Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Let me say that it was not my intent to say that solving the issue of fluctuating currencies would solve the trade problem. You cannot solve the trade problem without addressing the fluctuation of currency values. There are many other issues--although the fluctuating value of currencies is a 500-pound gorilla issue, it is not the only issue. I don't mean to suggest that if you solve that, you solve the problems. There are more.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I assume the Senator from Montana is delighted I am supporting the bill and probably not happy that I would talk about other trade problems.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to this Senate Chamber to support the trade agreement that is brought to the floor today. I believe it will be approved by the Senate by unanimous consent. Perhaps not, but I am told that it will be approved by the Senate, in any event. I have been a critic of our trade policies. I have been a critic and have voted against a fair number of trade agreements. This trade agreement, it seems to me, is a reasonable agreement. It is with an abiding friend, Jordan, that has been a very helpful country to us. We have had a long and good friendship with the country of Jordan. This trade agreement includes in it some provisions dealing with the environment and labor. I think this is a breakthrough and a step in the right direction. While trade relations between the United States and Jordan are important, the size of our trade is not very extensive. As a trading partner, Jordan ranks 98th. While I do not think the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement is going to, in one way or another, affect our country's trade balance, I want to say that at this time and place our country needs to worry about its trade policies on a much broader context. I have brought a chart with me that shows our country's ballooning trade deficit. For years, we have seen relentless growth in it. At the same time, there has been a systematic lack of concern among policymakers about it. It's as if they say: Well, it is happening, so let it happen. It injures this country to have this kind of relentlessly growing trade deficit. Last year the merchandise deficit was $452 billion. Our deficit with China was $84 billion; with Japan, $81 billion; and with the European Union, $55 billion. That is almost $1.25 billion a day. Every single day, 7 days a week, we are buying more from abroad than we are exporting. Now, what does that have to do with the current circumstances in the United States? Given the issues of national security, it is important for us to understand that no country can long remain a strong country unless it has a strong, vibrant manufacturing base. We are eroding the manufacturing base of this country. One thing that is not in this trade agreement--and it has never been in any trade agreement that I am aware of--is something that deals with currency fluctuations. Our manufacturing sector has now discovered that when it tries to sell abroad, it is much more difficult. Due to currency fluctuations, it 30 percent more expensive to sell a product abroad than it was 5 years ago. This increase has nothing at all to do with the cost of manufacturing the product. It is solely due to the value of our currency. Because of currency fluctuation, our manufacturing base in this country is being hurt very substantially. There are some who say: Well, the doctrine of comparative advantage ought to determine how we trade, and we ought not worry about whether we retain a strong manufacturing sector in this country. I strongly disagree with that belief. No country can remain strong unless it has a very vibrant manufacturing base. Yet, due to currency fluctuations that have not been accounted for in our trade agreements, our manufacturing base has been undercut. We need to negotiate currency fluctuation mechanisms into our trade agreements. We may sign trade agreements that lead to reductions in tariffs. But if the currency fluctuates, and we don't have any mechanisms in place, U.S. exports may end up being more expensive, and U.S. imports may be less expensive. Our currency has fluctuated dramatically over the last few years. The U.S. dollar has risen about 40 percent against the Canadian dollar in the last 10 years. Generally speaking, the U.S. dollar has had a 30- percent increase in value versus 5 years ago. It is worth 10 percent more just a year ago. On the television news people talk about the ``strong dollar.'' That is the wrong term. They should be saying, the ``Expensive dollar''. The dollar is more expensive today relative to other currencies. When our dollar is more expensive relative to other currencies, it means our manufacturers are at a disadvantage when competing against the rest of the world. My point is very simple: In these days, we are all very concerned about national security. And we should be. We are concerned about what is going to happen around the world with respect to terrorism and our aggressive approach in trying to deal with it. All of us want to speak as one; we want America to have one voice. With relentless determination, we want to take on terrorists and do what is necessary. Part of national security is in the area of international trade. It is important that we straighten out the problems that have assisted in eroding our manufacturing base and have, at the same time, weakened our country from the inside. I met with the president of one of the Nation's large manufacturers this morning. It was coincidental and had nothing to do with speaking on this bill. The products that this country manufactures have been named, several times, by Fortune magazine as all-American products, the best in the world. The products are made in the finest manufacturing plant in the world; a plant that uses the finest state-of-the-art robotics. There is no manufacturing plant that is more high tech or more modern than the one used by this company. Yet, the company has discovered that, when trying to sell their product around the rest of the world, it has become more and more difficult. It is not because their product can't compete, but, rather, it is because the fluctuation of currency has made their product more expensive relative to the similar products manufactured in other countries. The president of this company said: The value of the dollar is hurting our company badly. And it is not just his company. It is true all over America. Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, recently remarked that the dollar is overvalued and that its strong value has led U.S. manufacturers to have little pricing power. In its annual report, the Association noted that: ``The dollar has reached a point at which it is pricing many U.S. goods out of world markets and making it harder to compete against imports here at home.'' That was from the National Association of Manufacturers. My only point is this: I am going to support this trade agreement with Jordan because at this point in time it is the right thing to do. Right now, we are not talking about trade policy. With respect to trade policy, I have been a constant critic and will remain so. I voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement. I voted against GATT. Had I had a chance to vote against the bilateral agreement with China, I would have voted against it in an instant. If I might, as an aside, just point out, our negotiators, after long negotiations, agreed to allow China to have a tariff on U.S. automobiles that is 10 times higher than our tariff on Chinese automobiles sold in the United States. We agreed to a 2.5-percent tariff on Chinese automobiles, while they have a 25-percent tariff on U.S. automobiles. This is just a small example of what has happened to us in every trade agreement of consequence. It is long past time for our country to pay attention. The trade deficit is injuring the United States. Our trade agreement with Jordan will have almost nothing to do with the deficit and I will support it. It is the first agreement I have supported in a long time. The job in international trade is to bring NAFTA back and renegotiate it. We need to get rid of those bilateral trade agreements in which our country has a major disadvantage. We recently lost in the Chinese bilateral agreement. And we lost in the agreements we have had on GATT. People say: That is just the way things are. I say: It is not the way things are. It is the way we allow them to be. We don't have the backbone, the nerve, or the will to stand up and begin to say: We negotiate on behalf of the United States of America and we demand fair trade. If I could have just another minute, let me go through a couple of examples, lest people think this is all rhetoric. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I understand that as a result of the closure of our nation's airports and the limitations placed on the carriage of cargo on commercial passenger planes, postal service throughout our country was affected. However, the State of Hawaii was impacted most severely. My colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has joined me to discuss the situation in Hawaii.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say again what a pleasure it is to work with Senator Campbell, his staff and my staff who I named previously today. They have done an excellent job. We passed this bill in fairly short order. As I said when we started today, I hope we could perhaps show the American people that we are back at work and trying to do things in a way that allows all of us to work together for the interest of this country, and I believe the passage of this bill in the manner we have done tonight is a demonstration of that. Again, I thank my colleague and all of our Senate colleagues for cooperating and allowing us to get to the point of passing this important legislation this evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The Postal Service could choose to designate the emergency relief semipostal as the one semipostal stamp to be offered for the period specified in the amendment, pursuant to Postal Service regulations.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment we just considered by Senator Hatch is the last amendment to be offered to this bill. I believe on our side there are no further amendments. I believe that is the case on the Republican side. issuance of semipostal stamps

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and have no objection on this side.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Campbell and I, on behalf of our colleague, Senator Hatch, send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we are waiting for Senator Hatch who will be offering an amendment. That amendment is on the way to the floor. We have discussed that amendment. We will be accepting it. I expect it will take just a few moments. And when that amendment is accepted, I think at this point we are ready to go to third reading of the bill. We will see at that point whether we need a recorded vote on the bill. It would be nice to be able to finish this appropriations bill this evening. As soon as we receive the amendment, it is our intention to accept the amendment and move to third reading.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of our colleague, Senator Hollings, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt King, a legislative fellow on the subcommittee, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 2590.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to comment for a moment about some fighter pilots who are flying air missions over our nation's capital. On Tuesday of last week, following the attack on the World Trade Center and shortly before the Pentagon was hit, a detachment of fighters who were on alert at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia were ordered airborne to protect the nation's capital. It happens that the detachment of fighters is from North Dakota. The 119th Tactical Fighter Wing of the North Dakota Air National Guard flies F-16s. They are called the Happy Hooligans. The Happy Hooligans are folks who farm; they run drug stores; they teach school. They do a lot of things in their community, but they also are members of the National Guard who maintain and fly F-16s. More than that, the Happy Hooligans, the National Air Guard detachment in Fargo, ND, are some of the best fighter pilots in the world. In fact, the Happy Hooligans have won the William Tell Award on several occasions. The William Tell Award is an award that is given to the fighter units that are the most proficient combat fighter pilots in the world. So this National Guard unit from Fargo, ND, has taken their airplanes to the William Tell contest, and they have flown against the world's top combat pilots, and they have brought the William Tell Award home to Fargo, ND, as proof that they are the best fighter pilots in the world. For some time, the Happy Hooligans have kept a permanent detachment with four F-16s, pilots, and crews on alert at Langley Air Force Base to provide air defense of the United States. Last Tuesday morning, the attack on the World Trade Center in New York precipitated an order for those fighters who were on alert to take to the skies. And those F-16s took to the air, but regrettably they were not yet over Washington's airspace when the airplane hit the Pentagon. They were still some minutes away. But they then flew, as I understand it, 7 hours that day over the skies of Washington, DC, performing combat air patrol and protecting our nation's capital. And these are, as I said, men and women who belong to the National Guard but who have been awarded the distinction of being the best fighter pilots in the world. I was enormously proud of them. I called their commander at Langley. I told them how proud I was to have the Happy Hooligans--a wonderful contingent of civilian soldiers; men and women who belong to the National Guard--flying those F-16s, providing air cover during a time of national emergency. So, for the record, I want to say that all Americans, of course, are proud of our men and women in uniform. We grieve with them for the tragedy visited upon them when the airplane was flown into the Pentagon, just as we do for the thousands of people who have lost their lives at the World Trade Center. And as there are brave men and women across the country who have stepped forward to say, let it be me--the firemen and the firefighters and police men and women who were climbing the stairs of the World Trade Center to try to rescue people, risking their lives to help others, just as there are so many heroes around this country during a time of need--so, too, were the Happy Hooligans in their cockpit of the F-16s, flying combat air patrols over our Nation's Capital. Let me say to the Happy Hooligans: I salute you. I am proud of your work. And this country owes you a great debt of gratitude. Mr. President, I yield the floor.