A bill to require manufacturers to increase the percentage of automobiles manufactured for sale within the United States that are capable of operating on higher-level blends of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, in combination with gasoline or diesel fuel.

Mr. President, this week I am introducing a bipartisan piece of legislation that every Member of the Senate should support. The legislation aims to crack down on sweatshop abuses taking place in overseas factories that produce merchandise for sale in the American marketplace.

The United States currently prohibits the importation of products made with prison labor but does not similarly prohibit the importation of products made in sweatshops under slave-like conditions. What is more, if a U.S. retailer finds that one of its competitors is importing products made in a foreign sweatshop, it has no recourse in U.S. courts and is placed at a competitive disadvantage.

I am certain that if Members of the Senate were asked to raise their hand if they support abusive sweatshop conditions at foreign factories producing for the United States, not one hand would go up. Yet, as the media and watchdog groups have documented all too well, these conditions are prevalent in a number of our major trading partners.

We have to put a stop to this. Sweatshop factories undermine the foreign workers who work in them, and they undermine U.S. workers who are asked to compete with them.

The bill I am introducing is called the Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act, and it is really very simple.

First, the bill says that it is illegal to bring the product of sweatshop factories to this country. In this bill, a ``sweatshop factory'' is one where workers are abused in violation of that country's labor laws.

Second, the bill allows U.S. retailers the right to sue their competitors for damages in U.S. court if their competitors are sourcing their merchandise from sweatshop factories.

Let me give you an example of why such legislation is essential, involving the country of Jordan.

Our trade negotiators signed the Jordan Free Trade Agreement in October of 2000. The agreement was negotiated under the Clinton administration, and it was supposed to be a model trade agreement. I give the Clinton administration credit for at least giving some thought to putting labor provisions in the trade deal with Jordan.

But those labor provisions were not enforced, and the result has been the proliferation of sweatshops in Jordan. In May of last year, the New York Times described this trend.

It turned out that when the agreement was signed in 1999, Jordan began to fly in so-called guest workers from countries like Bangladesh and China to make products in Jordan for sale at stores like Wal-Mart and Target. The conditions for these so-called guest workers in Jordan were slave-like.

This is how the New York Times described it: ``Propelled by a free trade agreement with the United States, apparel manufacturing is booming in Jordan, its exports to America soaring twenty fold in the last five years. But some foreign workers in Jordanian factories that produce garments for Target, Wal-Mart and other retailers are complaining of dismal conditions--of 20-hour days, of not being paid for months and of being hit by supervisors and jailed when they complain.''

These were some of the other conditions documented at these factories. Workers were promised $120 a month but in some cases were hardly paid at all. One worker was paid only $50 for 5 months of work. And 40-hour shifts were common. Incredibly, the 40-hour shift apparently had replaced the 40-hour workweek.

To its credit, Wal-Mart admitted to the New York Times that it had found ``serious problems with the conditions at several major Jordanian factories.'' But it should not have taken a New York Times investigation to uncover these abuses.

Here is another instance of sweatshop conditions. In November 2006, BusinessWeek had a cover story on sweatshop abuses entitled ``Secrets, Lies, and Sweatshops.'' The article begins with the description of a Chinese company called the Ningbo Beifa Group. This company has made a lot of money as a top supplier of pens, mechanical pencils, and highlighters to Wal-Mart Stores and other major retailers.

In 2005, Wal-Mart inspected this company's factories. It found that the company was paying its 3,000 workers less than China's minimum wage and violating overtime rules. So Wal-Mart asked the company to fix these serious problems.

The Chinese company failed to do so. Wal-Mart then returned to the company, found the same problems, and told the company to shape up. Again, the Chinese company failed to do so and happily continued making pens and highlighters for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart returned a third time and gave the Chinese company its third warning. Once again, the Chinese company failed to treat its workers according to Chinese law.

So finally, even Wal-Mart had had enough, and they issued a fourth warning--comply with the law or we will stop doing business with you. What did the Chinese company do? It turned to another Chinese company called the Shanghai Corporate Responsibility Management & Consulting Co. For a $5,000 fee, the company promised to send a consultant to take care of the Wal-Mart problem.

The consultant provided advice on how to create fake but authentic- looking payroll records. The consultant also told the company that, on the day of the fourth Wal-Mart audit, they should give the day off to any workers with grievances, so that they would not tell any inconvenient stories. After following the consultant's advice, the Chinese factory passed the Wal-Mart audit--even though the Chinese company later admitted that it didn't change any of its practices.

Now, I am not suggesting that Wal-Mart deliberately turned a blind eye in this case. And there are certainly documented cases of other companies selling sweatshop products in the United States.

But I do think that companies that decide to import products for sale in this country should not be allowed to gain an unfair competitive advantage by deliberately sourcing from sweatshop factories. And the bill that I am introducing would address such abuses by banning the importation or sale of products made in factories under sweatshop conditions.

For purposes of the bill, ``sweatshop conditions'' are gross violations of the labor, health, and safety laws of the country where the labor is performed. Enforcement would be divided between the Customs Service and the Federal Trade Commission. If the Federal

Trade Commission determined that a factory was operating under sweatshop conditions, it would issue an order prohibiting the sale of products from that factory. Violations of those orders would then carry a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each individual violation.

The import ban deals only with goods that can be proven to have been made with sweatshop labor and is not a ban of products based on the country of origin. In order to comply with nondiscrimination provisions of the WTO, the sales ban would apply to both domestic and imported goods. The President could waive the application of this section to particular goods, but the Congress would also be able to pass a joint resolution rejecting a Presidential waiver.

The legislation also creates a private right of action for U.S. retailers and their investors to bring a civil action against competitors who import or sell sweatshop goods. For each offense, plaintiffs can sue for damages of the higher of $10,000 or the actual value of the goods. They can also sue for injunctive relief, to prevent the further entry of these goods into the U.S. marketplace.

This legislation is similar to S. 3485, a bill that I introduced late in the last Congress. I am happy that, in introducing the legislation in the 110th Congress, I am being joined by Senator Graham of South Carolina, who has agreed to lead the effort to advance it from the other side of the aisle. The legislation is also cosponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown, who last year introduced a companion piece of legislation in the House of Representatives. And I would also like to thank the other original cosponsors of the bill, Senators Byrd, Feingold, and Sanders.

I believe that one of the messages the American people sent to Congress in the November elections is that they demand fair trade. The legislation I am introducing is a way for Congress to show that the message has been heard.

Mr. President, our Government agencies collect and report a range of economic information but much of what we see or hear is most suited to describing the general state of the country's economy. This information does not reflect what is happening in and what matters most to our families and the quality of our lives. For example, our national unemployment figures don't tell us that those who are employed may not have benefits, or that they are working two or three jobs to earn the income that they report, or that their mortgage debt and college loans are jeopardizing their ability to repay their credit card debt or their medical bills. By knowing and reporting this kind of information we can not only more accurately reflect what our families are experiencing economically, we can better inform policymakers about what matters most to people and the steps that need to be taken to address household economic needs and concerns.

To address this need I am introducing the Commission on Measures of Household Economic Security Act of 2008. The bill would establish a bipartisan congressional commission of 8 economic experts to look at existing government economic data and identify the possible need for new information, more accurate methodologies and better ways to report these economic measures to give a more accurate and reliable picture of the economic well being of American households. As part of their effort, the Commission will be asked to meet with representative groups of the public so that their views are taken into account in the Commission's recommendations.

In doing this, the Commission will look at such things as the current debt situation of American individuals and households, including categories of debt such as credit card debt, education related loans and mortgage payments; the movement Americans between salaried jobs with benefits to single or multiple wage jobs with limited or no benefits with a comparison of income to include the value of benefits programs such as health insurance and retirement plans; the percentage of Americans who are covered by both employer-provided and individual health care plans and the extent of coverage per dollar paid by both employers and employees; the savings rate, including both standard savings plans and pension plans; the disparity in income distribution over time and between different demographic and geographic groups; and the breakdown of household expenditures between such categories as food, shelter, medical expenses, debt servicing, and energy.

In addition, the Commission will consider the relevance of certain non-market activities, like household production, education, and volunteer services that affect the economic well being of households but are not measured or valued in currently reported economic statistics. As Robert F. Kennedy has famously said, some of our economic indicators measure ``everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.'' We need to make an effort to value more than just our gross domestic product and sales receipts. We need to better measure and understand what matters to American households.

This effort to improve how we measure what matters in our economy is very much in the Wisconsin tradition of accountable good Government. It was Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr. who, in 1932, introduced a resolution requiring the U.S. Government to establish a more scientific, specific and accurate set of measures of the health of the U.S. economy. From his request, Simon Kuznets, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor, developed the first set of national accounts which form the basis for today's measure of GDP and other economic indicators. Kuznets won the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics ``for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development.'' His work was the basis for much of the New Deal reform policies. Yet Kuznets specifically acknowledged that his measures were incomplete and did not go far enough to measure what may really matter. In his 1934 report to the Senate on his compilation of statistics associated with Gross National Product he concluded: ``The welfare of a nation can . . . scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as [so] defined . . . .'' This bill is intended to advance these earlier efforts to make our economic statistical measures more reflective of the welfare of our families and our nation.

The cost of this commission will be fully covered by amounts already authorized and appropriated to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation

Mr. President, our national energy situation is continuing to deteriorate. Petroleum and gasoline prices have set all time records, and our oil imports are responsible for an incredibly large wealth transfer from America to global oil producers. Our most immediate and visible energy challenges are adequate supplies and record prices for fuels in our transportation sector, but natural gas and coal prices also have risen to new plateaus, and these are impacting both electricity prices and manufacturing and delivery costs across our economy and society. We have yet to tackle the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the large majority of which result from the combustion of fossil fuels. The environmental impacts of energy use, especially from autos and power plants, are still a major health concern. In short, we need to initiate a major transition of our energy sector, to one that is far more efficient, is much less reliant on fossil fuels and imported oil, and is utilizing vastly more domestically produced renewable fuels and energy.

Americans recognize the magnitude and the urgency of our energy challenges. They rightfully expect us to adopt policies to move this energy transition forward. In particular, we need to reduce dependence on oil in transportation, and we have broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. However, in expanding the use of alternative fuels, we face the challenge of needing both alternative fueling stations and vehicles that can use these fuels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 calls for a brisk expansion of the production and use of biofuels, and it promotes the expansion of the ethanol distribution and sales infrastructure. In parallel, we need to rapidly expand the number of dual fuel automobiles, including in particular autos that can be fueled with any blend of gasoline and ethanol ranging from zero to 85 percent ethanol.

Today I am joined by my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, in introducing the Dual fuel Automobile Act of 2008. This bill will expand the number of dual fuel automobiles at a rapid pace while not imposing undue production cost challenges or our auto manufacturers. It calls for 50 percent of all light-duty vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to be dual fuel automobiles by 2011. It increases that to 90 percent of all light-duty vehicles manufactured for U.S. sales by 2013. These requirements are reasonable because it is known that gasoline vehicles require relatively minor changes in fuel system designs to be able to use blends of gasoline and ethanol which qualify them for dual fuel designation.

This mandate will ensure that the number of dual fuel automobiles in our transportation fleet is expanding apace with the expansion of ethanol production and use in our national fuel supply over the next 15 years and beyond. Taken together, our increasing production of biofuels, our incentives for installation of alternative fuel infrastructure, light-duty vehicle requirement will provide Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically-produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. This represents a critical component in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources.

Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I request support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, our national energy situation is continuing to deteriorate. Petroleum and gasoline prices have set all time records, and our oil imports are responsible for an incredibly large wealth transfer from America to global oil producers. Our most immediate and visible energy challenges are adequate supplies and record prices for fuels in our transportation sector, but natural gas and coal prices also have risen to new plateaus, and these are impacting both electricity prices and manufacturing and delivery costs across our economy and society. We have yet to tackle the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the large majority of which result from the combustion of fossil fuels. The environmental impacts of energy use, especially from autos and power plants, are still a major health concern. In short, we need to initiate a major transition of our energy sector, to one that is far more efficient, is much less reliant on fossil fuels and imported oil, and is utilizing vastly more domestically produced renewable fuels and energy.

Americans recognize the magnitude and the urgency of our energy challenges. They rightfully expect us to adopt policies to move this energy transition forward. In particular, we need to reduce dependence on oil in transportation, and we have broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. However, in expanding the use of alternative fuels, we face the challenge of needing both alternative fueling stations and vehicles that can use these fuels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 calls for a brisk expansion of the production and use of biofuels, and it promotes the expansion of the ethanol distribution and sales infrastructure. In parallel, we need to rapidly expand the number of dual fuel automobiles, including in particular autos that can be fueled with any blend of gasoline and ethanol ranging from zero to 85 percent ethanol.

Today I am joined by my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, in introducing the Dual fuel Automobile Act of 2008. This bill will expand the number of dual fuel automobiles at a rapid pace while not imposing undue production cost challenges or our auto manufacturers. It calls for 50 percent of all light-duty vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to be dual fuel automobiles by 2011. It increases that to 90 percent of all light-duty vehicles manufactured for U.S. sales by 2013. These requirements are reasonable because it is known that gasoline vehicles require relatively minor changes in fuel system designs to be able to use blends of gasoline and ethanol which qualify them for dual fuel designation.

This mandate will ensure that the number of dual fuel automobiles in our transportation fleet is expanding apace with the expansion of ethanol production and use in our national fuel supply over the next 15 years and beyond. Taken together, our increasing production of biofuels, our incentives for installation of alternative fuel infrastructure, light-duty vehicle requirement will provide Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically-produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. This represents a critical component in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources.

Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I request support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, A few days ago I returned from a two week engagement abroad which included stops at Azerbaijan's oil and natural gas rich Caspian Sea coast, through Georgia, Turkey, Romania, Ukraine, Germany, and finally to Brussels, Belgium.

While my visit was planned well in advance of the conflict between Georgia and Russia, recent events have amplified the importance of energy as a strategic priority in capitals across this region. States dependent on Russian gas to fuel their economies and ways of life understand that turning off the tap may be as effective a weapon as the tanks and armies that rolled across Georgia. For example, the Russian suspension of gas supplies to Ukraine 2 years ago spurred significant discussion of energy security amongst European friends. Yet only modest changes in planning and preparation have occurred. Meanwhile, Russia has aggressively sought to increase its dominance over energy supplies.

In the U.S. we are largely dependent on foreign governments for our transportation energy needs, which leaves our own security and prosperity in jeopardy. Accordingly, we must attain genuine energy security with supplies sufficient enough to grow our economy and insulate us from foreign manipulation. We are fortunate to have the means to bolster both renewable and conventional energy sources.

Realizing this potential will take leadership and vision. Renewable energy offers the greatest hope to wed our energy security needs with economic growth and environmental stewardship. However, one of the major impediments to expanding renewable energy, such as biofuels, is a lack of appropriate infrastructure. Currently our automobile fleet is largely built to run on petroleum based gasoline and up to 10 percent ethanol blends. This means that even though ethanol makes up a relatively small portion of our fuel source, greater production from the next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, will be severely hampered, if not prevented.

This is why I join Senator Harkin of Iowa in introducing the Dual Fuel Automobile Act of 2008. This bill calls for 50 percent of all automobiles manufactured for sale in the U.S. to be dual fuel automobiles by 2011, meaning that the purchaser of the vehicle would have a choice in which fuel they choose to power their vehicle. It would increase to 90 percent of all automobiles manufactured for U.S. sales by 2013. Relatively minor and inexpensive changes in fuel system designs allow blends of gasoline and ethanol to be used dependent on the consumer's choice each time they fill up.