the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. thank you for the reminder, 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. it's got five republican and five democratic sponsors as the lead ten sponsors and another dozen or so sponsors in addition to that. the support from senator graham and senator sessions and senator burr, all three southern republicans, and senators snowe and collins, northern republicans, joining with the first five democratic sponsors,

senators schumer and stabenow and casey and hagan and me have i think set the bipartisan tone here. that's why we have 79 votes in the first kind of go-around in the bill. but what i hear mostly that's a concern is i hear from people in the house of representatives and then i have heard it from opponents in the senate, and i have heard it from large multinational corporations who who -- who have -- which have outsourced so many jobs to china, that 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're in a trade war right now with china, and frankly china is doing pretty darn well. it's not going that well for american workers. it's not going that well for american manufacturers. go to down state illinois or go to albuquerque or go to akron

and look at the number of plant closings. in many cases, companies, large companies especially -- smaller companies can't do this the same way. large companies will shut down their production in the united states, move to -- they will shut down production in youngstown or dayton, they will move to wuhan or shihan, china. they will sell their products back in the united states. i don't know that that had ever been done in world history. the trade war was started by the chinese. it's been waged by the chinese. that's why we have lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in my state. that's why we've seen the trade deficit, what is it, triple in the last ten years with china. that's why we go to the store and darn near everything we pick up including sometimes american flags and things you can buy at the congressional visitors' center are made in china. it's clear china has cheated. they cheat on currency, they cheat, pure and simple.

it's long overdue we do something about it. they were committed to the world trade organization because of a bad vote ten years ago too many of my colleagues passed in support of pntr. the presiding officer as i did voted against it, the presiding officer from new mexico was pressure interenough to see that. but we said you let china in the w.t.o., they are then going to be a trading partner and they'll play fair. well, they never have accepted frankly the basic governing friewls the world trade organize. they don't follow the rule of law. so when we say no, we're not going to let them do that, we're accused of a trade war? excuse me, i just don't understand that. it's a little bit like -- too real-life examples. if somebody is eating your lunch and your take their dessert away, they're complaining? of course they want their dessert. but they can't say you're starting a war. they're already eating your lunch. or if you got two gas stations, and you go to springfield,

ohio, and a gas station on one side of the street and a gas station on the other side of the street, the one side is a gas station that gets its oil, gets a 30% discount on oil from gasoline from shell and the one from exxon in -- on that side of the street doesn't get a subsidy on its gasoline, of course the one is going to put the other out of business. that's what we do to china, give them a 25% or 30% discount because they he cheat on currency. you call that a trade war because we're taking that discount away? this bill, it's china which has been playing this protectionist game. mr. berkston, who is the director of the institute for international economics, the peterson institute, hardly a flaming liberal, free freight group, generally a conservative freight organization, he says china's policies, the most protectionist of any major country in the world since world war ii. and we're starting a trade war?

it just doesn't make sense. that kind of language doesn't -- 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 doing class warfare. we want more exports, wouldn't more trade. but currency undervaluations makes our exports more expensive in china, puts our manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. mr. president, i -- i just think this legislation makes so much sense. that's why it got 79 votes, why it has such a high number of bipartisan cosponsors. that's why people in this country understand that passing this legislation just to equal -- just to level the playing field, to give our manufacturers an opportunity, why all that makes so much sense. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. carper: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: on behalf of congressman chris carney and myself, we honor the honorable rocks anna arch and recognize the flan flop pi of their daughter, adrienne ars. like many american families, their parents emigrated to the united states from russia a century ago seeking survival and a better life. in this land of opportunity they worked hard, valued education and set high standards for themselves, standards which they met and ultimately exceeded. samuel arsh was a graduate of the university of wharton school

and of law school. upon graduation he joined the firm that in wilmington, delaware and over time became well known in corporate law circles as one of the arc adetectives of the modern delaware general corporation law and was described as the master of delaware's influential corporate statutes. 1953 he led efforts to update the entire body of statutory law making delaware the nation's most favorable place for businesses to incorporate. his work helped to transform the state's economy by later opening the door to national banks and credit card operations along with other financial services. his wife a delaware native graduated from the university of pennsylvania's law school as well where she met her future husband, sam. in 193 1,roxanna became the fifth woman to pass the delaware bar and made history again when

she was appointed by governor russell w. peterson as a judge of the family court in 1971 becoming the first female judge in the state of delaware. she retired from the bench in 1983 and began a second career in flan thop pi. y. she was a founding member of the cancer care connection and supported planned parenthood, the first stage at tower hills school, the exhibition all and the christiana health care system. roxanna was inducted in the delaware women's hall of fame in 1983. they shared their love of lifelong learning by providing the first and last gifts to the construction of arsht hall at the wilmington campus of the university of delaware. in 2003, they created the arsht fund to create out her and sam's

commitment to the greater wilmington community to preserve, support, protect, and defend the best interests of the civil society. to date this fund has provided over $4.5 million in grants to delawarans and is now directed by their daughter adrienne. adrienne arsht was born in wilmington, delaware and upon graduation from law school was the 11th woman admitted to the delaware bar. her mom was the fifth. she launched a successful career at nichols, avsht and tunnel, and moved to miami in 1996 to join the leadership of a bank called total bank where she served as chair of the board until 2007. under her leadership total bank grew four locations to 14 with over $1.4 billion in assets.

in 2007 total bank was sold to banko espanol and was named the chairman emerita of total bank. adrienne has taken a leading role in promoting artistic, business and civic growth in the three cities she calls home: washington, d.c., new york, and miami. following her parents' example she is continuing to maintain strong philanthropic presence in her home state of delaware for which we're grateful. in one of her many contributions to the first state she carries on the commitment to the mission of the arsht-cannon fund. working with the hispanic community as a businesswoman in miami and the release of research findings from the 2008 delaware hispanic community needs assessment, adrienne set the focus -- funding focus of

the arsht-cannon fund with a focus on meeting the needs of hispanic delawarans. this has helped thousands of hispanic delawarans read, learn and write in english, continue their education, find employment, access health services and learn conflict resolution skills. it has made and continues to make an essential difference in the lives of delawarans and will do so for decades to come. furthermore, under adrienne's direction the fund established the cancer care connection and best buddies in delaware, brought the bright star dyslexia initiative to delaware and supported the new delaware community foundation's strategic fund. mr. president, i am honored today to rise and honor and commend my good friend, aidrien arsht and her late parents for their extraordinary service and

continuing contributions to the state of delaware and to its people. on behalf of senator coons and congressman carney and myself we recognize their work to help the many individuals and families touched by their generosity. we add our congratulations to adrienne and their family as they receive the first family philanthropy award. adrienne is an extraordinary woman to continues to carry her parents' legacy of working to improve the lives of others. i consider it a privilege to have known sam and roxanna and their daughter adrienne and to be able to stand here today to speak on their behalf in the united states senate. with that said, mr. president, i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: would the senator withdraw his request? 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 today. thank you. 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 that 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 ten years ago. today, illinois exports to china total about $3.8 billion. the number of people employed by

sales to china has grown from around 2,500 jobs to 15,000. in a state with 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 to china. when we look at illinois very directly, we can 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 related 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 a full-time american. for me, i think that this bill places the blame in the wrong place and diverts the needed attention of the senate to where it should be placed in fixing our economy. now, for ten years, i served in the house of representatives, and in 2005, during that rendition of antichinese 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 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 1870's. should we trigger a trade war with the coming largest economy on earth? i would say that we should not. china in the 21st century 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 that i listened to as chairman of the china working group with congressman larsen were americans who actually sold american manufactured goods in china. oftentimes, we would ask is your number-one concern with regard to selling more goods in china related to the currency? overwhelmingly, they would say it is not their number-one concern. their number-one 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 and d.v.d. industry but also elsewhere. when you look into this issue in a serious way, you find that currency is not the number-one issue. although i would 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 are 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 actually china has some fairly reputable intellectual property laws, but they are not enforced. a common thing that you hear about china is a phrase that's often used in the chinese language, and it goes something like this. the mountains are very high and the emperor is very far away, meaning that 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 relations with china would be a greater enforcement of intellectual property laws between the united states and china, and there we would actually have allies, like

the man who is most likely to become president of china, who wants china to be a strong innovator, and he knows that china cannot be an innovation nation if it represents a comprehensive theft of intellectual property worldwide. he knows that 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 dialogue which actually stops the theft of intellectual property in china and enhances the export potential of americans. i worry that we are diverting the senate's time 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, and when you look at the prospects for this legislation in the house, you will learn that the prospects for this legislation are dim at best. what should we do rather than trigger a trade war with a country that's about to be the largest economy on earth? what should we do rather than trigger job losses at caterpillar, at motorola, at boeing, at schaumburg, peoria and in chicagoland? i think what we should do instead is focus the senate energy on passing the gang of six 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% to 29%. and we should also rapidly pass as has now been proposed the panama and colombia and south korea free trade agreements that open up new markets for the united states, particularly in the case of colombia, the markets would be open for illinois corn growers. for south korea, i think it would end the beef impasse that we have had and also open up high technology and aviation mashts for the united states. now, when i talk about the gang of six, 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 that large numbers of democrats and republicans in the senate can agree on and would pass the house of representatives. rather than the underlying legislation here, 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 put at risk any job subject to chinese retaliation from this legislation. i would also note that when you read the basic text of this legislation, it's 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, and i imagine that some people would want to take advantage of that dialogue, but have we made it into an act of 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 up the very people that we want to crawl this economy out of a potential recession. united states exporters into vulnerabilities for retaliation by the chinese. sometimes you have to think about the basic principle of medicine when you look at legislation, and 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, ten new taxes in the health care bill and an uncertain political future for deficit reduction under the bipartisan joint committee, laid elg onto that in 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's why i oppose this legislation. that's why regardless of actions of the senate, i don't think it's going anywhere in the house, and certainly given the action and calls of the president to certain legislatures doesn't appear to have any real future in enforcement if it ever even did make its way to the white house. and with that, mr. president, ii yield back the floor. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, 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 in foreign policy that a presidential waiver is essential. my guess is he would have attacked this bill if it hadn't had a waiver from the president

saying there is no way the president can possibly look out for our national security at the same time as doing -- as he executes this legislation. so that -- 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. i am concerned about national security with our trade with china. as i have seen china over a period of years at our -- 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 weaken because we don't make as much, we don't do as well with steel and chemicals and all the things that go into our national security apparatus. so i -- i am, in fact, concerned

about that, but i am also concerned -- i hear, mr. president, two things, two main arguments. i sat on the floor as a manager of this bill for several hours over the last couple three days and listened to this debate, and it seems the republicans' opposition -- and there are -- most republicans voted for this so i don't want to say it's overwhelming, but the people who have spoken against it have mostly been conservative republicans that seemed to pay a lot of attention to clubs for growth in those most conservative parts of their party. but i have heard two things. i have heard trade war, trade war, trade war, trade war, and that's interesting because that echoes the words of the people's bank of china, it echoes the words of the minister of commerce over 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 the

other thing that concerns me is i listen to this debate and i hear some of the opponents to this bill kind of playing the blame america first game, that they seem to say this isn't china that's doing this to us. this is us do this to us or perhaps we doing this to us to be more grammatically correct. i'm just aghast at the fact that china games its currency system, the fact that china undercuts our manufacturing because they --quote, unquote -- cheat, that we are some members of the senate that stood up right here and took the oath of office to the united states of america are blaming america first for what china assess doing to us. i can see blaming our government for not enforcing trade rules better and president obama while he's not come out yet for this bill, he 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 until president obama. but i'm a bit intrigued that my colleagues are blaming the united states for this. it's a little like if there's a gas station on -- on -- a gas station on detroit road, avenue in cleveland or rocky river in cleveland, one on each side of the road and one gets its gas 25% -- 25% cheaper than the other from the supplier, from exxon, from shell, from mobil -- mobil exxon or shell, and they can put the other out of business. you blame the one that doesn't get the discount for going out of business? is that what we're doing? to blame america first on this is really blaming the united states when china cheats. and i don't -- i just don't buy that. i don't think there's any -- any -- any credence in that argument. the other thing, i appreciate senator kirk's demon ition and i

appreciate -- admonition and his celebration of caterpillar and many of these companies exporting a number of -- billions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, in a few cases billions to china. more power to them. i want them to do more exports. yeah, exports have gone up, 2000 was the year that this senate and the house where the presiding officer from new mexico and i sat and voted no on this, pntr in the year 2000, permanent normal trade relations with china was passed. look what happened sips then. yes, exports went up. bliem glad for that. companies like -- i'm glad for that. companies like all over our states, senator kirk mentioned a handful in illinois, those exports went up. look what happened to imports. you know why that is? part is currency. china has cheated, pure and simple china has cheated on currency. when we pass -- did the first vote on monday night and all of

us knew that -- all of us predicted you know what the chinese government is going to do, they're going to squawk and say trade war, trade war, trade war. i guess i didn't know that a bunch of american politicians would mimic what they'd say and say trade war, trade war, trade war. here's what happened. listen to this: article in "the south china morning post" october 5 the day after this in a retire i rare move, the central bank cheap, the 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 accuse washington of politicizing global currency issues. 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. we're saying no more breaking the rules.

you can't cheat the way you've cheated. so 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. i mean these are all apparatuses or these are all arms of the chinese communist party, arms of the chinese government. of course they're not happy when we do this but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing. it bothers me when i see american politicians saying -- mimic exactly what the chinese commune it party officials are saying, their government is saying that trade war, trade war, trade war. this is not a trade war. fred berkston, i had mentioned fred berkston before, who -- whose quote i just misplaced, said -- i got it. fredbergson, head of the peterson institute for economics, a trade official, i believe an economist, very smart, very aware of thawl awl this. the peterson institute for international economics, a

generally conservative operation that generally plays it straight on trade, if anything they're a bit too free trade in my mind instead of fair trade. he said i regard china's current policy is as the most protectionist measure taken by any major country since world war ii. its currency manipulation has it undervalued by 20% to 30%. here's the key point. that's equivalent to a 20% to 30% subsidy when all exports and a 20% to 30% tariff on all imports by the largest trading country in the world. that's why imports -- the 30% penalty is why our exports don't -- exports don't go up mech, the bonus for the chinese is why our imports go up so much. we can't sell into china's market very well because they're cheating. that's why our exports don't grow very much and why they can sell so much into our markets

because we're giving that 25% to 30% bonus. mr. president, this isn't a trade war -- it is a trade war, the chinese declared trade war on us in twiew and look what they -- in 2000 and look at what they benefited and we're going to allow them to do that? it doesn't work. that's 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 98 that voted. i've heard them come to this floor and oppose and talk about exports, that their businesses have exported and some have and more power to them and i hope they export more and create more jobs in the united states. understand, though, those are mostly large companies that have the wherewithal in some cases to outsource jobs to china, in other cases to be able to export in large numbers. there was a split in the

national association of manufacturers, the largest trade organization for manufacturers in this country. there is an historic split over the last several years on what to do about this. many of the small companies, companies like automation tool and die in brunswick, ohio, like screen -- company in dayton, screen, it's a company that does printing. that i just -- that i just spoke to jeff cottrell who owns that company, has a number of employees in dayton, ohio. those companies understand currency undercuts them. the bennett brothers at this company in brunswick told me in cleveland a couple of days ago why they support this bill and they said they had -- they had a contract they thought was a million-dollar contract, they began to change their assembly line, their production facilities, their production operation, capacity, and at the last minute a chinese company came in and underpriced them 20% and got the contract. why did they underprice them 20%?

because we gave them a 25% bone to us do it. we've disarmed in this trade war, we're not beginning, we're just playing defense and fighting back. and i think the american public overwhelmingly says fight back when they play these games, fight back when they game the system, stand up for americans, don't blame america on this one, stand up for american interests. it's good for our exporters, our big companies and small companies alike, it's good for our american manufacturing, we know what that means to communities in chillicothe and glainsville and toledo, what that means -- glainsville and toledo, it means so much as we finally begin to restore american manufacturing. mr. president, i yield being, support for 1619 and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:ask unanimous consee

quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. without objection, the senator from ohio is recognized. a senator: thank you. exports are absolutely critical to our economic growth in this country. in fact, there are nearly ten million good-paying jobs related

to exports. mr. portman: the president, members of congress and so on talk about that a lot but i'm disappointed we're not moving forward with an aggressive agenda to open up new markets for our exports. i am encouraged the administration this week sent forward three trade agreements that do just that: the korea, colombia and panama trade agreements. these open up markets to u.s. workers and farmers, those who provide services. so it's going to be good for jobsnhis country. the predent oetrics dicateheseeelone 35000 newoblsoe these negotiations as leverage to get some of these real results that are so necessary. we should also like 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 dialogue is not the answer, and sometimes

that's what occurs. we're not just looking for more talk. i think it's important that we get serious, both u.s. leaders and chinese leaders, about some of our lingering trade problems that we've had through the years so that we can have a healthy trade relationship based on mutual respect. each country is important to the other. we can't overlook the fact that china continues to be a very vital u.s. is 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 to china, with 25% of ohio manufacturing jobs dependent upon exports, this is incredibly important to us. one of every three acres in ohio is plant ford export, so agriculture exports are also important. there is also an important issue that relates to investment both ways, our investments in china and china's investments here. let me read you an editorial from the cleveland dealer

plains. chinese investors are welcome here. if greater cleveland is going to prosper in the 21st century it has to build strong connections with the rest of the world. the region has to sell more of its service and products abroad and welcome talent and capital from overseas. that is the path to jobs and wealth. the editorial goes on to talk about the collaboration between chinese companies and investors looking to build relationship with cleveland's world renowned medical device industry. just last week the mayor of toledo, ohio, 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 china 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. the relationship is vital to the future not just of our two countries but in my view, the global economy. we need to be sure that it's 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. it's 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's 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 this have senate time and time again is the incredible regulatory burden that's 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 here at home or else we're not going to be able to create the jobs in this century that we need to keep our economy moving forward at a time of over 9% unemployment, it's critical that we be sure that our economy here is more competitive. this regulatory burden is one that i think all sides can agree

is one that ought to be addressed. i'm joined today by the junior senator tpre nevada -- 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's no official counting of this total regulatory burden on our economy and estimates do vary, but one study that's often cited is from the obama administration's own small business administration, where they report the regulatory costs exceed $1.75 trillion annually. that's even more than is collected by the i.r.s. in income taxes every year. so it's 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 the annual cost of a narrow set of rules --

these are what are called the major rules reviewed by o.m.b. over one ten-year period registers at $43 billion to $55 billion per year. i've been encouraged by what the current administration has been saying about regulations. i've been less encouraged about what they have done. the new regulatory costs on the private sector are real and mounting. compared to historic trends, we have seen a sharp uptick in these significant rules that have an economic impact of over $100 million on the economy. they also have an impact of course on things like consumer prices and american competitiveness. george washington university regulatory studies recently told us that this administration has been regulating on an average of 84 new major rules per year, which by way of comparison is about a 35% increase from the last administration and about a 50% increase from the clinton administration. and these figures do include the independent agencies, which must be included in the calculations.

so there has been an uptick in regulations, continues to be, despite much of the rhetoric to the contrary. one commonsense step we can take to address this issue is to improve and strengthen what's called the unfunded mandates reform act of 1985. i worked on this along with some of my colleagues who are now in the senate when i was back in the house. it was an effort that said federal regulators ought to know what costs are of what they're imposing. and we ought to know what the benefits are and if there are less costly alternatives. the two amendment amendments i e an effort that has over 20 cosponsors. a commonsense effort that should be bipartisan. the first amendment would strengthen the analysis that's 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 uma to require cost-benefit analysis of rules that require direct or indirect economic costs of $1 00 million or more and it requires agencies to adopt the least costly and least burdensome alternative to achieve the policy goal that's been set out. so currently agencies have to consider that, but dhee have to file the least costly alternative. we simply cannot afford that, given the tough economic times we have. the second amendment extends these same requirements to the independent agencies. this is incredibly important and these are agencies like the commodities and future trading commission, the newly formed 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 cost and benefits of new regulations, just as again all executive agencies are already required to do. it's a step in the right direction, but the problem is that the president's order is entirely nonbinding, because i a president cannot require independent agencies to do that. the congress k independent agencies don't answer to the president. since this order was issued in july -- we have not seen a rush by independent agencies to comply with these principles -- so this amendment, this second amendment, would effective write the president's request into law. independent agencies would be required under uma to evaluate regulatory cost-benefits and less costly alternatives before issuing any rule that would

require the regulations. the fact is that independent agencies are not doing it on their own. not one of the 17 major rules issued by independent agencies in 2010 included an assessment of both cost and benefits. not one. closing this independent agency loophole is a reform i think that on both sides of the aisle we should be able to agree with, certainly the president should agree with since it is part of his executive order and memorandum, and this is the right vehicle to do it. this is a jobs issue, again, and a commonsense approach. no major regulation, whatever its source, should be employed on american employers or state or local government without a serious consideration of the cost, the benefits, and the availability of less burden 1 be alternatives. these amendments move us closer to that goal and i will urge colleagues on both sits of the aisle to support them. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about my amendment and the issue of jobs. americans are had to endure great hardship over the last few years. mr. heller: 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's 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 has taken a back seat to political posturing and grandstanding here in washington. and it is clear that the approach of this administration and its supporters have taken for economic recovery has failed miserably. out-of-control spending, health care law no one can afford, a seemingly endless stream of regulation are crippling employers, stifling economic

growth, and killing jobs. instead fed fighting for measures that creek and create 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 this 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'm pleased to join with senator portman in this fight to rein in excessive government regulations and implement a

market benefit analysis for all agencies, both executive and independent, so that the american public will know the true costs 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 couldn't 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 regulation tz that are tying the hands of entrepreneurs across america. we can help hasten an economic recovery by embracing pro-growth poms that -- policies that places more money in the pockets of americans. i'd like to highlight another issue that would help create

jobs and provide certainty for the businesses across the country and that is that congress should pass a budget. congress has not passed a budget in nearly two and a half 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 ten-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 an 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 number 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 you don't accomplish the tasks your job requires, you do not get paid. somehow this very basic standard of responsibility is lost upon washington. the no budget, no pay is not and he-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 take the aggressive steps 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 overtaxed -- 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 to increase 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 get americans working again and ensure our children and grandchildren have a brighter future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. schumer: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'd like to talk on the bill that we are debating on the floor about china currency. and let me say a few things here. 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 import import of os to be more expensive than they should be. it has been estimated that 2 million jobs could be created over two years if we pass this legislation. and china's currency were no longer misaligned. but there's a long-term issue, mr. president, and that is this: the bottom line is, what do we -- what is our future here in this country? it's good, high-paying jobs. it's 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. and when you ask, as many of us

ask the question, how in a worldwide economy can america compete, the answer is, those companies. i might add, most of those companies are not large companies. they're smaller companies. theyl business people with great ideas or new way of providing a service or creating a product. and they are the people who employ about 65% of the new jobs in america. they are our future. some of them will grow into very large companies. many will stay employing 100 or 200 or 300 or 400 people. but they are on the front lines of world trade. and what have we found over the last decade? in almost ten years, since china joined the w.t.o., we have lost 2.8 million jobs simply due to china's -- the chinese

government's manipulation of currency. we've lost thousands more jobs elsewhere because china steals our intellectual property. china has a america tillist policy of -- has a mercantilist industry of finding an industry and taking it. they can take an advantage they naturally have, like rare earths and again oppose w.t.o. rules and say to companies, if you want these rare earths which you need for your product, you've got to make it in china. they do this over and over and over again. and why do i and senator brown and senator graham and so 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, that basically it's a disaster for america. because if when a young entrepreneur creates a product or a service and that entrepreneur is overwhelmed by a chinese product that has unfair advantage, we don't have a future. that's it. many people worry about the budget deficit as the biggest problem america faces. it's a large problem. i hope we solve it. i will work hard to solve it. about to me, the -- but to me, the number-one problem america faces is how do we become the production giant that 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're not also a production giant. and what is probably the major factor, external factor that contributes to making us a consumption giant rather than a production giant? it's the chinese manipulation of currency because it discourages production in america and encourages consumption of undervalued chinese goods at the same time. and 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 there up there in their ivory towers, editorial writers, they love to look at this legislation and just without even examining its consequences say that's protectionist. 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 in brenton woods. that was the equilibrium creator when things got out of whack, but it doesn't exist for china. there are lots of countries that pegged their currency in the past and we paid no attention because if you have .01% of world g.d.p. and you're worried your tiny, little currency will be overwhelmed to, peg it -- by world trends, to peg it doesn't create much trouble. when you're the second-largest economic power in the world, when you're the largest or second-largest exporter in the world, to peg your currency totally discome bob hraeuts the world -- discome bob lates the world trading system. given the danger to the future of our country and tkpwefpb the danger to the -- 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's the question i ask myself. and i don't have a good answer. i don't have a good answer. perhaps it's because those editorial writers and big thinkers don't talk to the manufacturers of high-end products in new york state that i talk to, who see that they can't compete against china unfairly because of currency ma manipulation. whether it's a ceramic that goes into power plants tha*eubg that i talked about yesterday, or a high-end window that goes into offices or museums, china uses its currency manipulation to gain unfair advantage to those up and down the line.

but maybe those in the ivory tower don't talk to others as so many of us do because that's our job and that's our living. maybe it's 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, and 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, yeah, that's what corporations are supposed to do. but that's 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, but 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

workers in schenectady's interest even if it might have been in the overall shareholders of g.e.'s interest. so maybe it's because the business round table and the chamber of commerce who was dominated by the larger manufacturers and the larger service companies and the larger financial institutions, they don't really care about american wealth and jobs. they care about their own profitability and sales and share price. and if moving to china improves r that, they do it. and if china has an unfair advantage, so be it. that's not their job. maybe that's the reason. that's beginning to change, by the way, mr. president. 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 had totally changed.

they were exasperated with china's mercantile policies. one of the manufacturers who had been one of the leaders in saying don't touch china because they exported a ton of goods to china, had a different tone. he said you know what china tells us now? we can only export certain of our goods, the ones china doesn't make. the rest we have to make in china and in certain provinces. this is a large, huge multibillion-dollar u.s. company. another, a major retailer told us that they can't run their stores the way they'd like in china because china dictates what they can and cannot have on their shelves. and half the products on their shelves in american stores cannot by chinese government dictate be in the chinese store shelves. even our large companies are sort of realizing that china's not just letting china get away

with all these violations of free trade and all these violations of w.t.o. no longer serves their interest, although admittedly they have not yet come around to support our bill. and then there are those who are fearful that the chinese will retaliate. that one drives me the craziest. i grew up in brooklyn, and when there were bullies and you didn't stand up for yourself, they bullied you and bullied you and bullied you some more. if you stood up to them, yeah, there was going to be some retaliation, but it was a lot better than giving in and giving in and giving in. well, that's what we've done with china. will china retaliate if this bill becomes law and hundreds of american companies go 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 on exports. just look at the percentage in terms of g.d.p. than ours are. they are far more dependent on the american market than we are on the chinese market, as important as it is to many of our companies. so while china will retaliate in a measured way, they're not going to create a trade war. it's not in their interest. they can't afford to. and i have news for those who are worried about a trade war. we're in one. when china manipulates its currency, when china staepls intellectual property, when china uses rare ergts to lower businesses here, when they take our intellectual property and brings it to factories in china and subsidizes those factories in china against w.t.o. rules and then try to export the product here as they do with solar panels, that, ladies and

gentlemen, is a trade war. as millions of americans who have lost their jobs realize. so we're in the war. we may as well arm ourselves so we might win. so the bottom line is very simple. i hope this bill moves forward, and i hope that it goes through the house. a large vote here in the senate tomorrow will be a message to the house, senator brown's bill which of course his bill and our bill 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 who never, never backs off twhe's in their own -- when it's in their own economic interest, will because it will no longer be in

their economic interest because there will be penalties imposed and equality imposed upon them once this bill is law. they will actually let their currency float maybe not quite as quickly as we would 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, ineffectual. i've been arguing the other side, our side, for five years. when senator graham and i first started talking about currency manipulation and imposing a tariff, "the new york times" and "wall street journal" editorial boards, one very liberal, one conservative, said china should be allowed to pick its currency. so we've made progress at least in the intellectual strength --

or in the intellectual argument. but we have to take that strength and translate it into action because, mr. president, millions, millions of american jobs ultimately trillions, trillions of american dollars of wealth and nothing less than the future of our country is at stake. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. stphao* quorum quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. a senator: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. demint: i rise today to rise in opposition to the chinese tariff bill being proposed by my colleague from new york. i understand the frustration that motivates this legislation, and i share serious concerns over china's currency manipulation and trade

practices. i've worked for years to ensure that trade -- free trade happens on a level playing field, and we still have a long way to go. but 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're 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 are 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 in this country. we don't need to start a trade war with china. we need to stop the class

warfare that's preventing jobs from being created right here in america. americans 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 united states government needs to give american workers the freedom to work, and that freedom starts with the freedom to get a job. and if president obama and the democrats want to know who is preventing jobs from being created in america, all they have to do is to look in the mirror. let's be clear about a few things. other countries aren't threatening to massively raise taxes on our nation's job creators and drive jobs

overseas. president obama is. other countries didn't jam through a health care takeover bill that's 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 didn't force us to pass the dodd frank financial take over with thousands of regulations that are raising costs on american businesses and crippling businesses. democrats in congress did. other countries haven't wroig new rules that are destroying jobs and keeping us dependent on foreign oil. the administration's e.p.a. is. other countries aren't blocking boeing from creating thousands of american jobs in the state of south carolina. the president's national labor relation board is. other countries aren't forcing 28 u.s. states to require

employees to join labor unions that make businesses less competitive. democrats are the one protecting labor bosses and hurting workers in america. "the wall street journal" has called this chinese tariffs bill the most dangerous trade legislation in many years. and for good reason. if we pass this bill, it's 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. and 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 that people have with china, but just as so many of obama's other 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. competitions -- competition in markets do. freedom will work if we let it. i urge 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. thank you, mr. president. i yield back and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: nanimous

consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. just a couple of comments on the comments from the other senator -- the senator from south carolina. he was the ranking member on the economic policy subcommittee on which sat the presiding officer from oregon also in 2009 and 2010 and we held a series of hearings on manufacturing policy and there was some agreement between senator demint and me on when -- you know, having a manufacturing strategy, we're really the only major industrial country in the world without a real strategy on how to do manufacturing. there are three ways to create wealth in a society, manufacturing and mining and agriculture. and manufacturing has been a

dominant force and significant creator of the middle class in this country and i think we agree on that. when we agree that we want more of it in our country. 30 years ago the gross domestic -- more than 25% of the dproas domestic product of our country 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 almost -- they have almost twice the g.d.p., manufacturing is almost twice the g.d.p. and twice the work force in their country. so while senator demint and i disagree on this china trade bill i do agree with the other republican senator from south carolina, senator graham, who has been a significant leader, he and senator schumer have worked on this for, you know, more than -- i believe more than half a decade on responding to the cheating that the chinese

communist party and the people's republic of china have done in this world, in this -- this -- in the world trade structure. and i don't believe it anyway that we're starting a class -- a trade war, the chinese have by almost any economist will tell you the chinese have been committing a trade war for a decade. that's why our trade deficit with china is three times what it was 10 or 11 years ago. that's why so many manufacturing jobs in senator graham's state, senator demint's state of south carolina, the presiding officer's state of oregon and my state of ohio, so many manufacturing jobs have been lost. not only because of that but that's certainly a significant contributing factor to that. i go back to the illustration of if you had gas stations, one across the street from the other in akron, ohio, the one that --

if one gas station could buy its oil -- its gasoline with a 25% discount, they'd soon put the other gas station out of business. that's really what's happened with china, that china understands that they have a 25% advantage given to them because they game the currency system, and i know what that means, that the new presiding officer from north carolina has seen what's happened to manufacturing in her state, a major, major manufacturing state in this country. and what's happened when one country -- and we're not really -- our trade problems aren't with so much companies in china. they're with the government. it really is our companies against their government, and when they can game the system at a 25% bonus, and when we try -- when they sell into the united states and get a 25% bonus, when we try to sell into china, we get a 25% penalty on our companies and our products. and that hardly seems fair to me.

so this is rulely, as senator graham has said so well and senator schumer from new york, the two leaders in this for many years here, have said they just want to level the playing field. dhee want -- they don't want one country -- they don't want us to have an advantage over chiefnlt let us play it fairks let us play it straight. that's what this currency bill will ultimately do. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: madam president? mr. brown: i withdraw my request. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i wonder if my colleague from ohio would consider a bit of a discussion for a few minutes. i thut it very interesting in listening to some of the debate here that there seemed to be some policy-makers in the united states 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, it's a tariff against imports. and a subsidy is a tariff against exports. here we are in america. why would we say it's okay for china to peg its currency that puts a tariff against imports and a subsidy against exports. why would some members of the chamber consider that to be just fine? i'm puzzled by that. mr. brown: i was listening to one of the previous speakers who opposed this bill characterize the bill as a tariff -- a china tariff bill. and you said it exactly write. when we sell to china, it's as if they put a tariff on you are products. when we buy from them, we give them a 25% bonus.

and -- excuse me, when we try to sell to them, they add that import. when we buy from them, they have a 25% bonus. and it's putting us at such a disadvantage, as you say. mr. merkley: well, we recently had the shutdown of a company called blue herring. it is operated for the better part of a century making paper. and the point that blue heron was making was that because of the pegging of the currency, their paper, if they try to sell to china, face add 25% tariff while china's paper was 25% subsidy. and if it was sold in the u.s. it created an absolutely unfair international trade playing field that was going to be putting american paper makers 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. and it's one of a series of paper plants that have shut down, and i think you have some similar situations in ohio. mr. brown: the senator from oregon and i have talked about this, that there is a gentleman who worked for a paper company that illustrated to me what china has done and a specific kind of paper called -- it is kind of the glossy magazine, coated paper, that china bought their wood pulp in brazil, they undercut blue heron and undercut ohio paper companies because they had that 25% subsidy. there's no what i labor costs are only about 10% -- labor is only about 10% the cost of paper production, that you possibly could buy something as heavy and voluminous as wood pulp -- as pulp, ship it across the owen ocean, mill it, ship it in the

form of paper back and the only way you could undercut prices is by huge subsidies. it may have been water and energy and capital and larntiondz but it surely was that 25% subsidy that these companies have when they undercut our manufacturers. i just know in 15 years, senator merkley, or 10 years we'll just look back on our country, at our history 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, then the production is done offshore, so much of the innovation that's done on the shop floor ends up in that country rather than here, and it makes it harder for us when we lose that innovation edge to catch up. mr. merkley: well, i think it's important to understand as well that the pegged currency isn't the only tool that china is using to create an unlevel playing field against american

products. another is that they use something that economists call financial repression. now, that's a fancy word for artificially lowering the interest rates on savings to a level below inflation. so if you're a chinese citizen and you're saving money and the inflation rate is 5%, the interest rate you're going to get is going to be less than 5%. it is a way essentially of tasmg the entire nation and the government takes those funds -- the chinese government takes those funds and they do massive subsidies to manufacturing in china. and those subsidies include grants and they include below-market loans. so on top of the huge tariff on american products and that basically stems from this currency manipulation, you have these huge subsidies to domestic

manufacturers who export to the united states. now, china is supposed to disclose those subsidies under w.t.o. but it may come as a surprise to some in this chamber, china doesn't do it. they only did it one year -- in 2006. and so they are taking the structure that was set up and they're abusing it. and this adds 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 need as policy-makers of the nation, to stand up for the american workers, stand up for the middle class and say we are not going to a how another nation in a major trading relationship to break the rules in order to discriminate against american products and put american workers out of work?

mr. brown: from the work that senator schumer did earlier in this bill and the cosponsorship of the senator from north carolina who is presiding, this bill -- it really is the first major bipartisan jobs -- major, biggest jobs bill we've brought in front of this chamber. and this is a chance to finally begin to look towards ways of reindustrializing our curntion of building manufacturing. it matters in places like buffalo and heart is charlotte and portland and toledo. that's why we got 79 votes in the first go-around monday night. that's why we have so many republican sponsors of this bill. that's why the work that senator schumer and graham have been doing for years to begin to build that foundation and that's why the passage of 1619 is so important. mr. merkley: madam president, i just want to thank the senator from ohio, senator brown, for his tremendous work on this, along with the work that my colleague from new york has done, senator schumer. it is time that we stand up for workers across our nation who

have been systematically losing their good-paying manufacturing jobs because china has been pegging its currency to discriminate against american products and to subsidize the export of their own. this must be discussed in every coarch our nation. it 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. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, if washington is going to force new

regulations on the job creators of this country, well, i think america needs to know the cost of those regulations. that's why i rise today to discuss an important amendment, an amendment that i am offering to the underlying china currency bill. it is the barrasso amendment number 671. this amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, it's cosponsored by senator manchin, senator blunt, this will force the united states 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%. meanwhile, the unemployment rate in china is 4.1%. our economy is stagnant. china's economy is growing. it has been this way since president obama took office. now, the president blames the american people by saying that the country has grown soft. in september he stated in a tv interview in florida that, he said the way i think about this is, you know, this is a great, great country that has gotten a little soft, he said. he said we don't have that same competitive edge we needed over the last couple of decades. he said we need to get back on track. well, yet despite the repaoetd assurances of -- repeated assurances of improvement, president obama's own economic policies have failed.

the only people who have gained from these policies, countries overseas. we see it in china. these are people who are benefitting from american companies moving operations outside the united states. why? it's to escape washington's red tape. the president's stimulus plan failed to produce the 3.5 million jobs that the president had promised. his so-called green jobs initiative gave us more red ink but never came close to the five million new jobs that he predicted. all the while, the washington bureaucracy that he controls has continued to churn out expensive 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 red tape 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 that put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time, he said, when 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 red tape each and every day. the red tape makes it harder and more expensive for the private

sector to create jobs, while making it easier to create jobs in foreign countries like china. the president said that 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 won't really 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 job plan actually adds to the burdens of job creators in this country. the president has tried to justify this increasing avalanche of red tape. he said he doesn't want to choose between jobs and safety. well, in today's regulatory climate, the choice is a false one. washington's wasteful regulations aren't 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 that 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% over the past three years while our economy has only grown 5% over the same three 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 that regulating our economy makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. the combined costs 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 that 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 doesn't make the other side pop up. this administration's out-of-control regulation 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, and he said he wanted to do that to slow down washington's regulation. well, let's see, how effective has the president been with his executive order?

well, it's failed. in the month since the president issued his executive order, back way in the beginning of 2011, all of those months, hundreds of new rules and regulations have been either enacted or proposed. for every day that goes by, america's job creators faced 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 sources of uncertainty in the economy right now are washington regulations. to make things worse, the people most victimized by this uncertainty are the very people that the president claims he wants to help. the president said last year that when it comes to job

creation, he wants to, and he said -- quote -- "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% higher than larger businesses which have up to 500 employees. and these figures don't 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 that the president's new health care law alone will produce 30,000 pages of new health care regulations. and who are many of these aimed at? well, it is the same small employers that 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 that i am offering is going to do just that, and it is a bipartisan amendment. it is based on a bill that i have introduced call 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, and 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 they are also too many. it makes no sense to look at any one individual rule or regulation in a vacuum, and enacting hundreds of them without identifying and understanding their cumulative impact and effect.

the cumulative effect of these 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, and 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, for 40 years, the federal government has required an analysis of how federal regulations will impact

america's environment. they have to file things called environmental impact statements, and what i'm asking here is simply a jobs impact statement. past generations of legislators rightly recognize 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 that americans are much more interested in growing our nation's economy than they are in growing china's economy.

i urge a vote and an adoption of this amendment. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. i rise today to, first of all, congratulate all of my colleagues, 79 members that came together to vote to proceed to a very important measure, a jobs bill that is currently before us. the great news is it's 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 united states senate, that enough is enough

and we want china as well as other countries to follow the rules. we want them to follow the rules so that when our companies and our workers are competing in a global economy, that we will have a level playing field, that we will have the ability to compete because 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. now, the biggest violator on any number of trade issues we know right now is china, and since they joined the w.t.o. 10 years ago and the whole point of them being able to join the world community under a world set of economic agreements was to make sure that they would have to follow the rules like everybody else, but ever since that time, they have done nothing but flagrantly violent the rules.

when china doesn't 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, and it's got to stop. madam president, 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 entrepreneurialship, and we are moving forward and creating new ideas, more clean energy patents 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, more high-tech research and development problems in michigan than any other place in the country, and so we know how to compete and we know how to win. but we're in a global economy

where our companies are competing against countries, and when we have an entity, a country like china that does not feel that they need to follow the rules, whether it's stealing our patents, whether it's blocking our businesses from being able to bid to do business in china or whether it's the huge issue of currency manipulation which is in front of us today, we know that the rules matter. we know it's our job to stand up for american businesses and american workers, and that's 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 to prioritize the countries that are most egregious in their

actions. we know that 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 hearing about how -- give china time. we're now past ten years when they answered the w.t.o. and every time we talk about this, they say they've started to change it. economists have said maybe it's not change, even getting worse. the point is we are losing jobs as a result of the fact that china cheats and enough is enough. how do they do that? in this case when we say currency manipulation, i think a lot of folks' eyes glaze over but the reality is because of the way they value their currency, their money, they are able to get an artificial discount. their products appear to cost less coming into the united

states, same product made the same way and ours artificially gets an increase in the price. and it can be up to 40% difference, just -- not because of anything other than the fact that they do not value their currency the way every other country does in the world economy. and so they always make sure that they peg it in a way that they get a discount. no matter what. and that's illegal under the w.t.o. it's unfair. it's cheating. and that's what this bill fixes. real-world example: we have some great auto parts manufacturers in michigan and a very common story would be a part, brakes or another part that costs a hundred dollars in michigan that the chinese would be able to peg

their cost at $60, not because it was any difference other than the fact that they value their currency in a way that allows them to have it appear that it costs less. and so this is something that we intend to take action on. we know right now, the good news is if china's currency was revalued, if they did what everybody else does in the global economy and followed the rules as they were supposed to, that we would see up to $286 billion added to our g.d.p. right now. we would see 2.25 million u.s. jobs being created if china and those others around them followed the lead and in fact revalued their currency, 2.25 million jobs. we don't need a line item in the budget to do that. we're not talking about a new

program. we're talking about simply leveling the playing field and stopping china from cheating. and we can create 2.25 million jobs. our deficit would be reduced by between $621 billion and $857 billion at no cost to taxpayers. at the time when we are struggling with the largest deficit hole 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, madam president, sounds like a pretty good deal to me. and i would say people in michigan would say why has it taken so long to be able to address this? so now is the time. we have a strong bipartisan coalition, and i'm so proud of

all the colleagues that have come together from every part of the country, every part of our economy, whether it's manufacturing, agriculture, or textiles, or those involved in high tech, saying it's time for us to stand up for america, for american jobs, american businesses. that's what this is really all about. and 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, something we can do that will reduce the deficit, create jobs, china, proceeding with a policy that is hurting the recovery at a time when we need to get everything out of the way so that we can come roaring back

as a country. we are the greatest country in the world. i have tremendous challenges right now economically that we will work our way out of. but one of the first things that we can do is to say to china stop cheating. we also have heard fred bergsten the former assistant treasury secretary, i regard china's currency policy as the most protectionist measure taken by any major country since world war ii. we debate over the year, fair trade, free trade, is it protectionism to stand up for american businesses or american workers, and here we have an expert saying to us that china's policy on currency manipulation he regards as 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's our job to make sure that there's a level playing field. this is about american competitiveness. this is about being in a global economy, making sure the rules are fair, making sure that everybody is following the same rules and then let's go for it. and i'll put american ingenuity, entrepreneurialship, research and development, skilled work force up against anybody. now, some say -- in fact, we've heard now from the highest levels of the chinese government that this will spark a trade war if we try to stand up for our businesses and require that there be a level playing field. we know we have a complicated relationship with china. certainly, we borrow funds to offset our debt. but we also are the largest

consumer market in the world. and they want to be able to sell to us. and i can't believe that they will decide they suddenly don't want to sell all of those things that they make to the united states, the largest consumer market in the world. the difference is, they won't be able to cheat. they won't able to get artificial discount that will hurt an american small business making the same product, american textile industry. i had an opportunity to visit folks that make denim for denim jeans and visit folks in the cotton industry talking about competitiveness and what this policy, 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's a level playing field. on trade. but they are up against a

situation where they artificially are facing a 28% to 30% discount because of currency manipulation. and yet they're still competing. can you imagine if the rules were fair? this is about american competitiveness. it's about the fact that we are responsible for making sure there's 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 things and grow things. and we want to make things sheer and grow things here. the jobs will be here and then we're happy to export them. we want to export our products, not our jobs. that's the difference. we're sick and tired of exporting our jobs because of the fact that china does not follow the rules. enough is enough. more than ten years they've had to step up and do what they're

supposed to be doing under the agreements that they have entered. enough is enough. so again, i'm looking 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 here in the senate being able to move forward and take action. the fact that colleagues on both sides of the aisle are standing together on behalf of businesses and workers who every corner -- through every corner of this country and saying we're going to fight for american jobs, american businesses large and small, and we're going to make sure that we create a level playing field so we have the competitiveness structure that 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. so i urge adoption of this bill and congratulate all of my colleagues and pleased to have been involved with this issue for many, many years, with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and very pleased that we've been able to get this legislation to this point. it's now time to act on behalf of american workers and american businesses. i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: