Reciprocal Market Access Act of 2011

Mr. President I rise to talk about our Nation's flawed approach to trade and its damaging effects on economic growth and job creation. Yesterday, this body approved three trade agreements that will do far too little to create manufacturing jobs here in the United States. In fact, it is clear these more-of-the-same agreements will cost manufacturing jobs in Ohio and across the nation.

In towns and cities across Ohio, workers have the proud tradition of manufacturing products that matter to America.

From steel tubes made in Lorain that equip our energy markets, to car parts made in Moraine that move our auto industry forward, Ohio manufacturers represent the heart of our nation's economy.

Ohio manufacturers and workers are some of the most industrious and innovative in the United States.

Our companies and the people who fill our factories can compete across the world--but only if your government implements trade policies that create a level playing field.

However, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, along with Congress, have signed and passed trade agreements premised on hollow promises.

Supporters of free market policies promised that past trade pacts like NAFTA would stimulate growth and create jobs.

Some companies and constituents in Ohio would argue these assertions--and the assurances that accompany current trade agreements--could not be further from the truth.

Once successful companies in my state are now collapsing under the weight of misguided trade policies.

Working families in West Chester, Pickerington, Lima, and Akron are holding on for dear life in the face of our government failing to negotiate and enforce trade deals.

A rational trade agreement should open new markets, include standards on labor and safety that are at least as strong as the commercial provisions, and help U.S. companies expand their consumer base around the world.

However, recent trade pacts have slashed tariffs for foreign competitors while doing little to address the tariff and nontariff barriers that U.S. businesses face with our trading partners. Nothing in these newly approved agreements will change this pattern.

All too often, U.S. trade negotiators have been willing to open our markets to a flood of imports while failing to win the concessions required to make trade work for America.

A quick glance at our Nation's trade statistics makes it clear that we need a new gameplan when it comes to trade.

The U.S. merchandise trade deficit has surged 46 percent over the last decade, reaching an astronomical $634 billion in 2010.

Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, the U.S. has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs.

Behind these numbers are the faces of middle-class Americans who have lost their job because of ill-advised trade agreements.

Whether it is the worker getting laid off at a manufacturer providing energy appliances, or the person losing their job at a steel plant, the loss of a job due to trade can be a devastating experience for families across America.

Two examples of our nation giving too much, for too little in return can be seen with the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.

South Korea has the lowest level of import penetration for auto sales--at just 4.4 percent--of any developed country.

In 2009, the U.S. exported fewer than 6,000 cars to Korea. In the same year, Korea exported 476,000 cars to the U.S.

While a marginal improvement, the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement would allow each American-based automaker to export 25,000 cars to South Korea free of burdensome regulations.

However, it is clear that this ``concession'' does not do enough to shift the imbalanced trade in the auto sector in our direction.

In addition--much like China--South Korea would still be able to manipulate its currency--thwarting the ability of American companies to compete and hire workers.

Instead, South Korea will be able to exploit this trade agreement and make the limited market access we would have meaningless.

It is time that our free trade agreements increase market access to U.S. goods so that we're exporting goods--not jobs.

The American people are demanding a plan to make trade work.

It is time for Congress to meet the demands of the American people and take action to ensure a level playing field for our businesses and workers.

That is why I'm introducing the Reciprocal Market Access Act.

The Reciprocal Market Access Act would require the reduction or elimination of U.S. duties to be reciprocated by the nation with which we are entering into a trade pact.

In the event that a trading partner does not adhere to this requirement, the U.S. Trade Representative would be authorized to withdraw tariff concessions if a trading partner has failed to eliminate relevant tariff and non-tariff barriers.

This requirement will make sure that any type of barrier doesn't put American products at a disadvantage before we open our doors to American goods.

The U.S. should no longer acquiesce to demands to further open our market--already the most open market in the global economy--without gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange.

In addition, this bill would instruct the International Trade Commission to assess the impact of a potential trade agreement on opportunities and barriers for U.S. products that will be affected by the trade agreement.

If Congress is committed to creating jobs and reducing the trade deficit, we've got to make sure we have the policies that put us on a level playing field with our trading partners.

If we are serious about standing up for workers, small business and manufacturers who continue to play be the rules, we need to pass this legislation.

It is time to take action to help rebuild the economic foundation of the middle class.

It is time we negotiate trade agreements that put American workers and American businesses first.

It is time to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President I rise to talk about our Nation's flawed approach to trade and its damaging effects on economic growth and job creation. Yesterday, this body approved three trade agreements that will do far too little to create manufacturing jobs here in the United States. In fact, it is clear these more-of-the-same agreements will cost manufacturing jobs in Ohio and across the nation.

In towns and cities across Ohio, workers have the proud tradition of manufacturing products that matter to America.

From steel tubes made in Lorain that equip our energy markets, to car parts made in Moraine that move our auto industry forward, Ohio manufacturers represent the heart of our nation's economy.

Ohio manufacturers and workers are some of the most industrious and innovative in the United States.

Our companies and the people who fill our factories can compete across the world--but only if your government implements trade policies that create a level playing field.

However, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, along with Congress, have signed and passed trade agreements premised on hollow promises.

Supporters of free market policies promised that past trade pacts like NAFTA would stimulate growth and create jobs.

Some companies and constituents in Ohio would argue these assertions--and the assurances that accompany current trade agreements--could not be further from the truth.

Once successful companies in my state are now collapsing under the weight of misguided trade policies.

Working families in West Chester, Pickerington, Lima, and Akron are holding on for dear life in the face of our government failing to negotiate and enforce trade deals.

A rational trade agreement should open new markets, include standards on labor and safety that are at least as strong as the commercial provisions, and help U.S. companies expand their consumer base around the world.

However, recent trade pacts have slashed tariffs for foreign competitors while doing little to address the tariff and nontariff barriers that U.S. businesses face with our trading partners. Nothing in these newly approved agreements will change this pattern.

All too often, U.S. trade negotiators have been willing to open our markets to a flood of imports while failing to win the concessions required to make trade work for America.

A quick glance at our Nation's trade statistics makes it clear that we need a new gameplan when it comes to trade.

The U.S. merchandise trade deficit has surged 46 percent over the last decade, reaching an astronomical $634 billion in 2010.

Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, the U.S. has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs.

Behind these numbers are the faces of middle-class Americans who have lost their job because of ill-advised trade agreements.

Whether it is the worker getting laid off at a manufacturer providing energy appliances, or the person losing their job at a steel plant, the loss of a job due to trade can be a devastating experience for families across America.

Two examples of our nation giving too much, for too little in return can be seen with the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.

South Korea has the lowest level of import penetration for auto sales--at just 4.4 percent--of any developed country.

In 2009, the U.S. exported fewer than 6,000 cars to Korea. In the same year, Korea exported 476,000 cars to the U.S.

While a marginal improvement, the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement would allow each American-based automaker to export 25,000 cars to South Korea free of burdensome regulations.

However, it is clear that this ``concession'' does not do enough to shift the imbalanced trade in the auto sector in our direction.

In addition--much like China--South Korea would still be able to manipulate its currency--thwarting the ability of American companies to compete and hire workers.

Instead, South Korea will be able to exploit this trade agreement and make the limited market access we would have meaningless.

It is time that our free trade agreements increase market access to U.S. goods so that we're exporting goods--not jobs.

The American people are demanding a plan to make trade work.

It is time for Congress to meet the demands of the American people and take action to ensure a level playing field for our businesses and workers.

That is why I'm introducing the Reciprocal Market Access Act.

The Reciprocal Market Access Act would require the reduction or elimination of U.S. duties to be reciprocated by the nation with which we are entering into a trade pact.

In the event that a trading partner does not adhere to this requirement, the U.S. Trade Representative would be authorized to withdraw tariff concessions if a trading partner has failed to eliminate relevant tariff and non-tariff barriers.

This requirement will make sure that any type of barrier doesn't put American products at a disadvantage before we open our doors to American goods.

The U.S. should no longer acquiesce to demands to further open our market--already the most open market in the global economy--without gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange.

In addition, this bill would instruct the International Trade Commission to assess the impact of a potential trade agreement on opportunities and barriers for U.S. products that will be affected by the trade agreement.

If Congress is committed to creating jobs and reducing the trade deficit, we've got to make sure we have the policies that put us on a level playing field with our trading partners.

If we are serious about standing up for workers, small business and manufacturers who continue to play be the rules, we need to pass this legislation.

It is time to take action to help rebuild the economic foundation of the middle class.

It is time we negotiate trade agreements that put American workers and American businesses first.

It is time to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. This bill would enhance the research programs established in the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 and reauthorized in 2004, which have greatly enhanced our ability to predict outbreaks of harmful algal blooms, HABs, and the extent of hypoxic zones. But knowing when outbreaks will occur is only half the battle. This bill addresses not only the mitigation and prevention of HABs and hypoxia, but also prioritizes the effective transition of research products into implementable actions that state and local governments can take to minimize adverse impacts.

I am proud to continue my leadership on this important issue and I particularly want to thank my counterpart on this key piece of legislation, Senator Bill Nelson. I also want to thank the bill's additional co-sponsors, Senators Begich, Rockefeller, Whitehouse, Gillibrand and Cardin for their support.

In New England blooms of Alexandrium algae, more commonly known as ``red tide'' can cause shellfish to accumulate toxins that when consumed by humans lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning, PSP, a potentially fatal neurological disorder. Therefore, when levels of Alexandrium reach dangerous levels, our fishery managers are forced to close shellfish beds that provide hundreds of jobs and add millions of dollars to our regional economy. Red tide outbreaks--which occur in various forms not just in the northeast, but along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline--have increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years, with major blooms occurring almost every year.

In 2009, Maine's shellfish industry experienced a severe economic crisis as result of extensive rainfall and subsequent outbreak of red tide. The resulting closure of 97 percent of the State's shellfish beds and 100 percent of the offshore beds in federal waters for several months during the peak harvesting season was even more damaging to the shellfish industry and coastal economy than previous outbreaks in 2005 and 2008. In December 2010, Department of Commerce Secretary Locke found that the 2009 red tide bloom had caused a commercial fishery failure. Despite the recognition of their losses, fishermen have never received any economic assistance or compensation for the 2009 fishery disaster.

The HABs and hypoxia programs are critical to Maine's $50 million shellfish industry and the 3000 jobs that depend on it. Luckily, we have not experienced strong blooms in 2010 and 2011, and recent years have seen an increase in testing capabilities that allow for finer scale monitoring so that localized areas may remain open during an event. These critical procedures are a direct result of programs established by the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Acts of 1998 and 2004.

While we have made great strides in bloom prediction and monitoring, it is clear that these problems are continuing to increase in magnitude and demand our ongoing commitment and attention. Harmful algal blooms remain prevalent nationwide, and areas of hypoxia, also known as ``dead zones'' are now occurring with increasing frequency. Within a dead zone, oxygen levels plummet to the point at which they can no longer sustain life, driving out animals that can move, and killing those that cannot. The most infamous dead zone occurs annually in the Gulf of Mexico, off the shores of Louisiana. This area, averaging 6700 square miles in size over the last 5 years, is exacerbating the already difficult recovery of the Gulf region from last year's devastating oil spill. Dead zones are also occurring in more areas than ever before, including off the coasts of Oregon and Texas, and in the Chesapeake Bay.

The amendments contained in this legislation would enhance the Nation's ability to predict, monitor, and ultimately control harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Understanding when these blooms will occur is vital, but the time has come to take this program to the next level--to determine not just when an outbreak will occur, but how to reduce its intensity or prevent its occurrence all together. This bill would build on NOAA's successes in research and forecasting by creating a program to mitigate and control HAB outbreaks.

This bill also recognizes the need to enhance coordination among state and local resource managers--those on the front lines who must make the decisions to close beaches or shellfish beds. Their decisions are critical to protecting human health, but can also impose significant economic impacts. The bill would require development of Regional Research and Action Plans to identify baseline research, possible State and local government actions to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of HABs, and establish outreach strategies to ensure the public is informed of the dangers these events can present. A regional focus on these issues will ensure a more effective and efficient response to future events. Finally, this bill would provide for research, response and mitigation of harmful algal blooms annypoxia in fresh water systems.

If enacted, this critical reauthorization would greatly enhance our Nation's ability to predict, monitor, mitigate, and control outbreaks of HABs and hypoxia. Over half the U.S. population resides in coastal regions, and we must do all in our power to safeguard not only their health and the health of the marine environment, but we must also protect the jobs that depend on it. The existing Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has achieved a great deal already, and this authorization will allow it to continue providing such a vital service to the nation. I thank Senator Bill Nelson, and all of my cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Begich, Coons, Tester and Burr to introduce the Quadrennial Energy Review Act of 2011.

One of the big gaps in federal energy policy is the lack of an overarching vision and coordination among federal agencies to define how the United States produces and uses energy. Every president since Richard Nixon has called for America's independence from oil. We also need to make sure that our nation has a 21st century electric grid that matches supply with demand. If we want to create a more secure energy future for America then we need to develop a national energy plan that coordinates and integrates the energy policies of the various federal agencies. The development of such a policy would enhance our energy security, create jobs and mitigate environmental harm.

In the fall of 2009, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu asked the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, to review the energy technology innovation system to identify and recommend ways to accelerate the large scale transformation of energy production, delivery, and use to a low carbon energy system. In response, PCAST formed a working group and in 2010 issued its ``Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy''. PCAST's most important recommendation is that the Administration establish a new process that can forge a more coordinated and robust Federal energy policy, a major piece of which is advancing energy innovation. The report recommends--

The President should establish a Quadrennial Energy Review,

QER, process that will provide a multiyear roadmap that lays

out an integrated view of short-, intermediate-, and long-

term energy objectives; outlines

legislative proposals to Congress; puts forward anticipated

Executive actions coordinated across multiple agencies; and

identifies resource requirements for the development and

implementation of energy technologies.

Last month, the American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC) released a report, Catalyzing American Ingenuity (http:// www.americanenergyinnovation .org/2011-report/), which noted:

The nation needs a robust National Energy Plan to serve as

a strategic technology and policy roadmap . . . [to]

``provide a clear, integrated road map with short-,

intermediate-, and long-term objectives for federal energy

policies and technology programs, along with a structured,

time-bound plan to get there. We support DOE's Quadrennial

Technology Review, QTR, which we see as an important and

meaningful first step toward developing a national energy

strategy. The federal government should build on the QTR and

move quickly toward a government-wide QER.

AEIC is a group of prominent business leaders who came together last year to call for a more vigorous public and private sector commitment to energy technology innovation. AEIC members include: Norm Augustine, former chairman and chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin; Ursula Burns, chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox; John Doerr, partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Bill Gates, chairman and former chief executive officer of Microsoft; Charles O. Holliday, chairman of Bank of America and former chairman and chief executive officer of DuPont; Jeff Immelt, chairman and chief executive officer of GE; and Tim Solso, chairman and chief executive officer of Cummins Inc.

A Quadrennial Energy Review could establish government-wide energy goals, coordinate actions across agencies, and lead to the development of a national energy policy.

As the lead agency in support of energy science and technology innovation, the Department of Energy has taken the first step to developing a national energy plan by conducting a Quadrennial Technology Review of the energy technology policies and programs of the Department. The QTR serves as the basis for DOE's coordination with other agencies and on other programs for which the Department has a key role.

The next step is to build upon DOE's report and perform a Quadrennial Energy Review that would establish government-wide energy objectives, coordinate actions across Federal agencies, and provide a strong analytical base for Federal energy policy decisions.

Our bill, the Quadrennial Energy Review Act of 2011, would authorize the President to establish an Interagency Working Group to submit a Quadrennial Energy Review to Congress by February 1, 2014, and every 4 years thereafter. The Group would be co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, and consist of level I or II Executive Schedule members representing the Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Interior, Agriculture, Treasury, and Transportation, Office of Management and Budget, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal organizations, departments and agencies that the President considers to be appropriate.

The bill lists what information, at a minimum, shall be reported in the Quadrennial Energy Review and requires the Secretary of Energy to provide the Executive Secretariat and for agency heads to cooperate with the Secretary.

We live in a global world with global demands on energy. The country that best manages its energy resources will lead the 21st century and provide its people a secure energy future. The U.S. needs to win the energy race and this bill will help the United States remain that country.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation for the creation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park, along with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Massachusetts, Senators Whitehouse, Kerry, and Scott Brown. Our legislation seeks to preserve the industrial heritage and natural and cultural resources of the Blackstone Valley, help provide economic development opportunities for the local economies, and build upon the solid foundation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor.

Samuel Slater built his mill in 1793 and started the American Industrial Revolution in Rhode Island along the Blackstone River. Today, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor contains an exceptional concentration of surviving mills and villages that illustrate this chapter of American history.

The Blackstone Valley is a national treasure, which also includes thousands of acres of beautiful, undeveloped land and waterways that are home to diverse wildlife.

The extensive work of the National Park Service and the tireless efforts of Federal, State--both Rhode Island and Massachusetts--and local officials, developers, and volunteers have resulted in the recovery of dozens of historic villages, riverways, and rural landscapes throughout the Corridor. These types of economic redevelopment and environmental restoration efforts reflect the ongoing story of the Blackstone River and the valley.

The Ashton Mill in Cumberland is one such example of local redevelopment. With the designation of the National Heritage Corridor, the cleanup of the Blackstone River, the creation of the Blackstone River State Park in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and the construction of the Blackstone River Bikeway, the property was restored for adaptive reuse as rental apartments. Once again the mill and its village are a vital part of the greater Blackstone Valley community.

Great progress has also been made in restoring the environmental resources of the river valley. As a result, people are once again enjoying the river, whether in kayaks or canoes, or through other means. I have been pleased over the years to help support the preservation and renewed development of the Blackstone River Valley.

In 2005, I cosponsored legislation introduced by my then-colleague Senator Lincoln Chafee to conduct a Special Resource Study of the Corridor to determine which areas within the Corridor were nationally significant and whether they were suitable to become part of the National Park Service. When it was released this July, the study recommended the creation of a new national historic park whose boundaries would encompass both Rhode Island and Massachusetts, including the Blackstone River and its tributaries; the Blackstone Canal; the historic districts of Old Slater Mill in Pawtucket; the villages of Slatersville and Ashton in Rhode Island; and the villages of Whitinsville and Hopedale in Massachusetts.

The partnership park described in the Special Resource Study clearly stated the importance of the rural and urban areas, the landscape, and the river in telling the story of the Blackstone River Valley.

It will build upon the solid foundation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor and the workers and volunteers in all the surrounding communities, in restoring the Corridor.

Designating these areas as a national historical park has important economic, environmental, historical, and educational benefits for the region. This is a two state initiative, and truly a national initiative, that will embrace both Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and ensure the preservation of the industrial and natural heritage of the Blackstone River Valley for future generations to enjoy.

Establishing a national park will provide opportunities for work, opportunities for recreation, and opportunities to boost economic development, while memorializing the history of this place and its role in the American Industrial Revolution.

The partnerships between the federal, state, local, and private organizations have a proven track record of success with the Corridor, and I expect that the communities in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that have been engaged on this endeavor for many years will continue to partner with the National Park Service going forward.

Creating a national historic park sets a clear path to preserve our cultural heritage, improve the use and enjoyment of these resources, including offering outdoor education for young people, and increase the level of protection for our most important and nationally significant cultural and natural resources.

I have been proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation in honor of my late-colleague John H. Chafee, who years ago had a great vision, shared with many others in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to preserve and protect the Blackstone Valley.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to create the John H.

Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park.

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