[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14449-14454]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE OVERSIGHT REFORM ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion 
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to 
read the motion.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 183, S. 1619, a bill to provide for 
     identification of misaligned currency, require action to 
     correct the misalignment, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Charles E. Schumer, Tom Udall, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Joe Manchin III, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Kay R. Hagan, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Kent Conrad, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Robert Menendez.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 183, S. 1619, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Blunt
     Cantwell
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     DeMint
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Paul
     Rubio
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are 
19. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Crisis in Sudan

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to call attention to 
the disturbing developments in Sudan and the newly created nation of 
South Sudan. I fear the ongoing violence there risks undermining the 
progress that has been made for lasting peace after decades of civil 
war and bloodshed.
  It has been indeed a historic year for the people of South Sudan. 
Almost 3 months ago, on July 9, South Sudan was formally recognized as 
a sovereign nation, becoming Africa's 54th state. An overwhelming 98.8 
percent of South Sudanese voters chose independence from the central 
government of Sudan in the referendum held this January. For the 
millions of people whose lifetimes have known only war, the hope of a 
better future was finally on the horizon.
  Like many, I was cautiously encouraged by the news that the South 
Sudanese decided to take a path toward democracy and toward justice. 
Like

[[Page 14450]]

many, I realized this path would be a difficult one as conflict 
persists in Darfur and other areas around the border, such as Abyei, 
Blue Nile, and Southern Kordofan.
  Unfortunately, recent reports of violence confirm the tenuous 
relationship between north and south that exists in the wake of 
independence. Escalating unrest points to the abandonment of peaceful 
negotiations by the north and a return to military intimidation and 
fighting. Tragically, civilians have been caught in the crossfire.
  According to a post from CNN in late July, hospitals in the Nuba 
Mountains are overflowing with civilians who have been hurt in attacks 
by the northern army. This is how the report describes the scene:

       In one hospital room a nurse tried to clean the blown apart 
     face of a young boy. In another, a 12-year-old girl suffered 
     from advanced tetanus after her arm was cut off by shrapnel. 
     Doctors said she had little chance of surviving.

  This violence, affecting innocent children, is unacceptable. Attacks 
against civilians are among a number of violations that have been cited 
by the United Nations against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir's 
government, which denies the allegations and insists it is only 
fighting rebels loyal to South Sudan.
  In a report this summer, the United Nations suggests the attacks by 
Sudanese Armed Forces in the border state of Southern Kordofan have 
amounted to human rights violations and war crimes. Most of the 
violence there is affecting the Nuba people, a mostly Christian 
minority aligned with South Sudan but left on the opposite side of the 
border. Thousands have been forced to flee to caves for refuge in the 
Nuba Mountains. Even more worrisome is that the violence is spreading. 
In May, the Sudanese Armed Forces invaded the disputed area of Abyei 
and displaced an estimated 100,000, among them nearly 4,000 children. 
Just last month, the Sudanese Parliament authorized military action in 
nearby Blue Nile.
  We should not forget the legacy of President Bashir's dictatorial 
regime as these atrocities continue to mount. Mr. Bashir has already 
been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against 
humanity and war crimes over the conflict in Darfur, and the United 
States continues to impose sanctions on the northern government.
  The full extent of the violence in the border areas between Sudan and 
South Sudan is hard to determine because U.N. agencies and humanitarian 
groups have been denied access. But this is no excuse for ignoring the 
warning signs of a dangerous predicament. All too often, we recognize 
crises after far too many lives have been lost.
  What we do know about the current situation is ominous. The African 
Center For Justice and Peace Studies says supporters of the Sudan 
People's Liberation Army-North are being arbitrarily arrested on the 
basis of their perceived political affiliation and subject to 
extrajudicial killings. Refugees have described execution-style 
murders. International calls for the northern government to cease its 
aerial bombings have been blatantly ignored. The U.N. Office for the 
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, reports that more than 
100,000 people are thought to be displaced by fighting in Blue Nile 
alone. The U.N. estimates for South Kordofan top 200,000 displaced 
persons. Just last month, an article in the New York Times reported 
that a satellite imagery project monitoring parts of Sudan had captured 
images of mass graves.
  We have always known South Sudan would face serious challenges this 
year and in the coming years as a free independent nation. What we 
cannot allow is its democratic future to hang in the balance as old 
scores are reignited and innocent lives are lost. Let's not forget the 
horrors of the civil war that ensued for 22 years before President 
George W. Bush engineered the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. 
During that civil war, more than 2 million died, more than 4 million 
were displaced, and 600,000 fled the country as refugees.
  I urge my colleagues not to lose focus on the hundreds of thousands 
of people who have been unfairly hurt by this violence. They have 
already endured far too much suffering. I join the U.S. State 
Department in its call for the hostilities to stop and for responsible 
dialog to resume. The longer the violence continues, the harder it will 
be to move forward toward lasting peace.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
bipartisan legislation we will be considering this week regarding the 
Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011. I am very pleased 
it received overwhelming support for us to proceed to consideration of 
this most critical legislation.
  This day has been a long time in the making, if you ask those of us 
who have been calling on our government, under the leadership of both 
Democrats and Republicans, to hold our foreign competitors accountable 
when they violate our trade laws. In that respect I want to express my 
gratitude to my colleague from Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown, with whom I 
have partnered in repeatedly calling for a vote on this crucial 
legislation, as well as the Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, and 
the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, for also being with us 
and working on this legislation to address all of the facets of this 
issue that have been long overdue in consideration by the Congress.
  This day has been far too long in coming for the millions of American 
workers who are out of work and whose wages have been decimated as a 
result of our inability to compete with unfairly subsidized Chinese 
imports. Since Congress first began requiring the Treasury to analyze 
the exchange rate policies of foreign countries in 1988, China has been 
cited as a currency manipulator five times, all occurring between 1992 
and 1994.
  Since then, despite China's continued and in many ways 
intensification of these practices, our government, under both 
Democratic and Republican administrations, has failed to cite China 
even once for its policy of fixing its currency to the dollar. This is 
also despite Congress's repeated efforts to make currency manipulation 
a top priority in our Nation's trade agenda.
  In fact, in April 2005 I joined my Senate colleagues in decisively 
supporting an amendment calling on China to reform its currency 
practices. This action is largely viewed as helping to prompt China to 
allow its currency to gradually appreciate between 2005 and 2008. In 
July 2007 I joined a majority of colleagues on the Senate Finance 
Committee in favor of reporting the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight 
Reform Act of 2007 by a vote of 20 to 1. That was 4 years ago. We 
started 6 years ago, and yet we still had not had any concrete, 
substantive action on this fundamental issue. None of these bills were 
brought up for a vote by the full Senate.
  From 2008 to mid-2010, China again froze its exchange rate constant 
in an effort to maintain its production edge during the financial 
crisis. It was only last June that China showed signs that it might 
allow the RMB to gradually appreciate. But according to the 
Congressional Research Service, it gained only 6 or 7 percent on the 
dollar over the last year.
  Faced with these blatantly inequitable trade distortions, I have 
witnessed Maine's manufacturers and their employees going to great 
lengths to improve their competitiveness. According to the 
Manufacturers Association of Maine, workers in our State have increased 
output per employee by 6 percent over a period of 8 years--from 60,000 
in 2001 to 89,000 in 2009. Yet the dramatic job losses we have 
witnessed in the American manufacturing sector over the last decade 
tell a very different story.
  According to recent reports, between 2001, when China joined the WTO 
and 2010, 4.1 million manufacturing jobs

[[Page 14451]]

were lost in this country, and 1.9 million of those jobs or 47 percent 
can be directly linked to our growing trade deficit with China.
  In Maine, this withering of our manufacturing base has contributed to 
wage and salary employment levels falling precipitously through 
December 2010, with job losses of 26,900, a 4.4-percent drop. Overall, 
employment numbers in my State have returned to 1999 levels--1999 
levels--erasing any economic gains of the previous 10 years.
  U.S. manufacturing employees, including thousands who live in small 
towns throughout my State, are recognized as the most productive 
workers in the world. These are the types of jobs that should be 
thriving in a global economy, but they cannot if foreign producers, 
such as those in China, are playing with a proverbial stacked deck.
  For this reason I rise today to urge my colleagues to join us in 
supporting the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act, legislation 
that I have authored with the Senator from Ohio to enforce the rules 
and address a paramount contributing factor in the decimation of our 
Nation's once unparalleled manufacturing base--currency exchange rate 
manipulation.
  For over a decade China has manipulated its exchange rate by pegging 
the Chinese renminbi to the dollar. As a result, China's currency is 
estimated to be undervalued by anywhere from 12 to 50 percent according 
to the Congressional Research Service. In fact, despite the Chinese 
Government's announcement last year that it would begin allowing its 
currency to gradually appreciate, the Treasury Department's exchange 
rate report, released May 27, noted that ``the real exchange rate of 
the renminbi remains substantially undervalued.''
  Some of my colleagues will no doubt argue that mill closings and 
layoffs in States such as Maine have little to do with the value of the 
Chinese currency, and that legislation to hold countries such as China 
accountable when they intervene in currency markets will not create 
jobs or grow our economy.
  For that matter, proponents of China's entry into the World Trade 
Organization 10 years ago also claimed that liberalizing trade with 
China would improve our trade deficit. At the time of its entry into 
the WTO in December 2001, China agreed to provide greater transparency 
when it comes to trade policies, to enforce intellectual property 
rights, and to end discriminatory and unpredictable rules impeding 
market access for American products.
  In fact, as the agreement to allow China into the WTO was being 
negotiated in 2000, President Clinton argued it would create, in his 
words, ``a win-win result for both countries.''
  However, as President John Adams once said, ``facts are stubborn 
things.'' Let's examine some of the evidence.
  For one, in January, I met with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer a few 
hours before he attended a private meeting at the White House. Mr. 
Ballmer told me that in fiscal year 2010 over 30 million PCs were sold 
in China that ran illegal copies of Windows. Rather telling, he noted 
that while China is their second largest personal computer market in 
the world, it is 70th in terms of Microsoft revenue per personal 
computer.
  If one of the largest and most integrated companies in the world is 
being hamstrung by China's piracy and blatant infringement of 
intellectual property rights, how can we expect smaller U.S. companies 
to stand a chance when it comes to entering the Chinese market? On top 
of its failure to police intellectual property rights infringement, 
unlike most other countries where exchange rates are determined by 
market forces, the Chinese Government does not allow the renminbi to 
fluctuate freely and instead pegs it tightly to the U.S. dollar at a 
rate that makes it significantly undervalued vis-a-vis the dollar.
  As a result, Chinese exports to the United States are artificially 
made less expensive, as we well know, and the cost of U.S. exports to 
China and the rest of the world are made more expensive by a similar or 
equivalent amount.
  According to a new report featured last week in the Wall Street 
Journal, one significant consequence of China's trade practices is that 
over the last two decades it has surged as an exporter at a ``break-
neck pace,'' while the growth of U.S. spending on imports from China 
has climbed steadily. As indicated by this chart to my right, according 
to the report, imports from China as a share of U.S. spending climbed 
from below 1 percent throughout much of the 1990s, to over 5 percent 
today. There is no question that this trajectory reflects it in this 
chart, seeing China as a total of U.S. spending, and what has occurred 
is a dramatic rise--without abatement, without any intervention 
whatsoever--and we have seen a steady major rise in terms of the amount 
of imports and spending by Americans on Chinese imports.
  Due in large part to China's currency manipulation and other trade-
distorting practices, manufacturers in Maine and places like Maine have 
not been able to compete against this surge in artificially cheap 
Chinese imports. As Americans spend increasingly more on Chinese 
products, as illustrated in the chart, these imports displace goods 
made in the USA.
  Consequently, China's currency undervaluation has contributed 
directly to our soaring trade deficit with China, which has ballooned 
from $83 billion, when China joined the WTO in 2001, to $273 billion in 
2010. Those numbers are worth repeating--when you are speaking about 
$83 billion, which our trade deficit was in 2001, and now in 2010 it 
has skyrocketed to $273 billion.
  This ever-expanding, explosive trade deficit, unprecedented, of 
course, in our history, which grew 20 percent between 2009 and 2010, 
destroys existing jobs, prevents new job creation and, as economists 
from the Economic Policy Institute have indicated, increases the global 
``race to the bottom,'' in their words, when it comes to middle-class 
wages.
  For example, the Economic Policy Institute recently released a report 
noting that as plants have closed, workers displaced by trade from the 
manufacturing sector have had particular difficulty in securing 
comparable employment, and average wages of those who found new jobs 
fell by 11 to 13 percent.
  As we see on the chart, reflected and demonstrated here, most 
graphically, the Economic Policy Institute report discovered that since 
China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and through 
2010, when we saw that explosive growth of the trade deficit from $83 
billion to $273 billion between 2001 and 2010, the increase in the 
U.S.-China trade deficit eliminated or displaced 2.8 million American 
jobs or 310,000 jobs per year.
  As we can see illustrated on the chart, virtually every State in 
America has been affected by the trade deficits with China, with 
displaced thousands and thousands of jobs, and in less than a decade 
2.8 million American jobs.
  In my State of Maine this means the trade deficit has displaced 
nearly 10,000 workers or nearly 2 percent of State employment. As the 
chart depicts, the pain of job losses is not unique to one individual 
State or region of the country. Workers in all 50 States, from 
California to South Carolina, from Michigan to Texas, have been harmed 
and unable to compete against artificially cheap Chinese imports.
  While these charts and reports may paint a picture of doom and gloom, 
there is recourse available to American workers injured by unfair 
trade. Under the U.S. countervailing duty law, tariffs can be imposed 
on imports benefiting from foreign government subsidies if it 
demonstrates that the subsidies cause or threaten injury to a U.S. 
industry producing the same or similar product.
  But while numerous U.S. industries have attempted to bring 
allegations of currency manipulation as an export subsidy under our 
trade laws, in each instance the Department of Commerce has refused to 
investigate.
  For example, it is a little known fact that the U.S. pulp and paper 
industry employs 900,000 workers--roughly the equivalent number 
employed by the U.S. auto industry--making it an indispensable economic 
pillar in rural communities in Maine and across the country.

[[Page 14452]]

  Last year, several U.S. paper manufacturers with mills in Maine 
brought forward allegations that China was violating trade rules by 
illegally subsidizing their products in the U.S. market. Just over a 
year ago, in 2010, I testified before the International Trade 
Commission and made the case--and we were ultimately successful on 
these points--that foreign paper manufacturers in China and Indonesia 
were illegally selling their products in the United States at unfairly 
subsidized and underpriced rates.
  Amazingly, however, the Commerce Department refused to investigate 
whether China's currency practices constituted an illegal--and 
therefore countervailable--export subsidy.
  Simply put, this failure to take action is unacceptable. In response, 
in November of last year, the Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown, and I 
sent a letter to the Senate's leadership asking that a vote be 
scheduled on legislation directing the Commerce Department to 
investigate allegations that currency undervaluation provides a 
countervailable subsidy at the expense of American jobs. When the 
Senate failed to take action, Senator Brown and I filed the House-
passed currency reform bill as an amendment to the tax extender package 
in December of 2010.
  In January 2011, during Chinese President Hu's visit to the United 
States, we sent a letter to Secretary Geithner underscoring the need to 
enforce trade remedy laws to provide U.S. industries affected by 
China's currency practices with a lifeline to compete. And, finally, in 
response to our government's failure to investigate these unfair trade 
practices, on February 10 of this year, Senator Brown and I introduced 
our legislation, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act.
  Simply put, the Department of Commerce has failed to use its 
authority to respond to currency manipulation by investigating these 
allegations brought by U.S. industry and placing countervailing duties 
on foreign imports benefiting from these unfair trade practices. The 
purpose of our bill is to make clear that Commerce has the ability to 
investigate--regardless of whether the subsidy is provided to all 
foreign businesses in a given country or just to those that are 
exporting.
  That is an important point, because if we wait to make that 
demonstration, they can continue to export their goods to the United 
States before we could ever reach the point of being able to make that 
determination on imposing that countervailing subsidy or determining 
which companies in China are actually doing the exporting. So it is 
important to eliminate that distinction, because that has been a 
barrier.
  In fact, it certainly prevented the Department of Commerce, in their 
words, from being able to impose any kind of subsidies or to 
investigate the case before they could impose a countervailing duty. So 
this way we eliminate the distinction, irrespective of whether a 
business is exporting within China their goods. The point is, we don't 
want to wait for the Department of Commerce to make that determination. 
Those industries that do export--and once they do export--have already 
done the damage. So it is clearly important to be able to have the 
Department of Commerce in a position of being able at the outset to 
initiate this investigation on those companies that actually export 
goods to the United States from China at an unfair price.
  Notably, our bill does not legislatively deem that a currency 
undervaluation satisfies the requirement of finding a countervailing 
subsidy. It just requires Congress to determine on a case-by-case basis 
whether currency undervaluation is giving foreign companies an unfair 
competitive advantage over their counterparts in our country.
  Since introducing our legislation in February, we have added 11 
bipartisan Senate cosponsors, and the House companion to our 
legislation has over 200 cosponsors. Furthermore, on September 23, I 
was proud to join as a lead original cosponsor of the bipartisan 
legislation before us today, which combines the key elements of our 
bill with critical provisions of the legislation authored by the 
Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, and the Senator from South 
Carolina, Senator Graham, that I also supported as an initiative when 
it came before the Senate Finance Committee in 2007.
  The merged bill utilizes U.S. trade law to counter the economic 
damage and harm to U.S. manufacturers caused by currency manipulation 
and it authorizes new consequences for countries that fail to adopt 
appropriate policies to eliminate unfair currency undervaluation. Most 
critically, it will also provide businesses that are damaged by China's 
trade practices with the tools to respond on behalf of American 
workers. It ensures our government will heed the requests of a wide 
range of U.S. industries, such as paper manufacturers in Maine, to 
investigate whether currency undervaluation by a government provides a 
subsidy, and one in which we can initiate an action by imposing 
countervailing duties.
  Finally, while some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that 
challenging China's unfair trade practices could lead that government 
to retaliate against U.S. goods and jeopardize our economic recovery, 
the fact is the potential benefit of currency reform is enormous when 
it comes to fighting unemployment and boosting the American economy, 
because as of today China essentially rigs the game to undercut true 
market competition and undermine U.S. businesses.
  For example, a study released in June by the Economic Policy 
Institute discovered that addressing Chinese currency manipulation and 
enforcing fair trade provisions when it comes to these violations would 
support the creation of more than 2 million U.S. jobs, increase the 
gross domestic product by as much as $285 billion, and reduce the 
deficit by more than $70 billion a year.
  Failing to act now is not an option. The International Monetary Fund 
recently announced that China will surpass the United States 
economically in 2016--a mere 5 years from now. If this turns out to be 
true, it will be due in large part to our current policies, which are 
fueling our decline and China's rise. We import more than we export, 
keep running huge trade deficits, consume more than we produce, and 
outsource thousands of jobs.
  If one manufacturer is compelled to close because we failed to combat 
subsidized imports, that is one less manufacturer able to export and 
help grow our economy. And frankly, if there was ever a moment to 
empower a workforce when it comes to competing in a global economy, is 
there any doubt, given our dire economic state, that time is now? From 
Maine to the Midwest, China's currency manipulation has been among the 
greatest impediments to our manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, the 
silence of our government when it comes to this issue has become the 
silence of our factories.
  It is time to take action to rebuild our economic foundations, and 
this legislation will ensure our government has the tools to respond on 
behalf of American companies and workers by imposing countervailing 
duties on exports subsidized by currency manipulation undervaluation.
  It is absolutely vital we take this action this year--right now--
because, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, if you look at 
the historical picture of the consideration of this legislation, it is 
clear it has been underestimated, it has been overlooked in terms of 
the value it brings to our country, to the value it brings to the 
manufacturing segment of our economy, and to the value it brings to our 
workers. I am deeply concerned, because it also seems as if it is an 
either/or proposition when we talk about trade-related issues--either 
we do nothing or we will invite a trade war.
  We have to look at the trade practices of our trading partners and 
the laws which they are required to uphold--in this case, for China, 
through the World Trade Organization. They made a commitment at the 
onset when they joined that organization, and they have refused to 
uphold it when it comes to leveling the playing field and creating the 
equilibrium--to let the currency flow as required and stipulated under 
that agreement when they became a member of that organization. They 
have failed time and again to monitor these agreements and to monitor 
the actions of their own companies

[[Page 14453]]

with respect to this practice, and it has decimated many industries 
across this country.
  As I indicated with this chart, virtually every State in America has 
been damaged as a result of the loss of jobs because we have failed to 
uphold the standards of fair trade. So it isn't about encouraging a 
trade war. Far from it. I think it creates not only a level playing 
field, but it creates an equitable circumstance for our trading 
partners. And it is important for those countries, such as China, to be 
prepared to live up to the agreements to which they have subscribed 
through the World Trade Organization. They are required to live by 
their agreement, and that means they have to establish the standards 
where they cannot manipulate their currency, as they have been doing 
for more than two decades.
  It has been a problem, and it has been a persistent problem. 
Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle--whether it is Democratic or 
Republican administrations, the presidency or here in Congress--have 
failed to take a concrete, concerted action that could have made a 
profound difference long before this point. This could have been 
averted. Time and again we haven't been able to have a Treasury 
Secretary designate China as a currency manipulator that I think would 
have then prompted much more significant action on the part of any 
administration.
  So that issue has been addressed in this legislation--to change the 
threshold, to redesign and to target the legislation more precisely so 
that it will give the tools to the administration, and specifically to 
the Treasury Secretary, to be able to designate China as a currency 
manipulator, which then kicks in certain safeguards and actions.
  The same is true for the Department of Commerce, that they will be 
able to initiate at the outset an investigation to determine whether 
devaluing the currency on the part of China has contributed to unfair 
trading practices and, obviously, adversely affecting our goods and 
workers and companies here in the United States. It is important to 
give the tools to our agencies to make sure they can fulfill their 
obligations.
  I know there are times in which they have not done so, even when they 
have had the tools, and they have been empowered to use those tools, 
much to the detriment of our industries--much to the detriment of these 
jobs and these manufacturing companies all across America--that have 
either closed their doors or they have sharply curtailed their 
businesses or their level of employment.
  I know that firsthand from my State. It has brought tremendous 
consequences to rural Maine and to rural America as a result, because 
that is what has been the basis of our economy. The manufacturing 
segment of our industry has been so critical to good-paying jobs, and 
that ultimately has been damaged and harmed as a result of this 
currency manipulation issue that has been persistent on the part of the 
Chinese, and one that we now have to address through this legislation.
  I appreciate this opportunity to address the Senate on this critical 
issue. As we go forward in the days ahead in debating this legislation, 
I look forward to working with my colleagues--the Senator from Ohio, 
who has done yeoman's work on this issue and has brought this issue to 
the highest levels in terms of its attention and importance to this 
country, most assuredly. I am looking forward to working with him and 
our other colleagues to make sure we can fulfill our commitment to 
passing this legislation.
  It is not only about debating it, it is not just voting on it, it is 
about its becoming law. I think we should bring this to its logical 
conclusion and send it to the President for his signature. The time has 
come, as I said, and it is long overdue. We have failed the workers and 
the industries of this country who are trying to compete and who can 
make goods. We are not going to forsake our manufacturing sector, 
because we have the ability to make the best goods with the most 
productive workers in the world, and we should be able to continue to 
do that. The only way we can fulfill that obligation to them is through 
this legislation. There is no other recourse at this moment in time.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I, first of all, thank Senator 
Snowe for her leadership on this currency legislation. Its time has 
come, as she has said. She has been a real leader on this for months--
years, for that matter. I so appreciate her work on this problem.
  Pure and simple, this is the most important bipartisan jobs bill the 
Senate will pass in my 4\1/2\ years since I have been a Member of the 
Senate. Senator Snowe has been here a good bit longer and has been a 
member of the Finance Committee that understands these issues of how 
China has gamed the system. Senator Snowe and I were joined in our 
legislation, combining it with Senator Schumer and Senator Graham in 
their legislation, also Senator Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan; 
Senator Sessions, a Republican from Alabama; both Senators from North 
Carolina, Senator Burr, a Republican and Senator Hagan, a Democrat; 
joined by Senator Casey and the other Maine Senator, Senator Casey from 
Pennsylvania, a Democrat, and the other Maine Senator, a Republican, 
Senator Collins. And that just shows the bipartisan support.
  We had this vote today. On S. 1619, the cloture vote was 79-19, which 
is a strong message to the House and to our colleagues that this 
legislation as we debate this week is so important. It is deserving of 
basically a week of the Senate's time to discuss and debate what China 
trade is all about.
  We know what China trade is all about. We know, as Senator Snowe 
said, the trade deficit with China has ballooned in the 10 years since 
China has been part of the World Trade Organization. Think of it this 
way. Every day we buy $750 million more from China than we sell to 
China--every single day--Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, 
Friday, Saturday--every day of every week every year. So for the past 
year, $750 million we buy from China more than we sell to China. You 
just can't keep doing that. You can't keep doing that and hold the 
industrial base that the people of Oregon, the people of Maine, the 
people from Ohio care about.
  Look at it this way. I don't want to inundate my colleagues with 
figures and numbers and dollars and job numbers and all that, but 
President Bush I said $1 billion in trade surplus or trade deficit 
translates into 13,000 jobs. He said that 15 years ago. No President 
has quantified that since. But think about that. Thousands of jobs for 
every $1 billion in trade deficit or surplus. Well, with China alone, 
we have three-quarters of $1 billion every single day. Our trade 
deficit with the whole world is $600 billion, more than that.
  So we buy $600 billion more than we sell to the world every year. How 
can a country, no matter how wealthy--and this is a rich country still, 
even though millions of people have been unemployed, have lost 
manufacturing jobs in my State and other States across the country. How 
can we continue as a prosperous nation if manufacturing is outsourced 
and these jobs go somewhere else?
  I don't believe ever that I can think of in world history--and I have 
said this before and nobody has challenged it--have we seen a business 
plan of American companies moving to China, manufacturing there, and 
then selling back to the United States. A company such as Proctor & 
Gamble, on the other hand, they moved production to China, but they 
sell from their Chinese operations to China, East Asia, probably Taiwan 
and maybe Japan and Malaysia. They have their production in the areas 
they sell to. That makes perfect sense. That is good for those 
countries, good for those workers, good for the United States, and good 
for Cincinnati where Proctor & Gamble is located. But these companies 
that have it as their business plan to shut down production here, move 
to China, and then sell those products that they make in Shanghai and 
Wuhan and Beijing instead of in Akron, Canton, and Toledo--sell those 
products back to consumers in Oregon, Ohio, and Maine--

[[Page 14454]]

that is why this legislation is so important.
  A new study said we have lost 2.8 million jobs in the last decade to 
China because of currency manipulation; 1.9 million of those jobs are 
in manufacturing. You know what has happened in places such as 
Portland, and the Senator from Maine knows what has happened in her 
Portland, and what that has meant to lost jobs in this country. And 
understanding the reason that happens is because China games the 
system, because China doesn't play fair--pure and simple, say it 
straight, because China cheats. They have been given, for all intents 
and purposes, a 25 or 30 percent subsidy to their products. So because 
they cheat on currency--putting aside how they subsidize their paper 
industry, for instance, with water and capital and energy and land. 
Just on currency alone, when they sell something into the United 
States, they have a 25 to 30 percent cost advantage. I know companies 
in places around my State, in Mansfield, Springfield, Zanesville, 
Chilicothe, will say that the cost of raw materials is higher than the 
cost of the product when it comes from China. Why? Because China 
cheats. And one of the ways they cheat is they undervalue their 
currency so they have a 25-percent discount on their products sold into 
the United States. We can't compete with that, no matter that our 
workers are efficient, no matter that our companies are efficient, no 
matter that we cut costs in so many ways with the more advanced 
technologies and advanced manufacturing that we do.
  So that is why this was such an important step, passing 
overwhelmingly and sending to the floor for debate today--79-19--this 
bipartisan jobs bill called the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight and 
Reform Act of 2011.
  Earlier today I was in Cleveland and I had a meeting with two owners 
of a company in Brunswick, OH, more or less a Cleveland suburb, 
Automation Tool & Dye. It is a family company that has been in 
operation since 1974. The owners, the two sons, Randy and Bill Bennett, 
spoke today about their company. They have, I believe they said, 55 
employees who are a major part of American manufacturing. They are the 
kind of company that when it is such a disadvantage on currency, it 
puts them in a less than competitive position sometimes. They are still 
doing OK, but they know how hard the business climate is when they are 
at that disadvantage.
  So when they are making products, because China has gamed the system 
and an American company might move to China to do production, they 
can't up and move their family company of 55 employees--they can't move 
to China to service the company that has moved to China because of the 
competitive disadvantage.
  So we know how that has worked. We know why this legislation that 
Senator Snowe has worked on, the two bills we put together, Senator 
Snowe and my bill with Senators Schumer and Graham. As I said, we have 
had good strong bipartisan sponsorship on this bipartisan jobs bill and 
we have also had a very good vote today that was 79-19 to move this 
forward.
  The Economic Policy Institute issued a new report showing that 
addressing Chinese currency manipulation could support the creation of 
2.25 million American jobs, mostly in manufacturing, mostly the kind of 
jobs that will create other jobs because of the wealth that Senator 
Snowe talked about, the wealth that manufacturing creates. And as 
Senator Snowe pointed out, when the opponents to this--and too often we 
have seen administrations of both parties oppose bills such as this. 
When opponents say this is protectionism, I don't know what is wrong 
with protecting our families and protecting our neighbors and 
protecting our country. But ceding that, they say this is 
protectionism. This, in fact, is a reaction to Chinese protectionism. 
And the People's Republic of China has not really believed in the rule 
of law when it comes to trade. There is an emphatic strong insistence 
by the U.S. Senate that we do believe in the rule of law for 
international trade; that we do think all actors should behave. We do 
think that everybody in the trading system should work on a level 
playing field.
  Today was the biggest step I have seen the U.S. Senate take since I 
came here in 2007. We are going to have a long debate this week. 
Everybody is going to get their chance. Some Members of the Senate who 
wanted us to debate this are still not quite sure exactly where we go 
with this. I think it is pretty clear, though, that the U.S. Senate 
today reflects what the people of this great country believe: That we 
make things.
  My State is the third largest manufacturing State in America. Only 
Texas and California, States that are twice and three times our size in 
population, make more than we do. We know how to produce. We need to 
continue to produce. We know that manufacturing creates wealth.
  This is a huge victory--only a first step but a huge first step and a 
victory for American manufacturing to help us reindustrialize our 
country.
  I thank my colleagues for this 79-19 vote. I thank Senator Snowe 
especially for her terrific work on both sides of the aisle in getting 
this bill moving forward. It is going to matter for workers in Toledo, 
Dayton, Cleveland, and Columbus. And for that, I am grateful.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________