment No. 680 will not help us compete 
with that, it will just delay and delay. That does not make sense. That 
is why this legislation, S. 1619, without the Hatch amendment, makes 
much more sense. It allows us

[[Page 14709]]

to move finally and quickly. It allows us to move with certainty. It 
allows us to move straightforwardly. It strips away all the delay and 
the head fakes and the feinting and all the other things the Chinese 
Party Government is so good at doing.
  I ask for defeat of the amendment and passage of S. 1619, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion 
of my remarks that Senator Harkin be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, recently both the majority leader and the 
minority leader came down to the floor to talk about the President's 
jobs bill. There was an effort to bring up this bill by the minority 
leader, and it was objected to by the majority leader. And I understand 
that, but all we have heard from the President from the very first time 
he introduced this was ``pass the bill, pass the bill, pass the bill.'' 
I know there is some reason he keeps using that phrase over and over. 
It has probably been tested and is one that I think he believes will 
move a lot of people. Frankly, I don't think it will because too many 
people remember what happened the last time he had a stimulus bill. 
That is something which has not been really discussed on the floor in 
consideration of what he refers to as the jobs bill. So I can see why 
he keeps talking about passing the bill, because he doesn't really want 
to talk about it.
  His new proposal reminds me so much of that $825 billion stimulus 
package he rammed through Congress shortly after entering office. It is 
almost the same thing. The Recovery Act is the $825 billion act. It 
included only $27.5 billion in highway spending, which was the stimulus 
portion of that bill. We are talking about 3 percent of the $825 
billion.
  I am particularly sensitive to this since I have in the past been the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am now 
the ranking member. We have a Transportation reauthorization bill we 
are trying to get up and get up on a bipartisan basis.
  Back during the consideration of the Recovery Act, the $825 billion, 
I tried to pass an amendment on this floor to increase that to about 30 
percent instead of 3 percent of the bill. If that had happened, we 
would not be in the situation we are today. We would have a lot of jobs 
out there that would be under construction and good things would be 
happening.
  In the case of this $447 billion bill, which is kind of the Recovery 
Act lite, there is only $27 billion in highway spending, and it is not 
conceivable that he didn't learn his lesson from the first go-around 
that that is the main reason people are upset with it right now. That 
is the reason he keeps saying: Pass the bill, pass the bill.
  The proposal includes a few different things, but much of it will be 
sent to the President to spend however he wants. Now, you may be 
wondering, will Congress tell the President where to spend the money? 
To a very limited extent, that is right. When Congress does not tell 
the President exactly what he is to do with each dime he gets, the 
President gets to decide what to fund.
  This administration has a history of making incredibly poor spending 
decisions with the money appropriated to it. The biggest example I can 
think of is the $825 billion stimulus package. When the President 
signed this bill in February of 2009, he said--and I want you to hold 
this thought--he said:

       What I'm signing, then, is a balanced plan with a mix of 
     tax cuts and investments. It's a plan that's been put 
     together without earmarks or the usual pork barrel spending. 
     It's a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented 
     level of transparency and accountability.

  That is what he said. That is a direct quote. For those of you who 
are watching, I have news for you: Despite the President's remarks, the 
spending was not balanced, and it had a tremendous amount of porkbarrel 
earmark spending even though there were no congressional earmarks. This 
is a distinction not many people make. I tried to get this point across 
back when the Republicans very foolishly talked about having a 
moratorium on earmarks. I said: Those are congressional earmarks. That 
is not where the problem is. The problem is in bureaucratic earmarks.
  The clearest and most recent example of a huge earmark is the loan 
guarantee that was given to Solyndra. We have been reading about this 
and hearing about it recently. It is now a bankrupt solar panel 
manufacturing company. We have heard about that. Solyndra was a 
politically connected firm from California that was able to lobby the 
White House to obtain a loan guarantee of $535 million to fund its 
green jobs pipedream. This happened despite the fact that some in the 
administration were warning the White House to give them more time to 
evaluate the company's finances. It seems they were concerned about the 
company's long-term viability. But these warnings were ignored by the 
White House. They wanted to fund the project anyway. Why? I think it 
was for two reasons: First, the White House has a fascination with 
green energy; second, political gamesmanship. Some of Solyndra's 
biggest investors are big fundraisers and have been big fundraisers for 
President Obama. We now know they made repeated visits to the White 
House. That is not just a coincidence.
  Another question is this: How did the White House have the authority 
to give the loan guarantee to Solyndra in the first place? The short 
answer is Obama's stimulus package. That was the $825 billion stimulus 
package. It significantly expanded the Department of Energy's Loan 
Guarantee Program, and with this expansion the White House was able to 
select Solyndra for a loan guarantee.
  While the stimulus package did not include any porkbarrel spending in 
the way that most people think about it--congressional earmarks--this 
provides clarity to the fact that when Congress does not explicitly 
state where taxpayer funds should go, the money is handed over to the 
administration to spend however they want. They get to earmark every 
last dime.
  In the case of Solyndra, the President handed it over to his 
political buddies who were in favor of the green energy projects. If 
that isn't a porkbarrel project, I don't know what is. Now the damage 
has been done, and the taxpayers are going to be on the hook for as 
much as $535 million in losses.
  Sadly, Solyndra is just one of many examples of porkbarrel spending 
in the stimulus bill. We are talking about the first stimulus bill, the 
$825 billion bill. Not too long ago, Sean Hannity had on his program--I 
think it took him two programs to get it through--the 102 most 
egregious earmarks that are recorded. It is really kind of interesting. 
In fact, I have the whole list here, and I am going to ask that it be 
made a part of the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. I would love to be able to name all of these. These are 
just ridiculous. There is $219,000 to study the hookup behavior of 
female college co-eds in New York; $1.1 million to pay for the 
beautification of Los Angeles, Sunset Boulevard; $10,000 to study 
whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol in Florida. 
It goes on and on. Again, there are 102 of these. These are the most 
egregious.
  What is interesting is that the day after Sean Hannity exposed these 
earmarks--102 of them--I came to the floor and I read all 102 of them. 
I said: What do these 102 earmarks have in common? The answer: Not one 
is a congressional earmark. They are all bureaucratic earmarks. They 
all came from the $825 billion.
  Remember I said a minute ago that he said there will be no earmarks 
in this package? It is the same thing he is saying about this second 
go-around for the jobs bill he is talking about today. The 
administration took $825 billion that Congress gave it and chose to 
spend it on stupid things such as the ones I just listed, but there are 
102 of

[[Page 14710]]

them. I hope he will take the time, since it will be in the Record, to 
read all 102 of them.
  What does this have to do with the jobs bill? To me, the jobs bill is 
simply the President coming back to Congress to ask for more money to 
spend however he wants on porkbarrel projects such as these. No one has 
talked about this on the floor. They have talked about the problems 
they have with this spending bill and why it is really not a jobs bill, 
but no one is talking about the fact that this is exactly what he did 
before. I don't know why we are not talking about this and featuring 
this because if he said before that there were going to be no earmarks 
and then he had 102 egregious earmarks, why would he not do the same 
thing now? The answer is, he would do it. He would like to hand this 
out to his cronies in ways that would best benefit him.
  You may remember the President's State of the Union Address from 
earlier this year. In it, he promised, and I quote, ``If a bill comes 
to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.'' Well, you have a 
promise from the President that unless Congress gives him all of the 
authority to determine how money is spent through the bureaucratic 
earmark process, he will veto the bill. In other words, he will veto a 
bill unless he has total authority on how to spend it, and he can spend 
it on his own earmarks in spite of the fact that he said there will be 
no earmarks. So for any jobs bill to be considered, Congress is going 
to have to let the President decide how all the money is being spent. 
It is a hard concept to get ahold of.
  ``Earmarks'' has become a dirty word, and people assume that when you 
say ``earmarks,'' you are talking about congressional earmarks. That is 
not the problem. I have legislation I am going to be talking about that 
will correct this and better inform the public as to what is really 
going on. So we are finding ourselves in the same situation again.
  What is worse is the fact that the problem of bureaucratic earmarks 
is not limited to special stimulus packages. It is a normal course of 
business. On any given day, the administration is making thousands of 
decisions on how to spend money it has appropriated. Congress first 
passes laws authorizing the executive branch to do certain things, and 
then we appropriate the money and go and do it. But unless Congress 
gives specific instructions as to where to spend the money--a process 
many people decry as congressional earmarks--the administration gets to 
decide where to spend the money. In other words, the bureaucracy does 
the earmark or President Obama does it.
  I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We are staffed with experts 
in defending America. We have experts in missile defense, experts in 
lift capability, all of that. The way it has always happened before is 
the President--whether it was President Bush or Clinton or any other 
President--designs a budget, and that budget, the parameters, goes to 
Congress. Then we in the authorization committees decide if we agree 
with the President and how he wants to defend America.
  A good example of that is that right before the prohibition on 
earmarks came in, the President sent his budget down--I think that was 
his first budget--and in that budget was $330 million for a launching 
system. It was called a Bucket of Rockets. It was a good system. It was 
something I would like to have for defending America. But when we 
analyzed it, we looked and we thought, with what is happening right 
now, our greatest need is to expand our F-18 program and buy six new F-
18s. So we took the $330 million he would have spent on the rocket-
launching system and spent it on six new F-18s, and it was a wise thing 
to do. You can't do that now because the President has to make all of 
the decisions because that would be called a congressional earmark.
  Earmarks don't increase spending at all. All they do is say: All 
right, Mr. President, you go ahead and spend it the way you want to. A 
recent example of this comes from the Bureau of Land Management within 
the Department of the Interior.
  While I could talk for hours about whether the management of Federal 
lands is appropriate for government to do, that is not what I want to 
bring your attention to. That is another discussion for another time. 
What I am concerned about is how carefully the Bureau of Land 
Management works to keep its actions aligned with the authorization and 
power it has been given by Congress. We write laws for a reason. We say 
the bureaucracy can do certain things and not do certain things. When 
we do that, we are limiting the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy's 
authority. We are not saying they can interpret the law in any way they 
choose, but generally that doesn't stop them from trying.
  One thing the Bureau of Land Management is authorized to do by a 
statute is to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements to 
manage, protect, develop, and sell public lands. In managing public 
lands, title 43 authorizes the BLM to, among others things, preserve 
the land's historic value.
  A few days ago, as I was searching through the government's grants 
database--by the way, this database is something we put in when 
Republicans were a majority in our committee. The Environment and 
Public Works Committee has a database which will show people, if they 
care to wander through, just what the bureaucracy is spending money on.
  I was looking through the grants database, and I came across one that 
shocked me. On September 9 of this year, just a few days ago, the BLM 
announced its intent to award a grant of $214,000 to the Public Land 
Foundation to fund a research project to describe in detail why the 
Homestead Act of 1862 had a significant impact on the history of 
America. When I asked them to justify that, they started talking about 
how important history is.
  Today, my question is this: What part of this grant has anything to 
do with today's actual public lands? This is not a grant to dust off 
the historic landmarks at national parks. This is a research project to 
study history, which may be a noble task, but nonetheless that is what 
it is for.
  What the American people need to understand is that this sort of 
thing happens all the time. The bureaucracy is completely numb to the 
fact that we have a $1.5 trillion deficit just in this year alone, and 
while this should inform the way it spends money and help to prioritize 
accordingly, it doesn't. The bureaucracy takes the money given to it by 
Congress and spends it on porkbarrel projects that are important to the 
President. Right now, there is no way around this. There is no 
accountability or transparency built into it in any way. The 
bureaucracy earmarks its funds.
  I believe this needs to be changed, and I am currently drafting 
legislation that will change the way the bureaucracy makes funding 
decisions. My legislation will bring true transparency and 
accountability to the process, and it will require the administration 
to state explicitly which laws authorize its grant awards. It will also 
provide a way for Congress to weigh in and challenge the 
administration's thinking. This is not just for the current 
administration; it is for any administration.
  With trillions of dollars in deficits, we cannot afford to give the 
President another $447 billion to spend on whatever he wants because 
that is what it would be. We need to reduce spending, but we also need 
to ensure that the spending we are doing is justified by the laws 
Congress passes. Because of this, we need to bring more light and 
accountability to the bureaucratic earmarking process.
  Further, I warn my colleagues to not be fooled into the idea that 
whenever we pass money off to the administration, it is in safe hands. 
The opposite is true, and I urge my colleagues to oppose more blank 
check stimulus spending because of it.
  Again, after President Obama stated on February 17, 2009, there will 
be no earmarks in his $825 billion stimulus bill, it contained more 
than 100 very egregious, offensive earmarks. I could--again, I am not 
going to read off the list, but it will be a part of the Record 
following these remarks I am making now.
  He will do it again. If we pass another $450 billion stimulus bill, 
we can

[[Page 14711]]

be sure it will be full of earmarks as bad as the ones he put in the 
initial stimulus bill.
  This is our second blank check for the President. He fooled us once. 
Do not let it happen again.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               Bureaucratic Earmarks in the Stimulus Bill

       102. Protecting a Michigan insect collection from other 
     insects ($187,632)
       101. Highway beautified by fish art in Washington ($10,000)
       100. University studying hookup behavior of female college 
     coeds in New York ($219,000)
       99. Police department getting 92 blackberries for 
     supervisors in Rhode Island ($95,000)
       98. Upgrades to seldom-used river cruise boat in Oklahoma 
     ($1.8 million)
       97. Precast concrete toilet buildings for Mark Twain 
     National Forest in Montana ($462,000)
       96. University studying whether mice become disoriented 
     when they consume alcohol in Florida ($8,408)
       95. Foreign bus wheel polishers for California ($259,000)
       94. Recovering crab pots lost at sea in Oregon ($700,000)
       93. Developing a program to develop ``machine-generated 
     humor'' in Illinois ($712,883)
       92. Colorado museum where stimulus was signed (and already 
     has $90 million in the bank) gets geothermal stimulus grant 
     ($2.6 million)
       91. Grant to the Maine Indian Basketmakers Alliance to 
     support the traditional arts apprenticeship program, 
     gathering and festival ($30,000)
       90. Studying methamphetamines and the female rat sex drive 
     in Maryland ($30,000)
       89. Studying mating decisions of cactus bugs in Florida 
     ($325,394)
       88. Studying why deleting a gene can create sex reversal in 
     people, but not in mice in Minnesota ($190,000)
       87. College hires director for project on genetic control 
     of sensory hair cell membrane channels in zebra fish in 
     California ($327,337)
       86. New jumbo recycling bins with microchips embedded 
     inside to track participation in Ohio ($500,000)
       85. Oregon Federal Building's ``green'' renovation at 
     nearly the price of a brand new building ($133 million)
       84. Massachusetts middle school getting money to build a 
     solar array on its roof ($150,000)
       83. Road widening that could have been millions of dollars 
     cheaper if Louisiana hadn't opted to replace a bridge that 
     may not have needed replacing ($60 million)
       82. Cleanup effort of a Washington nuclear waste site that 
     already got $12 billion from the Department of Energy ($1.9 
     billion)
       81. Six woodlands water taxis getting a new home in Texas 
     ($750,000)
       80. Maryland group gets money to develop ``real life'' 
     stories that underscore job and infrastructure-related 
     research findings ($363,760)
       79. Studying social networks, such as Facebook, in North 
     Carolina ($498,000)
       78. Eighteen (18) North Carolina teacher coaches to 
     heighten math and reading performance ($4.4 million)
       77. Retrofitting light switches with motion sensors for one 
     company in Arizona ($800,000)
       76. Removing graffiti along 100 miles of flood-control 
     ditches in California ($837,000)
       75. Bicycle lanes, shared lane signs and bike racks in 
     Pennsylvania ($105,000)
       74. Privately-owned steakhouse rehabilitating its 
     restaurant space in Missouri ($75,000)
       73. National dinner cruise boat company in Illinois 
     outfitting vessels with surveillance systems to protect 
     against terrorists ($1 million)
       72. Producing and transporting peanuts and peanut butter in 
     North Carolina ($900,000)
       71. Refurnishing and delivering picnic tables in Iowa 
     ($30,000)
       70. Digital television converter box coupon program in D.C. 
     ($650,000)
       69. Elevating and relocating 3,000' of track for the Napa 
     Valley Wine Train in California ($54 million)
       68. Hosting events for Earth Day, the summer solstice, in 
     Minnesota ($50,000)
       67. Expanding ocean aquaculture in Hawaii ($99,960)
       66. Raising railroad tracks 18 inches in Oregon because the 
     residents of one small town were tired of taking a detour 
     around them ($4.2 million)
       65. Professors and employees of Iowa state universities 
     voluntarily taking retirement ($43 million)
       64. Minnesota theatre named after Che Guevara putting on 
     ``socially conscious'' puppet shows ($25,000)
       63. Replacing a basketball court lighting system with a 
     more energy efficient one in Arizona ($20,000)
       62. Repainting and adding a security camera to one bridge 
     in Oregon ($3.5 million)
       61. Missouri bridge project that already was full-funded 
     with state money ($8 million)
       60. New hospital parking garage in New York that will 
     employ less people ($19.5 million)
       59. University in North Carolina studying why adults with 
     ADHD smoke more ($400,000)
       58. Low-income housing residents in one Minnesota city 
     receiving free laptops, WiFi and iPod Touches to ``educate'' 
     them in technology ($5 million)
       57. University in California sending students to Africa to 
     study why Africans vote the way they do in their elections 
     ($200,000)
       56. Researching the impact of air pollution combined with a 
     high-fat diet on obesity development in Ohio ($225,000)
       55. Studying how male and female birds care for their 
     offspring and how it compares to how humans care for their 
     children in Oklahoma ($90,000)
       54. University in Pennsylvania researching fossils in 
     Argentina (over $1 million)
       53. University in Tennessee studying how black holes form 
     (over $1 million)
       52. University in Oklahoma sending 3 researchers to Alaska 
     to study grandparents and how they pass on knowledge to 
     younger generations ($1.5 million)
       51. Grant application from a Pennsylvania university for a 
     researcher named in the Climate-gate scandal (Rep. Darrell 
     Issa is calling on the president to freeze the grant) 
     ($500,000)
       50. Studying the impact of global warming on wild flowers 
     in a Colorado ghost town ($500,000)
       49. Bridge build over railroad crossing so 168 Nebraska 
     town residents don't have to wait for the trains to pass ($7 
     million)
       48. Renovating an old hotel into a visitors center in 
     Kentucky ($300,000)
       47. Removing overgrown weeds in a Rhode Island park 
     ($250,000)
       46. Renovating 5 seldom-used ports of entry on the U.S.-
     Canada border in Montana ($77 million)
       45. Testing how to control private home appliances in 
     Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts from an off-site computer 
     ($800,000)
       44. Repainting a rarely-used bridge in North Carolina ($3.1 
     million)
       43. Renovating a desolate Wisconsin bridge that averages 10 
     cars a day ($426,000)
       42. Four new buses for New Hampshire ($2 million)
       41. Re-paving a 1-mile stretch of Atlanta road that had 
     parts of it already re-paved in 2007 ($490,000)
       40. Florida beauty school tuition ($2.3 million)
       39. Extending a bike path to the Minnesota Twins stadium 
     ($500,000)
       38. Beautification of Los Angeles' Sunset Boulevard ($1.1 
     million)
       37. Colorado Dragon Boat Festival ($10,000)
       36. Developing the next generation of supersonic corporate 
     jets in Maryland that could cost $80 million each ($4.7 
     million)
       35. New spring training facilities for the Arizona 
     Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies ($30 million)
       34. Demolishing 35 old laboratories in New Mexico ($212 
     million)
       33. Putting free WiFi, Internet kiosks and interactive 
     history lessons in 2 Texas rest stops ($13.8 million)
       32. Replacing a single boat motor in a government boat in 
     D.C. ($10,500)
       31. Developing the next generation of football gloves in 
     Pennsylvania ($150,000)
       30. Pedestrian bridge to nowhere in West Virginia ($80,000)
       29. Replacing all signage on 5 miles of road in Rhode 
     Island ($4,403,205)
       28. Installing a geothermal energy system to heat the 
     ``incredible shrinking mall'' in Tennessee ($5 million)
       27. University in Minnesota studying how to get the 
     homeless to stop smoking ($230,000)
       26. Large woody habitat rehabilitation project in Wisconsin 
     ($16,800)
       25. Replacing escalators in the parking garage of one D.C. 
     Metro station ($4.3 million)
       24. Building an airstrip in a community most Alaskans have 
     never even heard of ($14,707,949)
       23. Bike and pedestrian paths connecting Camden, N.J. to 
     Philadelphia,
       Pennsylvania, when there's already a bridge that connects 
     them ($23 million)
       22. Sending 10 university undergrads each year from North 
     Carolina to Costa Rica to study rain forests ($564,000)
       21. Road signs touting stimulus funds at work in Ohio ($1 
     million)
       20. Researching how paying attention improves performance 
     of difficult tasks in Connecticut ($850,000)
       19. Kentucky Transportation Department awarding contracts 
     to companies associated with a road contractor accused of 
     bribing the previous state transportation secretary ($24 
     million)
       18. Amtrak losing $32 per passenger nationally, but 
     rewarded with windfall ($1.3 billion)
       17. Widening an Arizona interstate even though the company 
     that won the contract has a history of tax fraud and 
     pollution ($21.8 million)
       16. Replace existing dumbwaiters in New York ($351,807)
       15. Deer underpass in Wyoming ($1,239,693)
       14. Arizona universities examining the division of labor in 
     ant colonies (combined $950,000)
       13. Fire station without firefighters in Nevada ($2 
     million)
       12. ``Clown'' theatrical production in Pennsylvania 
     ($25,000)

[[Page 14712]]


       11. Maryland town gets money but doesn't know what to do 
     with it ($25,000)
       10. Investing in nation-wide wind power (but majority of 
     money has gone to foreign companies) ($2 billion)
       9. Resurfacing a tennis court in Montana ($50,000)
       8. University in Indiana studying why young men do not like 
     to wear condoms ($221,355)
       7. Funds for Massachusetts roadway construction to 
     companies that have defrauded taxpayers, polluted the 
     environment and have paid tens of thousands of dollars in 
     fines for violating workplace safety laws (millions)
       6. Sending 11 students and 4 teachers from an Arkansas 
     university to the United Nations climate change convention in 
     Copenhagen, using almost 54,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from 
     air travel alone ($50,000)
       5. Storytelling festival in Utah ($15,000)
       4. Door mats to the Department of the Army in Texas 
     ($14,675)
       3. University of New York researching young adults who 
     drink malt liquor and smoke pot ($389,357)
       2. Solar panels for climbing gym in Colorado ($157,800)
       1. Grant for one Massachusetts university for ``robobees'' 
     (miniature flying robot bees) ($2 million)

     Grand Total: $4,891,645,229

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the so-called supercommittee created by 
the Budget Control Act has begun their work. It is mandated to produce 
a plan by November 23 that will reduce future deficits by at least $1.5 
trillion. As chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, I have been invited to submit recommendations to the 
supercommittee, and I will do so in the days ahead.
  Certainly, I wish this group well. However, it is critically 
important we define success in terms that matter to working Americans. 
Frankly, I am deeply disturbed by the Washington groupthink that 
defines success narrowly in terms of maximizing deficit reduction. I 
have come to the floor to urge members of the supercommittee to embrace 
a broader and more powerful definition of success. Success must include 
boosting the economy and creating jobs.
  After all, the most effective way to reduce the deficit is to help 25 
million unemployed and underemployed Americans find jobs and become 
taxpayers once again. There can be no sustained deficit reduction 
without a recovery of the economy and a return to normal levels of 
employment. Indeed, just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office 
released an analysis showing that if our economy were not in 
recession--if our economy were not in recession--if it were employing 
labor and capital at normal levels, the deficit would be reduced next 
year by an estimated $343 billion--a reduction of one-third of the 
deficit in 1 year if we just had normal employment.
  So I have a simple but urgent message to the supercommittee: Go big 
on jobs. That message would be strongly seconded by people such as 
Connie Smith of Tama, IA. In January, she was laid off after working 27 
years for the same telecom company. Since being laid off, she has been 
working as a contractor doing the same type of work for less pay and no 
benefits.
  Jean Whitt would also agree. She was laid off in 2008 and is now a 
student at Iowa Western Community College, striving for a new career in 
nursing. She is hoping good jobs will be available when she graduates.
  As I said, inside the Washington bubble, our leaders have persuaded 
themselves that the No. 1 issue confronting America is the budget 
deficit. I assure everyone that ordinary Americans are focused on a far 
more urgent deficit: the jobs deficit.
  But I am also concerned about a third deficit: the deficit of 
imagination and vision in Washington today. I am dismayed by our 
failure to confront the current economic crisis with the boldness 
earlier generations of Americans summoned in times of national 
challenge.
  Let's be clear about the staggering scale of today's challenge. Our 
Nation remains mired in the most severe period of joblessness since the 
Great Depression. As I said, some 25 million Americans are desperate to 
find full-time employment. According to new data from the Census 
Bureau, the poverty rate has risen to 15 percent--the highest level in 
18 years. Twenty percent of American children are being raised in 
poverty--one out of every five kids in America.
  Last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Ben Bernanke, 
said unemployment is a ``national crisis.'' Very true, Mr. Bernanke. It 
is a national crisis. It is far and away the No. 1 concern of the 
American people. That is why an exclusive, single-minded obsession--
obsession--with slashing spending and reducing the deficit is not just 
misguided, it is counterproductive. If the supercommittee cuts the 
deficit by $1.5 trillion and does nothing to create jobs, this would 
amount to a massive dose of antistimulus. It will further drain demand 
from the economy and destroy even more jobs. That, in turn, will make 
the deficit worse, not better. It is the equivalent of applying leeches 
to a patient who needs a transfusion.
  We must stop this mindless march to austerity. Smart countries, when 
they have these kinds of challenges, do not just turn a chainsaw on 
themselves. Instead of the current slash-and-burn approach, which is 
being sold through fear and fatalism, we need an approach that reflects 
the hopes and aspirations of the American people.
  To be sure, we must agree on necessary spending cuts and tax 
increases. But we must continue to invest in what will spur economic 
growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class, knowing this is 
the only sustainable way to bring deficits under control.
  Again, I say to the supercommittee: If you are serious about reducing 
the deficit, you must put job creation front and center in your 
deliberations and agenda, not just slashing and cutting government 
spending to reduce the deficit.
  I do not want to be misunderstood. My preference, of course, is 
always to reduce the deficit. I know that. As a senior member of the 
Appropriations Committee, I appreciate that we must seize every 
opportunity to prudently--prudently--reduce Federal spending. There are 
opportunities, including in the Pentagon, to reduce Federal spending 
while minimizing further damage to the economy and jobs.
  However, I believe we must be equally willing to say no--no--to 
foolish, destructive budget cuts. Most important, as I have said, the 
supercommittee must broaden its focus to include a sharp emphasis on 
creating jobs and boosting the economy.
  That is why I was very pleased by the plan presented by President 
Obama: the American Jobs Act. As the President said in his speech to 
Congress, the American Jobs Act boils down to two things: putting 
people back to work and more money in the pockets of working Americans.
  Most importantly, in my book, the American Jobs Act would 
dramatically ramp up investments in infrastructure in order to boost 
U.S. competitiveness and directly create millions of new jobs.
  Specifically, the American Jobs Act includes $30 billion to renovate 
some 35,000 schools and community colleges nationwide. This would 
create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, especially in the hard-hit 
construction industry.
  The legislation--the President's bill--provides $30 billion to help 
local school districts hire and retain teachers. This new fund would 
save or create nearly 400,000 education jobs.
  In addition, the American Jobs Act includes $50 billion for immediate 
investment in our transportation infrastructure. Again, this will 
dramatically boost employment, while modernizing the arteries and veins 
of our commerce.
  Now people say: How are we going to pay for all this and these other 
investments, keeping our teachers in the classroom, renovating the 
infrastructure? How are we going to pay for all this to get our economy 
back on track?
  For the answer, we again need to listen to the American people. I 
received a heartfelt message from Dan Carver, a fifth-grade teacher in 
Carlisle, IA. He says he is struggling similar to other middle-class 
Americans to pay his bills and his taxes and he does not understand why 
corporations and the very

[[Page 14713]]

wealthy are not also paying their fair share.
  In poll after poll after poll, by 2-to-1 margins--2-to-1 margins--
Americans want an approach that includes tax increases on those who can 
most afford it, those whose incomes have skyrocketed in recent years, 
even as middle-class incomes have fallen, those who have benefited the 
most from tax breaks initiated during the Bush administration. By a 2-
to-1 margin--this should be a no-brainer for people elected to 
Congress. Read the polls. That is what people want done.
  We see all those people up on Wall Street. It is now spreading to 
Washington. There is even an event planned for Mason City, IA, this 
weekend by a lot of young people, saying: Look, we have to raise 
revenue. We can't just slash and cut back and retreat. We need to raise 
revenue and charge forward.
  We would be foolish to ignore the voices of working Americans from 
all walks of life. For more than a decade now, these good citizens have 
been told that tax breaks for the wealthy will result in millions of 
new jobs and a booming economy. That is what they have been told. They 
were told wealthy Americans are so-called job creators, and if we just 
shove enough tax breaks their way, jobs will magically bloom.
  Frankly, this is the same old theory of trickle-down economics, and 
it manifestly has never worked. For ordinary Americans, the only things 
that have trickled down are wage cuts, mass unemployment, upside-down 
mortgages, personal bankruptcies, and disappearing pensions.
  Instead of this failed trickle-down economics for the rich, it is 
time for percolate-up economics for middle-class Americans. We have a 
saying for this out in the Midwest, and I have heard it many times: You 
do not fertilize a tree from the top down. You have to put it in at the 
roots.
  It is time to invest directly in jobs by renovating our crumbling 
infrastructure, rebuilding our schools, putting laid-off teachers back 
to work. By all means, it is time to ask those who have benefited the 
most from our economy to pay more--yes, to pay more--to help finance 
these urgent investments. Because these are the kinds of things 
individuals cannot do on their own. An individual cannot rebuild a 
highway or a school. An individual cannot retrofit a building. An 
individual cannot build new energy efficiency systems. But we can do 
this acting together. That is why it is time to ask those who have 
benefited the most from our economy to pay some more.
  I close by reiterating that we need to pursue a path that, first and 
foremost, right now, focuses on job creation; in the longer term, 
focuses on deficit reduction. After we get the economy going and get 
people back to work and being taxpayers again, then we can reduce the 
deficit. As the report showed this week, if we were to just have normal 
employment levels, we would reduce the deficit by $343 billion.
  So I say again to the supercommittee: Do not just focus on slashing, 
cutting, and retreating.
  Focus on raising revenue and charging ahead, investing in education, 
innovation, infrastructure. It means a level playing field with fair 
taxation--fair taxation--and a strong ladder of opportunity to give 
every American access to the middle class. It is time to put America 
back to work. It is time to change the tenor of the debate. It is time 
to get away from this groupthink in Washington; that if only, if only 
we would just cut more government spending, somehow magically people 
will go back to work. It is not going to happen. Only in your dreams.
  It will only happen if we are bold enough, as our forefathers and 
people before us were bold enough, to raise the necessary revenue to 
put this country back to work. That should be the first charge of this 
supercommittee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I very much thank Senator Harkin, 
the chairman of the HELP Committee, for his advocacy always for the 
middle class, advocacy always for those who aspire to the middle class, 
and especially the jobs bill. I particularly appreciate his comments 
about school construction. That is a major component of the jobs bill.
  My State has gone through a pretty good period under Governor Taft, 
who is not in the same political party as I am but he is a friend of 
mine who launched a program 10 years or so ago in Ohio to begin to 
replace--to give incentives to local governments, local school 
districts, to vote bond issues where there was a lot of State matching 
funds that built a lot of new schools but nothing close to what we need 
yet with all of the progress we made.
  We tell our children that education is the most important thing in 
their lives and our lives and our country, and then we send them to 
lousy, decaying, falling-apart school buildings. I do not think that 
quite clicks in kids' minds. So the school construction part of this 
bill, first of all, puts construction workers to work in their high-
unemployment rates, as Senator Harkin said. Second, it puts 
steelworkers and cement workers and concrete workers and people who are 
making the products--the glass makers, the glass companies, and all 
manufacturers--to work for the materials. Third, it sets the foundation 
by building community colleges and rebuilding school buildings and all 
of that, putting people to work for long-term economic growth and 
prosperity.
  We know for a fact the United States, in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, 
created an infrastructure the likes of which the world had never seen. 
That is the foundation for our prosperity. Unfortunately, in the last 
20 years we have let that infrastructure crumble. We let that 
infrastructure decay. When I look at these young pages here, 15, 16, 
17, 18 years old, I do not want them to inherit a huge budget deficit, 
but I also do not want them to inherit a huge education deficit, an 
infrastructure deficit. We owe that to that generation to do much 
better than we have.
  I thank Senator Harkin and yield to him.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I thank the Senator very much. I thank the Senator 
from Ohio, a great friend and a great supporter of working Americans. I 
would just say that the bill that Senator Brown has been championing is 
now leading the charge on the China currency bill, and I think it is 
one of the important steps forward in making sure we start creating 
jobs for Americans.
  How can we create jobs for Americans when we have a Chinese currency 
that is underpinning their exports to America, undercutting our jobs in 
this country? So this is a big step forward. I hope we can get cloture. 
I hope we can move forward on the bill. So I thank the Senator from 
Ohio for his steadfastness on making sure we got the bill to the floor, 
and I hope we get the votes to pass it.
  Again, we can focus on the jobs in this country, but if we are just 
going to continue to allow China to undercut us in just every possible 
way through manipulating their currency so they can undercut us by 20 
or 25 percent on a lot of goods that come into this country, how are we 
going to manufacture those things?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. We are joined in the Chamber by two of the 
sponsors of this bill: the Presiding Officer, Senator Whitehouse, and 
Senator Casey from Pennsylvania.
  The Senator said something earlier about the supercommittee and 
deficit reduction, and what he said is exactly right. Many in this 
institution and down the hall in the House of Representatives do not 
seem to understand that we cannot only cut our way to prosperity, we 
have to grow our way to a more balanced budget and prosperity.
  One of the things this China currency bill will do is, it is 
estimated by the Economic Policy Institute that over 10 years it will 
cut the deficit $600 billion to $800 billion. Why is that? Because of 
job growth, because this bill provides--according to the Economic 
Policy Institute study, it creates more than 2 million jobs. That is 2 
million people, instead of receiving unemployment benefits, instead of 
being eligible for food stamps, instead of other kinds of things we do 
for people who are out of

[[Page 14714]]

work, it will mean those 2 million people will actually be working, 
many of them in manufacturing. Those are 
$12-, $15-, $20-an-hour jobs. They will be paying taxes. They will be 
paying into Social Security, into Medicare, into local retirement 
systems--all of that--paying property taxes for the schools, doing all 
of the things that employed, hard-working taxpayers do.
  So it is a win in that situation too. So while we need to focus on 
the President's jobs bill, this is one that makes so much sense, and 
that is why we need to move forward.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Ohio clearly understands percolate-up 
economics. I appreciate that very much. I thank the Senator from Ohio 
for his leadership.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  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.

[[Page 14715]]

  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. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about two amendments I 
filed today to help protect American intellectual property from theft 
abroad. If we are serious about leveling the playing field with 
countries like China, then protecting U.S. intellectual property from 
theft has to be a part of it.
  This summer I went up and down our State meeting with business 
leaders and asking them about what we need to do in Washington to help 
them create jobs. Though currency manipulation came up from time to 
time, it paled in comparison to the fear our innovative business owners 
had about intellectual property theft.
  When foreign companies and governments steal our ideas, they are 
stealing more than just formulas and schematics--they are stealing 
jobs. These two amendments are about giving America the tools to fight 
back.
  I introduced my first amendment with my colleague on the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Kohl. It provides a Federal private right of action 
for victims of trade secret theft. Trade secrets are a critical form of 
intellectual property, particularly among manufacturers, and when they 
are stolen, it can result in catastrophic damage to American companies 
and their employees.
  After the Korean company, Kolon, was found to have stolen the trade 
secrets behind DuPont's next generation Kevlar fiber, a jury last month 
found that DuPont had suffered a staggering $919 million in damages.
  Trade secrets are a critical part of the American economy. Yet they 
are the only form of intellectual property without a Federal cause of 
action. Our amendment would fix that and provide U.S. victims of trade-
secret theft access to the same service of process, same ability to 
keep sensitive documents secret, and the same uniformity of substantive 
law available to other intellectual property victims.
  My second amendment, which I introduced with my colleague Senator 
Grassley, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, 
fixes a simple problem, but one that vexes an array of companies that I 
hear from regularly.
  Under current law, when Customs and Border Patrol agents intercept a 
shipment that they suspect contains counterfeit or trademark-infringing 
goods, there are prevented from properly investigating the shipment 
because they cannot share product samples or UPC codes with the 
intellectual property holder.
  That is ridiculous. Why are we tying the hands of our agents and 
preventing American businesses from sticking up for themselves? Worse, 
it means that shipments of counterfeit goods are being let into this 
country even when Customs agents have reason to believe they might be 
counterfeit. And it is not just toys, clothes and electronics that we 
are talking about; it is prescription drugs and medical technologies.
  We are abetting the trade imbalance that is stifling the American 
economy by allowing this gaping hole to continue to exist. In come 
cheap counterfeit goods, and out go American jobs.
  Our amendment would close this gaping hole in our economic security 
by allowing Customs and Border Patrol agents to share the information 
that they need to identify counterfeit goods, stop these illicit 
shipments, and protect American jobs.
  The time has come to get serious about the threats posed to our 
health and workforce by foreign intellectual property thieves.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Syria

  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

[[Page 14716]]

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

[[Page 14717]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________