Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about the report of the International Trade Commission on steel tariffs, which was made over the weekend. Late last Friday night, the International Trade Commission released its report on the impact of the steel tariff. The steel tariff is a tax. It is a tax that the administration imposed in March of 2002 on at least 10 different kinds of imported steel, including the kind of steel that is used to make automobiles and trucks in this country. The effect of the tariff was to increase the price of that steel up to 30 percent. It had a noble purpose. The President hoped to save some steel jobs in this country. The International Trade Commission (ITC) over the last several months has taken a lot of testimony and done a good deal of study to see what was the impact of that decision made in March of 2002 on both the steel industry, the steel producing part of our country, and on the automobile industry and on the other steel consuming parts of our economy. The report's finding on the overall economic impact of the steel tariff was not very surprising. According to the report, the steel tariff has saved a few steel jobs by raising the price of steel. But it has cost U.S. manufacturers, the auto parts suppliers, for example, over $680 million. The report also claims that somehow to make up for this, the tariff revenue to the U.S. Government, collected on the steel that came in from outside the country, was about $650 million. So the ITC estimates that there was not too much damage to the economy, only a $30 million loss in GDP. But what that overlooks is who paid the tax? It was, in part, the struggling auto parts suppliers who are manufacturing parts in this country in competition with auto parts suppliers all over the world. They paid the tariff to the federal government directly when they shipped in foreign steel themselves and in part indirectly when they paid higher prices to their distributors who brought in steel from abroad for them. They paid the tax. What has happened over the last year and a half, when all of us have been making speeches about how our greatest economic challenge may be how to keep our manufacturing jobs from moving overseas, is that we have imposed upon our manufacturers a tax, a tariff that has increased their costs by up to 30 percent and made them less competitive. As a result, they have done what manufacturers have to do. Rather than lose money, they have laid off a few employees or they have begun in a few cases--I know this in my own State of Tennessee; we are a big manufacturing State and one-third of the manufacturing jobs are automotive jobs--they have begun to move their parts suppliers to Mexico or Japan or Korea or other parts of the world where parts can be made, paying the global steel price. So, yes, we may have brought in $650 million to the U.S. Treasury in the tariff, but it has been paid on the backs of the steel-producing auto parts suppliers and other steel consumers of this country, and it has had the effect of driving jobs overseas. The report also illustrated something we knew to be true; that the steel tariff is hurting steel-consuming firms all across the United States, from auto parts suppliers to home appliance manufacturers, to tool and die shops to metal stamping facilities. All of these steel- consuming firms have been affected by the burden of the steel tariff in some shape or form. Here are a few things the report said: One-half of the steel- consuming firms surveyed reported they had difficulty in obtaining steel in the qualities and quantities they needed. That is an added cost. Second, almost a third of these firms relocated or shifted production to foreign plants, facilities, after the implementation of the tariff. That is exactly what we do not want in this country is any kind of new cost added by the Federal Government which causes a parts supplier in New Hampshire or Tennessee to move a plant overseas. Third, one-quarter of these steel-consuming firms reported that their customers shifted to purchasing finished parts or assemblies overseas as a result of the steel tariff. Let's say you are making a sunroof in Gordonsville, TN, and the cost of steel goes up 15 or 20 percent and that is the major raw material you are using. The Nissan Smyrna plant in Tennessee can buy that roof from just down the road in Gordonsville, everything else being equal, but the sunroof can also be made to a high standard of quality in many other countries in the world--in Japan, in Korea, in Mexico, in Canada. If costs are too high, too much out of whack, then the American automobile plant, in order to keep its costs down so it can be competitive, will buy that finished part from overseas. That is not subject to any tariff. Fourth, almost one-third of these firms reported the contracts they had in place to purchase steel were broken or modified after the tariff was imposed and reported a loss in profits due to these problems of approximately $190 million. Finally, one-third of these firms reported longer lead and delivery times. This also is very important. There is such a thing as just-in-time delivery in the automobile business. That is why in Tennessee we have gone from having two dozen auto parts suppliers 12 or 14 years ago to more than 950 today. The Toyota plant and the Nissan plant and the Saturn plant and the Mercedes plant--all of them located in the South, some still located in the Midwest--they like to have their parts suppliers nearby. If those firms have longer lead and delivery times, it makes that just-in-time delivery advantage less reliable. In addition, the report further highlighted the impact the steel tariff had specifically on auto parts suppliers. There are a lot of automotive people in the country. Historically, they have been in Michigan and in Ohio--the song ``Detroit City'' was written about Tennesseans who went to the Midwest to get good jobs and send the money home, and then they would come back themselves one day. Now, a lot of those auto parts suppliers have followed the auto plants to the rest of the country, to the Southeast and the Deep South. As I mentioned earlier, Tennessee is home to about 950 of these auto parts suppliers. They make up about one-third of all our State's manufacturing jobs. Mr. President, 85 percent of the auto parts suppliers surveyed in the ITC report said that their steel prices in the United States were higher than global prices; 31 percent reported that customers had shifted purchases to buying finished parts or assemblies overseas as a result of the tariff; 74 percent reported changes in contract prices for steel; and 55 percent reported the steel tariff was the only important factor in these changes in steel prices. Mr. President, 79 percent reported an inability to pass on steel price increases to customers. There is a lot of back and forth about just to what extent these steel prices have gone up. The report mentioned a variety of figures. It mentioned a figure of an 8 percent increase in hot bar steel. I wonder if maybe taking a snapshot of 8 percent in March of this year over March of last year ignores some of what goes in between. But here is what some of the auto parts suppliers said in testimony before the International Trade Commission was the effect of the steel tariff on steel prices. Arvin Meritor said its price increases were 25 percent to 40 percent on cold rolled and galvanized steel. Delphi said its prices increased 5 percent to 48 percent. DURA saw its prices increase 30 percent. Federal Mogul saw its prices increase 25 percent. Metaldyne saw its prices increase 10 percent. Transpro saw its prices increase 25 percent. Maybe some were lower and maybe some were higher, but these plants found in a very competitive business that even a few pennies more in cost per part makes a difference in their ability to keep a job in the United States. They found their costs suddenly way up--15 percent, 20 percent, or 25 percent. All of these burdens have meant extra costs to steel-consuming firms--extra costs that have affected steel-consuming jobs all across America. The steel tariff may have saved some steel- producing jobs, but it has already destroyed a lot more steel-consuming jobs. The findings of the ITC report alone should give the President ample reason to end the steel tariffs. I spoke on this subject on July 16 in this Chamber. I tried to point out at that time how both steel-consuming and steel-producing jobs are important to our country. But if that is all you are considering, there are a whole lot more steel-consuming jobs than there are steel- producing jobs. For example, in Tennessee, there are about 328,000 steel-consuming jobs. There are only about 3,000 steel-producing jobs. There are 100 times more steel-consuming jobs than steel-producing jobs. The United States has 12.8 million steel-consuming jobs--2.1 million of which are in the auto business. The United States has 226,000 steel- producing jobs. Everybody's job is important. Just to come along and say we want to save steel jobs cannot be used as a rationale for a steel tariff when the effect is that it destroys a lot more steel-consuming jobs. Even in States such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania, there are a lot more steel-consuming jobs than there are steel-producing jobs. There are more auto jobs in Pennsylvania than there are steel-producing jobs. That is no reason for the steel tariff. The economy is beginning to recover. Manufacturing is up. Manufacturing jobs are not up. We are more productive. So there are fewer jobs. But manufacturing for the last 3 months, according to the Wall Street Journal, is up. I strongly believe this recovery is a direct result of the President's job and economic growth plan. The last thing we need now is to continue any new costs such as the steel tariff on a major manufacturing sector that slows down our economic growth. I fear that if the steel tariff remains, we will see more plant costs during 2004 in Tennessee and across America. I believe the President has made an honest, good-faith effort to save steel jobs. But it has backfired by destroying auto and other steel- consuming jobs. I hope he takes into account the information that was revealed in this report this weekend. The President is a very good listener. He has given this decision almost 2 years to operate. I hope he will decide based on the fact that the tariff is destroying auto jobs that the best decision he could make for the American worker is to end the steel tariff, and to end the steel tariff now.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am informed that the manager is working hard to try to establish a time in the morning for those votes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If the distinguished manager of the bill does not object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that, at 5:30 this evening, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 356, to be followed immediately by a vote on the confirmation of No. 361, provided that immediately following those votes the President be notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the votes.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today is Citizenship Day. On this day in 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed. In 1952, Congress passed a law designating Citizenship Day on this day with the intent of recognizing those who had become American citizens during the preceding year. In the ceremony where an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen of this country, where he or she becomes a new American, he or she swears an oath of renunciation and allegiance. Last week, on September 11, I noted that the oath of allegiance is currently a matter of mere Federal regulation and not a matter of law. I said that Congress ought to enshrine the oath in law. Today, on behalf of Mr. Burns, Mr. Sessions, and 30 Members of the Senate, I rise to introduce legislation to do precisely that--to make the current oath of allegiance the law of the land. Doing so will give the oath of allegiance the same status enjoyed by other key symbols and statements of being an American--the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem, and our national motto. All these symbols and statements have been specifically approved by Congress and are now a matter of law. The oath of allegiance ought to be treated with the same dignity. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services--or BCIS--an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, was recently planning to change the oath of allegiance that immigrants take to become a citizen of this Nation. While those changes seem now to be on hold, it seems inappropriate to me that the BCIS, or any other Government agency, no matter how well intentioned, should have the power to alter the oath without congressional approval. In the first 5 months of this fiscal year, 166,968 immigrants took the oath and were naturalized as new citizens of this country. The oath assumed its present form in the 1950s and was first adopted in Federal regulations in 1929. But some of the language dates all the way back to 1790. Yesterday, I attended a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. They were proud to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. They were proud to become Americans. This is the oath they took to become U.S. citizens--the oath which will become law if the bill I will introduce today should pass and be signed by the President. I quote: I--and the citizen states his or her name--hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. That is the oath of allegiance. That is quite an oath. It has strength. It has clarity. It sounds as if it might have been written by some rowdy patriots in Philadelphia or Williamsburg. Yet, surprisingly, Congress has never voted on the content of this oath. We have left it to Federal regulators. It is time to protect it. This is a straightforward bill that simply codifies the oath of allegiance as it presently stands. The bill I introduce today has, as I mentioned, already attracted 30 cosponsors, including the distinguished Senator from North Carolina who is presiding today. I hope more Senators will join us in protecting this key statement on what it means to become an American.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today is Citizenship Day. On this day in 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed. In 1952, Congress passed a law designating Citizenship Day on this day with the intent of recognizing those who had become American citizens during the preceding year. In the ceremony where an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen of this country, where he or she becomes a new American, he or she swears an oath of renunciation and allegiance. Last week, on September 11, I noted that the oath of allegiance is currently a matter of mere Federal regulation and not a matter of law. I said that Congress ought to enshrine the oath in law. Today, on behalf of Mr. Burns, Mr. Sessions, and 30 Members of the Senate, I rise to introduce legislation to do precisely that--to make the current oath of allegiance the law of the land. Doing so will give the oath of allegiance the same status enjoyed by other key symbols and statements of being an American--the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem, and our national motto. All these symbols and statements have been specifically approved by Congress and are now a matter of law. The oath of allegiance ought to be treated with the same dignity. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services--or BCIS--an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, was recently planning to change the oath of allegiance that immigrants take to become a citizen of this Nation. While those changes seem now to be on hold, it seems inappropriate to me that the BCIS, or any other Government agency, no matter how well intentioned, should have the power to alter the oath without congressional approval. In the first 5 months of this fiscal year, 166,968 immigrants took the oath and were naturalized as new citizens of this country. The oath assumed its present form in the 1950s and was first adopted in Federal regulations in 1929. But some of the language dates all the way back to 1790. Yesterday, I attended a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. They were proud to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. They were proud to become Americans. This is the oath they took to become U.S. citizens--the oath which will become law if the bill I will introduce today should pass and be signed by the President. I quote: I--and the citizen states his or her name--hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. That is the oath of allegiance. That is quite an oath. It has strength. It has clarity. It sounds as if it might have been written by some rowdy patriots in Philadelphia or Williamsburg. Yet, surprisingly, Congress has never voted on the content of this oath. We have left it to Federal regulators. It is time to protect it. This is a straightforward bill that simply codifies the oath of allegiance as it presently stands. The bill I introduce today has, as I mentioned, already attracted 30 cosponsors, including the distinguished Senator from North Carolina who is presiding today. I hope more Senators will join us in protecting this key statement on what it means to become an American.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 68 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a concurrent resolution honoring Johnny Cash. Johnny Cash died on Friday in Nashville. The man whose singing voice sounded like a big freight train coming, is gone. The concurrent resolution I introduce today is on behalf of my colleague, the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senators from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln and Mr. Pryor, and the distinguished Senator Roberts, who probably knows the words to ``I Walk the Line,'' as do most of us all over the world. Johnny Cash lived a little bit outside of Nashville. I was in his home one time and I asked him: Johnny, how many nights do you perform on the road? He looked at me with some surprise. He said: Oh, about 300 a year. Why do you do that, I asked him in amazement? He looked back at me equally amazed. He said: That is what I do. All weekend the radio stations have been playing the songs of the man who performed 300 times a year for all of us, the ``man in black.'' Stores all over Nashville and all over the world were stocking up on Johnny Cash memorabilia this weekend. So much has been said in newspapers and on TV that one wonders what else we Senators might say about Johnny Cash. I mean, what could I say better, for example, than what Steven Greenhouse wrote on Johnny on page 1 of the New York Times on Saturday: Beginning in the mid-1950s, when he made his first record for the Sun label, Mr. Cash forged a lean, hard-bitten country-folk music that at its most powerful seemed to erase the lines between singing, storytelling and grueling life experience. Born in poverty in Arkansas at the height of the Depression, he was country music's foremost poet of the working poor. His stripped-down songs described the lives of coal miners and sharecroppers, convicts and cowboys, railroad workers and laborers. ``Foremost poet of the working poor.'' Mr. Greenhouse was not the only one who wrote beautifully about the foremost poet of the working poor. So did Louie Estrada and David Segal in the Washington Post. So did Craig Havighurst and several other writers in the Tennessean in Nashville, as well as John Sparks in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. I have no doubt that in Wichita, Topeka, and important cities all over the country and world there were writers who were writing as best they could about the music and the sound of Johnny Cash. Why do we wait until Johnny Cash dies to write of his poetry? John R. Cash is not the only such poet who ever lived in Nashville, TN. Bob Dylan, Johnny's friend, once said that Hank Williams was America's greatest poet. At last count, there are several thousand songwriters living in Nashville struggling to write poetry, some of which will be known and remembered everywhere in the world one day. Alice Randall, a Nashville songwriter, a writer of songs and books, once observed that it is odd that there is so little serious literary criticism of the poetry of Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, and other country music songwriters. The outpouring of articles that accompanied Johnny's death this weekend suggest that most of the serious criticism of the poetry found in country music is done by pop music critics in our major newspapers. But why is there not a department or a chair or at least a conference occasionally dedicated to criticism of the poetry or at least the literature of country music? Literary criticism is a fundamental part of the departments of English in universities all across America. Some of the most famous of these were among the ``Fugitives'' who met during the 1920s at Vanderbilt University. Cleanth Brooks, Robert Penn Warren, Allen Tate, Donald Davidson, and Andrew Lytle were some of those literary critics who began their careers then. If Vanderbilt University, my alma mater, is such a center of literary criticism, then why has Vanderbilt University not done more about the literature that is country music? Or why does Belmont University in Nashville or the University of Tennessee or the University of Memphis not do it? These Nashville and Memphis songwriters are certainly among the most famous poets in the world. But why do we wait for the New York Times and Bob Dylan to tell us that Johnny Cash and Hank Williams are also among the best poets when Vanderbilt University, among others, lives right there among them? There are hundreds of good English professors in dozens of northeastern universities writing thousands of pages of criticism about average poets, while our Tennessee universities are doing almost nothing to write about poets who others say are among the best in the world. We have had a habit in Tennessee of not being willing to look right in front of our own noses to celebrate what is special about us. We sometimes worry about producing only average Chopin when right down the block lives the best harmonica player in the world. I am all for Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. I have played their music on the piano with symphonies all across Tennessee, but I have also performed with those symphonies some of the most beautiful of the unique American music we call country music. The death of our friend Johnny Cash, the poet of the working poor, is a good time for our Tennessee universities to consider whether they might want to celebrate our excellence by encouraging literary criticism of some of the best known poets in the world: Our songwriters. Our universities might discover what others have suggested, that some of our songwriters are also among the best in the world.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the terrorists who attacked us 2 years ago were not only lashing out at people and buildings, they were attacking who we are as Americans. And since that day we have had an extraordinary amount of attention paid in this country to just that question. I know in my Senate campaign when I said I thought it was time to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children could grow up learning what it is to be an American, people responded to that. There was a hunger for thinking more about what makes this country special. Why were we attacked? What were the terrorists attacking? There are many ways to remind ourselves of what it means to be an American. One way is discussions like this. One is the speeches of our President, who has done a beautiful job of that. But another way is our schools. The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, once was asked: What is the rationale for a public school? Mr. Shanker's answer was that public schools were created--the common school--to teach the three R's, and what it means to be an American to immigrant children with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Earlier this year, this body, by a vote of 90 to 0, passed a piece of legislation to create Presidential academies for teachers and students of American history and civics. I know that across America last night there were thousands of teachers who were thinking about this morning and what would they say to their students today about what happened 2 years ago. If I were teaching today in school in America, these are four or five of the questions that I would ask my students. I would ask them: Is 9/11 the worst thing that ever happened to the United States? Of course, the answer to that is no. It helps to know American history to answer the question. Many of the Pilgrims died in the first winter. Soldiers walked barefooted across the Delaware River in our Revolutionary War. African slaves were thrown into the bellies of slave ships and brought in the most horrible conditions to this country. Those were really bad things. The Civil War saw families killing one another. Our World Wars say millions killed. Twenty percent of Americans stood in line for a job in the 1930s. When I was a boy in our hometown in eastern Tennessee, we had an airbase nearby with jets there to defend us from missile attacks which could be launched by the Soviet Union, and those missiles could arrive in 45 minutes. So 9/11 wasn't the worst thing that ever happened to the U.S. It was a terrible, challenging thing. It was a tragic thing, but we can recover from it. The fact that we have done what we have over the last 2 years reminds us of that. I would ask my students today: What makes America exceptional? I taught a course in American character at Harvard University during the last couple of years. I began the course by asking the student to list 100 ways our country is exceptional. They are not all good. We lock up more people in prison than any other country. We have more divorces and broken families. But many of the things are extraordinarily good. That has been recognized all throughout our history. One of the greatest--perhaps the greatest--is the fact that we have taken all of this variety and diversity and turned it into one country. No other country is able to do that. Diversity is magnificent. But Jerusalem is diverse. What is different about the United States of America is that we have united all of that diversity into one country. That needs to be taught as well. I would ask my students: Why is it if you move to Japan or France, you cannot become Japanese or French; but if you come to the United States and want to be a citizen you have to become an American? It is because our identity is not based on our race or ethnicity or religion or background. The historian, Richard Hofstadter, wrote: ``It is our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one.'' I would ask our students: What are the principles that unite us as a country? If it is not our race, and if it is not our religion, what is it? E pluribus unum, equal opportunity and liberty usually comes first; individualism, rule of law, free exercise of religion, no state church, laissez faire, and a belief in progress. Someone needs to teach these principles. Our schools can do it. We agree on these principles. I would ask our students: Why, if you were watching C-SPAN last night, were Senators arguing so much with each other? Why wasn't it unanimous? It is because most of our politics is about applying principles we agree on in ways that conflict. We believe, for example, in God we trust. But on the other hand, we don't trust government with God. We have an argument when we put Federal money into faith-based institutions. I would suggest that the schools across America might consider an idea called ``Pledge Plus Three.'' Why not start each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance, as we do in the Senate, followed by a teacher or student sharing for 3 minutes their own idea about what it means to be an American? In the course I taught at Harvard, the student who best understood American identity was the student from the Ukraine. She had the best idea about what it meant to be an American. Finally, I would invite those students in my class today to go with me down to the Federal courthouse--say in Nashville, but it could be in any city in America where there is a Federal court--and watch, as I did 2 years ago, 77 students from all over the world raise their right hand and take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. It is quite a weighty thing to see them say that they ``absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.'' That is the first part of the oath. It reminds us who we are as Americans. September 11 was a tragic day, but it brought out the best in us. One of the great lessons is that it helps us remember to teach one another what is exceptional about our country, and what it means to be an American. Thank you.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, earlier today, I talked about remembering September 11 and the terrible events that happened that day, but it also brought us together as we remembered what it means to be an American. This afternoon, I wish to address an important statement on what it means to be a citizen of the United States. I mean specifically the oath of allegiance which all new citizens swear in court when they are naturalized. I rise this afternoon to announce that I will shortly introduce legislation to make the current oath of allegiance the law of the land. Doing so will give the oath of allegiance the same status enjoyed by other key symbols and statements of being American. The American Flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and our national motto--all these symbols and statements have been specifically approved by Congress and are now a matter of law. The oath of allegiance, which is currently a matter of mere Federal regulation, ought to be treated with the same dignity. I do this today because it has come to my attention that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or BCIS, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, may be planning to change the oath of allegiance that immigrants take to become citizens of this Nation. According to National Review Online: The Federal Government is about to change the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants take at citizenship ceremonies. The article goes on to say BCIS intends to announce the change, perhaps make it effective immediately, perhaps on September 17, Citizenship Day, or next week, during Constitution Week, which is the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. I do not know whether that will happen or whether it will not happen, but I have read the new oath that, according to National Review Online, BCIS intends to make public next week. I prefer the oath we already have. The oath of allegiance is a fundamental statement on the commitment of becoming a U.S. citizen. It should not be altered by a Government agency, no matter how well intentioned. Any change should be subject to the approval of this body. It ought to be enshrined in law. In the first 5 months of this fiscal year, nearly 170,000 new Americans took the oath of allegiance and were naturalized as citizens of this country. The oath assumed its present form in the 1950s and was first adopted in Federal regulation in 1929, but some of the language dates all the way back to 1790. Let me describe how this oath is used in practice. Imagine that we are in a Federal courthouse, such as the one I was in in Nashville. It was October 2001. It was Naturalization Day. This happens at virtually every Federal courthouse virtually every month. The room is filled with anxious persons talking among themselves in halting English. They are obviously with their families and their closest friends. They are neatly dressed. Most faces are radiant. That day there were 77 persons from 22 countries who had passed their exams, learned English, passed a test about American Government, survived a character investigation, paid their taxes, and waited in line for 5 years to be a citizen of the United States of America. The bailiff shouts: ``God save this honorable court.'' On that day, the judge, her Honor Aleta Trauger, walked in. She asked each of the applicants to stand, to raise each one's right hand and repeat the following oath, which I am going to state. I hope those listening will listen carefully because this oath makes an impression:

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. My purpose this evening is very briefly to make a few comments about the visit to four countries in Africa that six Members of this body took during the last 2 weeks of August. The delegation was led by the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. It included the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota. I was there and three others. We visited four countries: South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana, and Namibia. It was an eye-opening and, for me, an eye-popping experience in many cases. I have the privilege of serving as the chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, so I am very interested in Africa. It was my second visit there in the last 3 years. Before I make a few comments about it, I want to simply observe how much we owe Senator Frist, our majority leader, for teaching us a great deal not just about Africa but about the HIV/AIDS problem which was the subject of our visit to Africa. Senator Frist has been there a long time. When nobody else much was talking about HIV/AIDS, he was. He helped change some very important minds in this body. He has been an important adviser to the President of the United States and is an inspiration to us. When we left to come home after 10 days, he stayed for 5 days, went to Kenya and Sudan, and operated on people who have very little medical care, which he has done every year. We owe him a lot for his leadership on the subject. Within a few weeks, the Congress will be considering the nomination of Randall Tobias to be the new AIDS czar, the person in charge of what we are going to try to do. Also, Congress will almost surely fund President Bush's recommendation that we spend $15 billion in 14 African and Caribbean countries to fight the disease which we call HIV/AIDS. It will be my purpose in our subcommittee and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, to make sure this taxpayer money, the largest public health expenditure ever, will be spent wisely. This evening, in summary fashion, while it is still fresh in my mind, I will make a few suggestions to Mr. Tobias, who is not yet confirmed by the Senate. I hope he will be. I know in this quiet time he is not allowed to do anything or say anything out of respect for the Senate, and it is a good time for him to make a plan for a fast start. If I were to make a plan for a fast start for Mr. Tobias, President Bush's designated AIDS czar, to be considered for confirmation by this body shortly, these would be my suggestions: No. 1, I suggest Mr. Tobias go to Africa. I don't see how it is possible to understand the enormity of the disease if you do not go to Africa. The disease has delivered a death sentence to 29 million Africans, a number so large that it is hard to imagine. Go to Africa in order to make good spending decisions. Go to Africa in order to cut red tape. A commander of a major battle should be where the action is. While there, show some respect for the African way. We are very proud of the American way; the Africans are proud of their way. It is a little different. When in Namibia, where we were, I suggest you play the Namibian national anthem and leave it to the local mayor to say, as he said to us ``God bless America.'' No. 2, I suggest making needles and blood transfusions safe. It seems to me this is the surest, fastest way to save lives when dealing with HIV/AIDS. Senator Jeff Sessions of this body has made a project of reminding Members a number of people are infected by contaminated needles and by other unsafe health practices. The estimate would be that at least 175,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa this year will be infected with the HIV virus because of unsafe health practices. That means needles that are dirty, that have been used before, that have contaminated blood. That is just 5 percent of all of those in sub- Saharan Africa who will be infected, but it is a huge number of people, 175,000 people. By comparison, in the United States, only 40,000 people are infected with HIV/AIDS every year. In one hospital we visited in Namibia, health workers were recapping the needles they had already used and in the process risked pricking themselves with a used needle that could have infected blood on it. A third suggestion: save the babies. This is also something that can be gotten off to a very fast start because it is already occurring. In Botswana, nearly 40 percent of pregnant women are HIV positive. One in three of the babies they bear will be HIV positive. Administering the drug nevirapine to the mother and then to the child after birth will reduce this risk to 1 in 10. Congress has already appropriated millions to start to create an AIDS-free generation. In Botswana, which only has 1.5 million residents, 100 babies are born each week infected with the HIV virus. In the United States, by comparison, less than 100 a year are born so infected. Four, make inexpensive drugs widely available. There is no vaccine and no cure for HIV/AIDS. We sometimes talk around that. There is no vaccine and there is no cure, but there are medicines that prolong life. These antiretroviral drugs are cheaper than ever. In Namibia last week we were told that the cost was $160 per person per year, dramatically more inexpensive than they have ever been before. In South Africa, we were told the availability of these treatments can decide whether 5 million infected South Africans will die in the next 5 years of HIV/AIDS or whether they might die in the next 20 years. That is the choice for just one country. No. 5, encourage rapid tests and routine tests. Most Africans who are infected with HIV/AIDS do not know it. They are reluctant to find out because of the stigma attached to having it known you are HIV infected. New rapid tests report results in 20 minutes. Citizens can find out the results in a single visit. The inexpensive treatments, the $160 treatments, provide a new incentive to take the tests. Not a lot of Africans want to take a test and be told they would die of HIV/AIDS when there is no treatment. There is little incentive to get that bad news. Now there is incentive to get immediate news with the possibility of treatment. Next, teach the ABC's--that stands for abstain, be faithful, and use condoms. Using this approach the country of Uganda in Africa has reduced its infection rate from 20 percent to 8 percent; 90 percent of AIDS is transmitted by sexual intercourse, something many Africans and many Americans do not know. Janet Museveni is the First Lady of Uganda. She visited with many of the Senators earlier this year and talked about her ABC plan. She encourages A and B more than C. This is her quote: ``I am not comfortable,'' says the First Lady of Uganda, ``with the thought that the extinction of an entire continent could depend upon a thin piece of rubber.'' No. 7, form an AIDS corps. We heard everywhere we went the greatest need is for manpower and training. Hospitals need doctors, clinics need nurses, nonprofits need counselors to recruit patients and to hold the hands of those who are dying. Create a private sector clearinghouse for Americans to go to Africa from 3 months to 2 years. Connect the volunteers with structures in Africa. I have introduced a bill to create an AIDS corps and I worried about whether volunteers should go for 3 months or for 1 year or for 2 years. There are plenty of options. I hope Mr. Tobias, if confirmed, will take all of the efforts already underway to take volunteers who are willing to go to Africa and connect them with one of the outstanding programs we saw there. There is plenty to do and a great many Americans who want to go, and they would be welcome. No. 8, dig some water wells. In Mozambique, 3 of 4 children's deaths under the age of 5 are caused by diseases carried by unclean water. Since AIDS destroys immune systems, victims of all ages live longer with clean water. One nonprofit agency, Living Water International was the name, I believe, showed the visiting Senators a well that was dug in a rural area for just $2,800. We saw there two boys who were filling 10-gallon water cans, five of them, which they would carry each day in a wagon to their home which was 6 miles away. That was their job every day: 6 miles to the well, fill up the cans, 6 miles back. Forty percent of rural Africans do not have this much access to clean water. Here are my last two suggestions. Focus on logistics. We saw faith- based and nonprofit organizations impressively active everywhere we went: The Salvation Army in Johannesburg, the Catholic AIDS organization in Namibia, Harvard, and Baylor, and the Gates Foundation in Botswana. A surprising number of talented U.S. Government people are already on the ground. The country director in Namibia for the Centers for Disease Control is a pediatrician who has been there for 12 years in Africa. He knows a lot about what to do. So my suggestion to Mr. Tobias is, while you are making your 10-year plan in this first few months, ride the horses that are already running in Africa. Accelerate what is already happening. There is a lot going on and the challenge is not to plan, the challenge is how do you get it done. Finally, move fast, but do not spend too fast. I imagine we are going to have a pretty good debate about that in the Senate. I have already heard some people say let's spend $2 billion and others say let's spend $2.5 and others say let's spend $3 billion. The fact is, we are going to spend $15 billion of taxpayers' money in fighting HIV/AIDS in 14 countries and the Caribbean. We are going to do it over 5 years. We need to keep in mind that the African system cannot absorb too much money too quickly. There are treatment guidelines to prepare and to teach. They are very complicated. There is a staff to recruit. There are patients to find and persuade. There are health organizations to establish. For example, perhaps the most impressive program we saw was operated by a mining company, Anglo-Gold in South Africa. They are taking this seriously in a country where the Government is taking it less seriously. They are making an all-out effort to identify the 25,000 employees infected with HIV/AIDS that they have, one-third of their total employment, and give them a chance to have the treatment that will prolong their productive life. They set a goal of recruiting 1,000 people in the first year to do this, but try as they might they only could recruit 622. So, we need to be aware that we may have to ramp this program up as we go and we ought not to waste money in the first year that would be better spent in the third, fourth, or fifth year. You saw it as I saw it, Mr. President. Botswana's life expectancy has dropped from 72 years of age to 34 years of age because of HIV/AIDS. In Namibia, teachers miss school to visit sick colleagues and attend their funerals. Two or three generations of South African children will grow up without parents. In Windhoek last year, a local journalist told me, ``Please get it across, how much we appreciate President Bush's $15 billion grant. It puts a human face on America.'' I hasten to say we in the Congress are a little jealous of our prerogative to make that grant. But the AIDS authorization bill passed unanimously. It had support of Democrats as well as Republicans as well as the President, and it is something we should be proud to work on. If I could make these three final observations. I was thinking, flying home, that if a diabolical person, an evil person, had to think of a way to destroy a country, that this would be what he might do. No. 1, invent a new disease that had never been heard of before for which there is no vaccine and no cure, that pronounces a death sentence. No. 2, think of a way to transmit that disease that involves the most powerfully reliable human impulse, which is sexual activity. And, No. 3, introduce that disease into countries that are the poorest in the world and have almost no health structure to deal with the disease and in which the discussion of sexual activity is taboo. That is exactly what has happened with HIV/AIDS. As I look back on those four countries we saw--South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana, and Namibia--these are four countries, with a little exception for Botswana, where 30 years ago they were under some kind of colonial rule. Then the people who are in power in the government today fought against that rule for their freedom, they were guerrillas and they were at war. Then typically there was a civil war to decide who of the winners would govern. And now they are in charge in all four of those countries. They are doing well, in terms of their governance. They are building their democracy very well. And the governance is something they can be proud of. But all of a sudden out of left field comes this AIDS, just as they are reaching their freedom and just as they are in charge. We saw the wife of Nelson Mandela, Graca Machel, who said to us: It took us aback. We weren't prepared. We weren't ready for it. It seems like a cruel, terrible trick to play on people who for 30 years have struggled to gain their freedom and find themselves in charge of their own destiny. Finally, I think we saw a good deal of hope. We saw leaders who, in spite of the terrible odds they face, are committed to fighting it. We saw people from all over the world, really, who were there, volunteering their help. We saw faith-based organizations holding hands, taking care of orphans, finding patients. My sense of Africa is that for a long time it has generally been ignored by our country. Presidents have sometimes gone but only as an afterthought. I suspect Africa presents such challenges today, not just with HIV/AIDS but in other ways, that it will begin to attract some of the brightest, most intelligent people in the world, many of them Africans who have left to go to other parts of the world, and I believe they will come home. I saw this morning on C-SPAN the discussion about Ghana and the energy minister who was born in Ghana and was educated in Minnesota. He was the managing partner of Deloitte and Touche for all of Africa, and he decided to go back to Ghana and help build that country. America was built that way, by people who saw great challenge here and came to help build the country. I suspect Africa may be that sort of challenge. I am glad our President has devoted himself in such a strong way to it. I hope he continues that over the next several years. I believe if he does, when he goes back to Crawford, TX at the end of 8 years, it will be one of the great accomplishments of his administration. I hope the Senate continues to put partisanship aside and to support the $15 billion and do it in an orderly way. I commend our leader for his insistence on it. I was privileged to be a part of the delegation that went for 2 weeks and it will certainly redouble my interest and attention to our responsibilities to the people of Africa. I thank the Senate for giving me the opportunity to present this.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, September 4. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I wish to comment very briefly on education, which we are debating, and the Senator spoke eloquently about it. I was Governor of my State. I was U.S. Secretary of Education for awhile. The facts are basically these: Federal funding for education has been consistently up, under Democrats and under Republicans. It must be confusing to people who hear us debate in the Senate because it sounds as though we are reading off completely different history books. The fact is, it is up, and State funding is either down or level. It is important for teachers, principals, and others in their communities to know that the real pressure they are feeling is not from Federal dollars, which are up, but from State dollars, which are level or down. The Federal Government funds about 7 percent. Seven cents out of every dollar that goes for elementary and secondary education in America comes from the Congress. Ninety-three cents out of every dollar comes from the States or local government. So that is the real problem. The Congress recognized that this year by appropriating a large amount of money for the States. I think it was $20 billion that we sent to the States on a one-time basis. For Tennessee, it was about $400 million. That is a lot of money for us. Our State used that, half of it in the rainy day fund and half of it in Medicaid. That took a little pressure off Medicaid. That helped education. So it is important for people to know that in all of this debate, Federal funding is up. I, for one, want to look at Leave No Child Behind this year and next year, its first 2 years of operation. I was not here when it passed. I was not here to vote for it as the Senator from Illinois said he did. If it turns out after a year or two of operation that it is indeed a federally unfunded mandate, then I am going to be one of those Senators who wants to add money to fix that problem. I spent a lot of time as a Governor saying do not send me a rule without money. I do not think it is good to leave the impression that somehow the Federal Government is not funding education. We only fund 7 percent of elementary and secondary education, and that funding is up. It is the States that are having problems, and States have a variety of options for dealing with that. Many States have cut taxes over the last 10 years. That is a good policy if it can be done, but if it is done, it comes right out of education usually.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, my purpose tonight is to say a few words about a 10-day visit to Africa that the Presiding Officer, and I, and four other Members of the Senate completed last Friday. But I listened with great interest to the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I did not want him to leave on such a sad note about the economy, and I thought I would give him some late-breaking news. The Wall Street Journal today has a headline: ``Manufacturing Expanded In August.'' The manufacturing sector expanded for the second consecutive month in August, providing further evidence that the economy's hardest-hit sector may finally be on the rebound. I thought it would be important that the Senator have that in mind because we are all deeply concerned about the number of Americans who are looking for jobs and do not have them. The President talked about that on Labor Day. Every one of us, Republican and Democrat, feel that way. This is a piece of good news. The Wall Street Journal said today: The Institute for Supply Management said its monthly survey of manufacturing conditions rose to 54.7 from 51.8 in July. A result above 50 generally indicates expansion. Many key segments of the report, meanwhile, showed similar strength, including components that measure new orders for manufactured goods and overall production. The results came on the heels of otherpositive manufacturing news in recent weeks. . . . Now, this is the Wall Street Journal, not the White House talking, including the Federal report last week that showed new orders for durable goods or items built in the last 3 years or longer, so they rose 1 percent in July. Now, obviously we are all concerned about manufacturing jobs disappearing. They have been disappearing for a long time. I remember when the Saturn plant moved to Tennessee in the mid-1980s. It hired 5,000 people. If it had done that 30 years ago and built the same number of cars, it would have needed to hire 30,000 people. So while manufacturing is up, manufacturing employment is still down and is a source of great concern to all of us. I thought that piece of good news might be interesting to the Senator from Illinois and others tonight.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the leader has asked me to make these comments for the information of all Senators. Tomorrow the Senate will resume debate on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The leader asked me to say we made significant progress on the bill today. The leader would also inform all Members that rollcall votes will occur throughout the day tomorrow. As always, Members will be notified when the first vote is scheduled. On behalf of the leader I would also announce it had been our hope to appoint conferees to the Energy bill during today's session. I understand the other side of the aisle will be prepared to name the conferees tomorrow. Therefore, we will try again during Thursday's session to move forward on the Energy legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has talked about jobs. Most of us in August talked to constituents who were talking about jobs. The President of the United States yesterday, in a Labor Day speech in Ohio, talked about jobs, and specifically manufacturing jobs. As he usually is, he was very straightforward about what is going on in our country. He said the economy is getting better, and I will give him some credit for that. He also said the jobs aren't coming along as fast as he would like. He pledged to work harder on that. He talked about appointing a sort of manufacturing job czar in the Commerce Department, which I would welcome. Over the past several weeks, the administration has held 19 different round tables with manufacturers in this country to try to understand from them what Government policies could be that would make it easier for us to keep our manufacturing jobs. I believe the President focused yesterday in his Labor Day speech on perhaps the greatest economic challenge we have before us in these very fortunate United States of America, and that is, how do we keep our manufacturing jobs from going overseas over the next 10 years as we participate in a global marketplace. We faced that before, with Japan, 20 years ago. I can still remember how everybody thought Japan was going to drown us, and they didn't. Now we are faced with China as well as others. China is bigger--not as prosperous as Japan, but bigger. We have a terrific challenge in how do we keep our manufacturing jobs from moving overseas. On September 15, Commerce Secretary Don Evans is expected to announce more about President Bush's plan to save manufacturing jobs and to keep them from going overseas. The Secretary is scheduled to speak in Detroit on September 15. I have a respectful suggestion for what Secretary Evans might say in his speech in Detroit on September 15 about saving manufacturing jobs. He will be there at the home of the American automobile industry, and I believe the most helpful thing he could say for the working men and women of America, especially in the automobile industry, is that we will end the steel tariffs now. I don't want to simplify this. Ending the steel tariffs that were imposed in March of 2002 will not by itself stem the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States of America. Manufacturing jobs have been going away from our country for a number of years. They were going away a long time before President Bush became President. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for a variety of reasons. The first is we have become more productive. When the Saturn and Nissan automobile plant came to Tennessee, they employed 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 people at very good paying jobs. But if those plants were being built today, instead of employing 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000 people, they would have to employ 25,000 or 30,000 people to make the same number of cars. So we are still doing plenty of manufacturing in America as well as in Tennessee. We are just not hiring as many people to do it because we are so much more productive. Then there are other reasons manufacturing jobs are under pressure. The Chinese currency is too low. Secretary Snow was in China today, working on that problem--we hope with some results. Another reason we have difficulty with our manufacturing jobs is that our international intellectual rights and copyrights aren't being respected or protected. Then the other reason, which every manufacturer in America knows, is cost. Every American manufacturer lives on the edge. It is always a battle with costs. If some unexpected cost comes along, the manufacturer cuts one or two jobs in order to stay in global competition. If too many costs come along, they go out of business or move their plants overseas. What are those costs? The cost of labor, the cost of health care, the cost of environmental control, the costs of runaway lawsuits. All of these costs are the costs we hear about as we talk to men and women who are manufacturing in America. But the cost I want to talk about today is a new cost that was added in March 2002 to manufacturers all across America, and that is the cost of the steel tariff. The President decided in that month, March 2002, to impose a tariff of up to 30 percent on imported steel, including hot- and cold-rolled steel, the kind used to make cars and trucks in our country. The idea was a noble one and a well-intentioned one. It is hard to argue with it. The idea was to protect steel-producing jobs, of which there are about 12,000 in Michigan where Secretary Evans will be making his address on September 15. The trouble is the steel tariff has been destroying steel-consuming jobs of which there are nearly 800,000 in Michigan, including 300,000 at auto assembly or auto supplier plants. Let me do that math again. In Michigan, there are about 12,000 steel-producing jobs, about 800,000 steel-consuming jobs, and 300,000 of them are in the auto industry. This is true all across America. There are nearly 13 million steel-consuming jobs, 2.1 million of which are automobile-related jobs. But the United States has only a fraction of that number in steel- producing jobs--about 230,000 steel-producing jobs. Even West Virginia and Pennsylvania combined have at least 10 times as many steel- consuming jobs as steel-producing jobs. On top of all of this, the World Trade Organization has ruled that the steel tariffs imposed in March of 2002 are in violation of the global trade rule. As a result, the European Union has announced its intention to impose $2.2 billion in retaliatory sanctions on American imports sold in Europe, from footwear to fruits and vegetables. These sanctions will destroy yet another batch of American jobs. Here is the sad story of the steel tariff. In 2002, the automobile industry was purchasing only about 5 percent of its steel from overseas. But as soon as the steel tariff was placed on, it imported 5 percent, and 95 percent of steel produced in our country also raised prices. Suddenly, auto parts suppliers and other steel-consuming businesses, such as microwave oven makers, as an example, were paying up to 30 percent more for steel, which is sometimes their most important raw material. Because auto suppliers couldn't raise prices to cover costs, they suffered losses and began to lay off employees. In a few instances, whole plants closed. Jobs began to move overseas where parts suppliers pay a global price for steel. These parts can be made in South Korea, in Germany, in Mexico, in Canada, and all around the world. They don't have to be made in Michigan and Tennessee. Let me put this in a little more personal terms. In my first year as Governor of Tennessee--1979, nearly 25 years ago--our State was the third poorest in the country at 80 percent of national average family income. In some counties at that time, about one-third of our manufacturing jobs were in the textile mills. Tennessee at that time was making no cars and no trucks, and we had only about 2 dozen auto suppliers. Then the auto industry began to move south--not just into our State but all around us. Tennessee became the fourth largest maker of cars and trucks. Nine hundred auto parts suppliers followed with better paying auto jobs. These are jobs that are $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a year, replacing low-paying textile jobs. Our families' incomes grew faster than any family incomes in America. They jumped to almost 100 percent of the national average family income by 1990. Today, one-third--or at least 100,000--of all Tennessee's manufacturing jobs are automotive jobs. These are the good jobs that we are glad to have. On January 21, 2003, ArvinMeritor closed its sunroof and seat plant in Gordonsville eliminating 317 of these good-paying jobs. It reduced by 100 the jobs at its Pulaski plant. It did this because after the tariffs its steel prices rose between 13 and 40 percent. That is not all. The Dana Corporation, which employs 3,000 Tennesseans making axles and brakes, watched its steel prices increase 20 to 50 percent since the tariff. The Dura Corporation, which employs 176 at five facilities in my State, was purchasing all of its steel from United States producers when the tariff was imposed in March of 2002. As a result of the tariff, Dura lost money in 2002 and is considering moving to overseas production which is very bad news for 765 Tennessee families in Gordonsville, Greenbriar, Lawrenceburg, Milan, and Pikeville. I ran for the Senate last year to support President Bush, and I have proudly done that. I think he is on the right track with our economy. I believe our economy is beginning to move after a series of blows that no other economy in the world could have withstood. I support this President. But I also said in my campaign last year that I believe the steel tariff was bad for Tennessee and bad for American working families, and I still believe that. This fall the President will have an opportunity to review his decision to impose the steel tariffs. Shortly after Secretary Evans' speech in Detroit on September 15, the International Trade Commission will report on what the consequences of the tariffs have been. This is a welcome opportunity for the President to make a mid-course correction. I hope that he will decide he has made a good-faith effort to save steel jobs, but that the effort has lost almost as many steel- consuming jobs as exist in the steel-producing industry in the United States. That it is the wrong policy, and that the right thing to do is to end the steel tariffs. The best thing Secretary Evans could do in his September 15 Detroit speech is to announce the President has decided to save thousands of jobs for working men and women in Michigan, in Tennessee, in America, in the automobile industry and in other steel-consuming plants by ending the steel tariffs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.