[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8440-S8446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




IMPORT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT 
                                OF 2003

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 18, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) approving the renewal of 
     import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and 
     Democracy Act of 2003.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the joint 
resolution will be read a third time and placed back on the calendar.
  The joint resolution was read the third time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 52, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) approving the renewal of 
     import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and 
     Democracy Act of 2003.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour 20 minutes for debate on the joint resolution.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask 
unanimous consent that the time run equally against all participants.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a little more than 2 years ago, thugs 
working for the military strongmen of Burma attacked Aung San Suu Kyi 
and members of the opposition party that she leads, the National League 
for Democracy. The Government put Suu Kyi into what they call 
``protective custody.'' She remains under house arrest to this day.
  In response to this heinous attack, America banned imports from 
Burma. We in Congress believed something had to be done. In 2002, those 
imports were valued at $350 million, mostly in garments.
  In the autumn of 2003, Burmese Prime Minister Nyunt, who had opposed 
the attack on the opposition party, called for a seven-point road map 
to Democracy.
  But the road map led to nowhere. And a rigged national convention 
broke down when opposition representatives rightly decided to boycott 
it.
  The strongmen of Burma then removed Prime Minister Nyunt from his 
post. They placed him under house arrest, for supposed corruption. And 
they replaced him with a hard-line general, whom many believe to have 
planned the attack.
  Where does this leave Burma? In short, the ruling generals have 
consolidated their grip on power. And government security forces 
continue to inflict innumerable human rights violations on the Burmese 
people.
  This is a tragic situation. The long-suffering people of Burma 
deserve to be rid of the criminals who purport to represent them.
  But what is the best way to do that?
  When the Senate first considered banning Burmese imports, Senator 
Grassley and I worked hard to ensure two key conditions.
  First, we made sure that Congress would retain its constitutionally 
vested power to impose and evaluate trade sanctions. We should never 
write the President a blank check.
  Second, we made sure that the law would direct the administration to 
work with other nations, to make these sanctions work. Unilateral 
sanctions seldom work. Unilateral sanctions typically harm innocent 
citizens far more than the odious rulers against whom they are aimed.
  Sadly, events on the ground in Burma suggest that these unilateral 
sanctions have proved no exception to the rule. The sanctions have 
harmed innocent citizens. And the odious rulers remain in place.
  The U.S. ban on Burmese imports caused a number of Burmese garment 
factories to close. Tens of thousands of garment workers, 
overwhelmingly women, lost their jobs. And more Burmese women, with 
nowhere else to go, turned to prostitution.
  Today, the Burmese garment industry has to some extent rebounded, 
sustained by new orders from Canada, Europe and Latin America.
  U.S. sanctions against Burma might have been more effective if other 
countries would join us in isolating the Burmese regime. But that has 
not happened.
  To the contrary, China has embraced the Burmese government. China has 
invested in Burma's energy sector. And China has extended generous aid 
packages to Burma, including a $356 million aid package that more than 
makes up for Burma's loss of America's import market.
  Thailand and India share a long border with Burma. But Thailand and 
India have their own ideas about how to deal with Burma's military 
rulers. And those ideas do not include joining U.S. sanctions.
  And ASEAN member countries continue to welcome Burma to their 
economic summits.
  This is not a record of success.
  Nevertheless, I will vote to renew the sanctions on Burma for another 
year. But I do so with an eye toward next year, when the sanctions 
automatically expire.
  I know that most of my colleagues will vote reflexively to renew 
these import sanctions. Boycotting Burmese imports allows us to express 
our collective disapproval of the awful regime running Burma. But I 
hope that my colleagues will take a moment to consider whether a 
boycott is the best thing for the Burmese people.

[[Page S8441]]

  Next year, if my colleagues seek to extend the Burmese import 
sanctions, Congress will have to enact new legislation to do so. At 
that time, I hope that we can have a more extensive debate on how best 
we can help the cause of freedom, and how best we can help the Burmese 
people.
  Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from California on 
the floor, a leader on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee. I caught the 
tail end of his remarks, and what I heard I agree with.
  I rise today with my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in 
support of the resolution renewing import sanctions against Burma. The 
House overwhelmingly passed this resolution in a 423-to-2 vote. I 
believe it is time for the Senate to follow suit.
  Almost a month ago, Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of Burma's 
democracy movement Aung San Suu Kyi celebrated her 60th birthday under 
house arrest. She has spent the better part of the past 15 years 
imprisoned under house arrest.
  The brutal military regime, the State Peace and Development Council, 
has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent Suu Kyi and her National 
League for Democracy from assuming their rightful place as leaders of 
the Burmese state.
  It is worth repeating that the NLD decisively won their parliamentary 
elections in 1990, results that were soon nullified by the military 
junta.
  Two years ago, Congress passed the original sanctions legislation, 
the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, following a brutal attack by 
progovernment thugs on a motorcade carrying Suu Kyi and several of her 
NLD colleagues. That bill imposed a complete ban on all imports from 
Burma for 1 year and allowed those sanctions to be renewed 1 year at a 
time for up to 3 years.
  Last year, in response to the failure of the SPDC to make 
``substantial and measurable progress'' toward a true national dialog 
on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 
elections, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a renewal 
of the import sanctions for another year.
  One year later, it is clear the military junta has taken no steps 
toward restoring democracy, releasing Suu Kyi and all political 
prisoners, and respecting human rights and the rule of law and, 
therefore, we believe we have no choice but to renew the sanctions 
again for another year.
  Some may argue that since we are no closer to a free and democratic 
Burma since Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act 2 
years ago, we should let the import ban expire and attempt to 
``engage'' Rangoon.
  I disagree. I urge my colleagues to stay the course for this 
additional year. I ask them to remember that the Burmese Freedom and 
Democracy Act of 2003--a 1-year ban on Burmese imports--allowed those 
sanctions to be renewed twice for 1 year at a time if Burma failed to 
make ``substantial and measurable'' progress toward restoring 
democracy.
  We have almost completed 2 years of the import ban and, if we pass 
this joint resolution, we will renew the sanctions for a third year.
  If Congress does not renew the import ban when the military junta has 
so clearly failed to meet the conditions set out in the original 
legislation for having the sanctions lifted, we will reward the SPDC 
for its inaction and for their continued suppression of the entire 
Burmese people and we will send a clear message to Aung San Suu Kyi and 
the National League for Democracy that the United States does not stand 
with them.
  Brutal regimes around the world would know that if you simply wait 
for the United States to give in, they will do so. The damage to our 
reputation as leader for freedom and human rights will be devastated 
and will take years to repair. We simply cannot afford to make that 
mistake.
  Let me be clear, I don't support sanctions as a panacea for every 
foreign policy dispute we have with another country.
  Each case needs to be judged on its own merits and needs to have 
substantive debate. Congress needs the opportunity to revisit sanctions 
on other countries in a timely fashion. Indeed, next year, when the 
import ban contained in our original bill of 2003 expires, we will have 
the opportunity to judge any progress made by Rangoon over the next 
year towards restoring democracy and possibly debate new sanctions 
legislation, or let the legislation expire.

  We know in some cases sanctions can be effective. I think South 
Africa is the one case where that has proved to be the case. While 
Burma's military regime has totally failed to respect democracy, human 
rights, and the rule of law, world opinion is coming together to put 
additional pressure on Rangoon.
  In fact, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 
called ASEAN, from Malaysia to Singapore and Indonesia, have expressed 
concerns about Burma assuming chairmanship of the organization next 
year and have pushed Burma to make progress on democratic reform.
  I, frankly, believe ASEAN's prestige and effectiveness would be 
substantially undermined and reduced if Burma assumed a leadership 
position in ASEAN. More fundamentally, it would signal that ASEAN has 
been totally ineffective in moving this military junta toward elections 
in Burma, or any reconciliation, for that matter, with the duly elected 
government led by Aung San Suu Kyi.
  The way Senator Bill Cohen and I began this many years ago was to 
give a period of 6 months for ASEAN to exert its influence on Burma, 
and then we gave the Secretary of State--who was then Madeleine 
Albright--the ability to trigger these sanctions. In fact, ASEAN was 
unable to achieve any change in Burmese military behavior. So Secretary 
Albright, at the time, triggered the sanctions.
  In a recent op-ed in The Nation, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, president of the 
ASEAN Caucus on Burma, called on the members of ASEAN to defer Burma's 
chairmanship for 1 year and condition its assuming the chairmanship at 
a later date on progress toward democracy and national reconciliation.
  This is important. I hope the ASEAN nations defer the chairmanship. I 
hope they insist on progress. I hope they say the time has come to 
release Aung San Suu Kyi and to effect a democratic reconciliation to 
this impasse.
  Mr. Ibrahim added:

       A mere facade of political reform will not lead to 
     stability and progress in Burma and will not alleviate the 
     impact throughout the region. ASEAN stands ready to assist 
     Burma, but ASEAN's good will must be met with the Burmese 
     government's political will.

  I strongly agree. I hope this will be ASEAN's posture. I hope it will 
be strong, formidable and, to the extent it can, unrelenting.
  Of course, I would like to see ASEAN take additional measures to put 
pressure on Burma, particularly since the spread of narcotics, HIV/
AIDS, and refugees across the region can all be traced back to Rangoon.
  Denied the most basic of human rights by the repressive regime--
including education and health care--the Burmese people endure forced 
labor, rape, and conscription. Those who dare speak out against the 
SPDC and its abuses are harassed, imprisoned, or killed. Few realize 
there are between 600,000 and 1 million internally displaced persons in 
Burma today, with up to 1,300 political prisoners.
  The people of Burma also face a severe epidemic of HIV infection. 
Measures of the HIV burden are always difficult to assess, but 
estimates suggest that Burma is believed to have one of the largest HIV 
rates in Asia, with up to 1 percent of its population infected. That 
amounts to a half million people. After initial and outgoing outbreaks 
among injecting drug users, HIV rates have rapidly risen among 
heterosexual men, blood donors, and are now rapidly rising among women 
and infants.
  I believe the United States can gain additional international support 
for change in Burma by continuing to take a leadership role on 
sanctions against this military regime. Now is not the time to turn our 
backs on the very brave Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma who 
voted for democracy in 1990. Let's finish what we started with the 
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to

[[Page S8442]]

support a free and democratic Burma and support the joint resolution 
renewing import sanctions for another year.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains in control of the 
Democratic Senators on this resolution?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 39\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of 
that time be reserved for Senator Kennedy and that I may use such of 
the remaining Democratic time as I consume for a statement as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Voyages of Trade and Discovery

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 600 years ago this month, a great fleet of 
more than 300 ships lifted anchor at Nanjing, China, on the first of 7 
voyages of trade and discovery. The Chinese fleet counted the largest 
wooden ships ever built, some with nine masts, massive keels of teak, 
and decks 400 feet long--you can imagine, longer than a football field.
  The Ming Emperor gave his nearly 7-foot tall admiral orders to sail 
on July 11, 1405, nearly a century before Christopher Columbus and 
Vasco da Gama left Europe. And all of those European explorers' ships 
could have fit on a single deck of one of the Chinese treasure ships. 
The 36-foot rudder of one of the ships stood almost as tall as 
Columbus' flagship, the Nina, was long.
  The Ming fleet carried a crew of nearly 28,000, with a medical 
officer for every 150 souls on board. The fleets carried more than a 
million tons of silk, porcelain, copper coins, and spices to trade for 
the riches of the world, on to what the Chinese called the Western 
Ocean--what we call the Indian Ocean. They reached Sumatra, Ceylon, and 
India. They went to the Arabian peninsula and Africa's Swahili coast. 
They made a side trip to Mecca.
  At each port, ships with colorful prows delivered platoons of Chinese 
merchants, ready to do business. In Siam--now Thailand--they acquired 
sandalwood, peacocks, and cardamom. In Indonesia, they acquired tin. In 
Oman, they traded porcelain for frankincense, myrrh, and aloe. The 
Sultan of Aden gave them zebras, lions, and ostriches. In east Africa, 
they acquired a giraffe.
  In 1451, one of the fleet's interpreters would write a memorial of 
the voyages, exclaiming:

       How could there be such diversity in the world?

  In Sri Lanka, the admiral engraved a granite slab in Chinese, Tamil, 
and Persian, seeking blessing from Buddha, Siva, and Allah alike.
  In the south Chinese harbor of Changle, the admiral inscribed on a 
pillar:

       [We] have recorded the years and months of the voyages . . 
     . in order to leave [the memory] forever.

  He listed his destinations, ``altogether more than 30 countries large 
and small.''
  He wrote of his efforts:

      . . . to manifest the transforming power of virtue and to 
     treat distant people with kindness.

  He wrote:

       We have traversed more than 100,000 li--

  That is 40,000 miles--

     of immense water spaces and have beheld in the oceans huge 
     waves like mountains rising sky-high, and we have set eyes on 
     . . . regions far away hidden in a blue transparency of light 
     vapors. . . .

  Today, approximately 600 years later, Chinese officials will proudly 
recall the voyages of the Ming fleet. They will observe that Ming China 
amassed one of the most powerful naval forces ever assembled, and they 
will pointedly note that China used the fleet not for conquest but for 
business and exploration, trade and diplomacy.
  Three weeks ago, on June 24, 2005, a fleet of Chinese-made cars began 
rolling onto a ship in Guangzhou, China, bound for Europe. The fleet 
counted cars made at a gleaming new Honda factory on the outskirts of 
the sprawling city of 12 million souls near Hong Kong.

  As reporter Keith Bradsher of the New York Times described:

       At the new Honda factory . . . white robots poke and crane 
     their long, vulture-like heads into gray, half-completed car 
     bodies to perform 2,100 of the 3,000 welds needed to assemble 
     each car. Workers in white uniforms and gray caps complete 
     the rest of the welds, working as quickly as workers in 
     American factories--but earning roughly $1.50 an hour in 
     wages and benefits, compared to the $55 an hour for General 
     Motors and Ford factories in the United States.

  In America, General Motors and Ford struggle to pay high health care 
costs for autoworkers with an average age of nearly 50. In China, most 
of Honda's autoworkers are in their twenties. They do not go to the 
doctor much, and when they do, Chinese doctors charge less than $5 for 
an office visit and a few stitches.
  China's manufacturing companies are rapidly building wealth, and they 
have begun to trade that wealth for the riches of the world, across the 
Pacific Ocean.
  At airports throughout the world, airplanes with colorful tail wings 
deliver platoons of Chinese merchants, ready to do business. In May, 
the Chinese company Lenovo acquired the personal computer division of 
IBM. In June, a Chinese company bid $2.25 billion for the Iowa-based 
appliance company Maytag. Also in June, China National Offshore Oil 
Corporation bid $18.5 billion for Los Angeles-based Unocal, whose 
``76'' marketing symbol is one of the most recognized and enduring 
corporate symbols in America. And all this buying pales next to the 
acquisition by China's central bank of $230 billion of American 
Government debt.
  China is pursuing trade agreements with India, Australia, New 
Zealand, and Thailand. China is reaching out to the 10 countries of the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, known as ASEAN.
  The Chinese are visiting the rest of Asia in greater numbers than 
before. They bring with them money and optimism about the ``new 
China.'' The new China has gleaming skyscrapers, modern, productive 
industries, and a rapidly developing infrastructure.
  China has launched a major charm offensive across Asia to promote 
itself as a desirable place to visit, to invest, and to live. Through 
ventures such as China Radio International, worldwide television 
broadcasts, and Chinese language and cultural centers across Asia, 
China advertises itself as an attractive destination. Increasingly, 
Asians are forgoing trips to Los Angeles, traveling to Beijing instead. 
For many young Asians, the gleaming lights of Shanghai illuminate the 
new Manhattan.
  Already 90 million people in China's coastal cities have access to 
the Internet, and the Chinese own more cell phones than any other 
people in the world. There are more cell phones in China than there are 
people in the United States.
  China has the world's largest population, the fastest growing 
economy, the second largest foreign currency reserves, and the third 
largest trade. China creates one-fifth of world trade growth.
  In 2004, America exported 2\1/2\ times more to China than it did in 
1999, 5 years earlier. My State of Montana exported 11\1/2\ times more. 
But America's merchandise trade deficit with China has more than 
doubled in the same time. China accounted for a quarter of America's 
$652 billion trade deficit last year.
  As Tom Friedman writes in his book, ``The World is Flat,'' which I 
recommend for everyone:

       [W]hat is really scary is that China is not attracting so 
     much global investment by simply racing everyone to the 
     bottom. . . . China's long-term strategy is to outrace 
     America and the EU countries to the top, and the Chinese are 
     off to a good start.

  China is amassing one of the most powerful economies ever assembled. 
So America must ask: Will the result be as benign as the voyages of the 
Ming treasure fleet 600 years ago?
  Asia accounts for one-third of the world economy. It is the world's 
most economically dynamic region. And America needs to pay attention. 
This administration has launched 20 free-trade agreements, but only one 
has been in Asia--with Thailand.
  Instead of embracing ASEAN, this administration has largely ignored 
it. The Government has ceded the initiative in Southeast Asia to China. 
That is how ASEAN views the recent decisions of Secretary of State Rice 
to skip an important ASEAN gathering later this month. U.S. Secretaries 
of State have traditionally attended that conference. And this 
administration has failed to use the Asia Pacific Economic

[[Page S8443]]

Cooperation, otherwise known as APEC, as a platform for trade 
integration. Rather, this administration has turned the organization 
into little more than a venue to discuss security options.
  Since 2000, this administration has negotiated bilateral and regional 
trade agreements at a furious pace, but most of the agreements the 
Government has been negotiating offer little real value to America's 
commercial interests. Why? Because the Government is choosing trading 
partners more for foreign policy reasons than it is for commercial 
reasons.
  The U.S. Trade representative has finite resources. To be effective, 
to deliver the greatest benefits to Americans, our Government must 
direct their efforts where they are most likely to have the greatest 
effects.
  In 1962, Congress created the Special Trade Representative--the 
predecessor of the U.S. Trade Representative--to remove trade policy 
from the State Department precisely so that commercial interests rather 
than foreign policy interests would drive American trade policy. I 
don't think that has happened. I believe trade shots are called by the 
White House.
  We must focus trade policy efforts where they promise the greatest 
return for our ranchers, businesses, and our workers. First and 
foremost, we need to devote more effort to the ongoing Doha round of 
WTO negotiations. From all appearances, the negotiations are dragging. 
The pace of progress will have to improve considerably to meet the goal 
of an agreement by the end of 2006, and that will require a substantial 
commitment of U.S. leadership and resources.
  We need to look more to Asia for bilateral agreements as well. For 
example, South Korea is our seventh largest trading partner, with a 
two-way trade totaling $70 billion. Korea has promised real reforms in 
its agricultural markets. It has liberalized investment restrictions 
and lowered merchandise tariffs. I have met with Korean trade officials 
on several occasions, and they are serious about reforms.
  Regional trade agreements in Asia, perhaps under the auspices of 
APEC, also hold promise. APEC's 21-member economies account for a third 
of the world's population and about three-fifths of world production. 
American exporters will get a major boost from a regional free-trade 
agreement on this scale.
  We also need to seek out further sectoral agreements such as the 
WTO's hugely successful Information Technology Agreement negotiated 
largely by America, Japan, and Singapore.
  We should launch an initiative in the advanced medical equipment 
sector. Asia has a rapidly aging population, particularly in Japan, 
Korea, and China. This demographic shift translates into growing demand 
for advanced medical equipment. America already exports half a billion 
dollars a year in medical devices to China and Hong Kong, and these 
exports are expanding 12 percent a year.
  We need to do a better job of enforcing our existing trade 
agreements.
  In China, piracy--the theft of American copyrights and patents--is at 
epidemic levels. In the past 2 years, companies from General Motors to 
Sony to Cisco have complained that Chinese have stolen their 
intellectual property. More than 90 percent of software in China is 
stolen. American innovators are losing billions of dollars a year.
  Combating piracy would help the American economy far more than 
further agreements with countries whose entire economies are but a 
fraction the size of our losses to piracy alone. I need only mention 
CAFTA. CAFTA is a blip compared to other commercial interests we should 
be pursuing.
  China also maintains a troubling currency peg. But retaliatory 
tariffs are not the answer. Tariffs would violate our WTO commitments. 
Tariffs would inflame already difficult trade relations with China, 
invite Chinese retaliation in other areas, and make Chinese imports 
nearly a third more expensive. Tariffs would hurt American consumers 
who would pay more for many of the goods that they buy. And tariffs 
would hurt U.S. companies who rely on Chinese inputs to develop their 
own products.
  Having said that, China's currency peg is a problem. It distorts 
world markets and hurts both America and China itself. China needs to 
revise its currency policy.
  While issues with China dominate the headlines, there are other 
enforcement priorities, including in our own hemisphere. In Brazil for 
example, the government recently forced an American pharmaceutical 
company to reduce its price for one of its medicines. It did so by 
threatening to break its promise to protect the American company's 
patent, and to let a state-owned company make generic copies of the 
medicine, an outrage.
  This is blackmail, pure and simple. And it is illegal. This sort of 
coercion has no place in our trade relations. It hurts our companies 
and our workers. And it dampens the incentive to create new and 
innovative pharmaceuticals.
  Our problems with Brazil go beyond just pharmaceuticals. Until 
recently, Brazil banned the sale of genetically engineered seeds for 
use in agriculture. These are the kind of high-tech seeds American 
companies like Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred develop and sell all over 
the world--but not in Brazil. How odd then, that roughly 30 percent of 
Brazil's soybeans are grown with genetically engineered seeds. The 
figure is nearly 90 percent in Brazil's southernmost state of Rio 
Grande do Sul.
  How can this be? Theft. These seeds were smuggled in from neighboring 
countries where they are allowed, and planted illegally. They were not 
purchased. They were stolen.
  And just like piracy in China, piracy in Brazil costs American 
industries dearly. Last year, American companies lost $930 million in 
Brazil because of piracy of audiovisual goods. Some estimate that 
three-quarters of these audiocassettes sold in Brazil are pirated.
  Of course we cannot launch a full-fledged WTO dispute to address each 
and every foreign trade barrier. And the U.S. Trade Representative 
often rightly attempts to resolve many of these issues through 
negotiation and other means.

  But there can be little doubt that trade enforcement has received a 
lower priority of late. In the 6 years from 1995 through 2000, the 
United States filed 67 WTO dispute settlement cases. In the 5 years 
since, we have filed only 12. That is about an 80 percent decrease.
  Too often, our tools to address trade barriers are lying unused, on 
the shelf. That burdens Americans with economic losses. But what is 
more, when Americans see that others are cheating, their enthusiasm for 
trade cools. And we all suffer as a result.
  Americans also cool to trade when they see nothing being done to help 
those who lose from trade. Lowering tariffs and barriers increases 
competition and benefits many more than it hurts, but it inevitably 
hurts some.
  For more than 40 years, the Government has been helping to retrain 
workers affected by trade to give them the skills that they need to 
find new jobs. These programs were expanded in 2002 under the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Reform Act, a bipartisan effort and one of my 
proudest achievements as chairman of the Finance Committee at that 
time. The reforms expanded eligibility to new categories of workers, 
created a new health coverage tax credit, and helped older workers with 
a new wage insurance benefit. Last year, these programs helped nearly 
150,000 workers.
  TAA is an integral part of a successful trade policy. A few weeks 
ago, I discussed this very issue with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan during a Finance Committee hearing. Chairman Greenspan 
stated, as he has before, that our trade policy should ``assist those 
who are on the wrong side of the adjustment'' caused by trade.
  Lately, the Government has not supported TAA. This year, the 
administration's budget zeroed out funding for the TAA for Firms 
Program, which pretty much everyone agrees has been useful and cost 
effective. Last month, the Senate Finance Committee passed an amendment 
offered by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, to extend TAA 
benefits to workers in the service industry. The administration 
stripped the language out of the CAFTA implementing bill that it 
submitted to the Congress.
  Liberalizing trade requires a grand bargain with workers. Workers 
agree to be exposed to increased international competition It is 
helpful. But society agrees to erect a strong social safety net to help 
workers adjust.

[[Page S8444]]

When workers' old skills become obsolete, society helps them learn new 
skills to compete. If we undercut this bargain, we do so at the peril 
of further trade liberalization and our international competitiveness.
  We must press forward with trade liberalization. For, 600 years 
later, international trade remains as vital to the world economy today 
as it was to Ming China.
  Trade allows Americans to specialize in what we do best. That allows 
us to improve our international competitiveness and maximize our 
standard of living.
  What Americans do best today is manufacture capital-intensive goods: 
airplanes, automobiles, and construction equipment.
  Americans invent whole new fields, like biotech and nanotechnology, 
that lead to new products to make our lives better. University of 
Michigan scientists recently used nanotechnology to deliver a powerful 
drug inside cancerous tumor cells, increasing the drug's cancer-killing 
activity and reducing its toxic side effects.
  Americans pioneer new services to make our lives better, like 
Internet banking. We export our services all over the world. Hollywood 
movies and American television programs are translated into countless 
languages and watched around the world. American universities educate 
students from virtually every country on Earth. American insurance 
companies insure assets in jungles, deserts, and savannas.
  And American ranchers and farmers feed and clothe people around the 
globe.
  Freer trade helps us find and open new markets for what Americans do 
best. New markets provide new opportunities for American workers and 
their companies. New markets mean greater demand for what Americans 
produce. And new markets mean more jobs and more investment 
opportunities to meet the demand.
  As we meet the demand of foreign consumers through trade, American 
products become global products. American brands become global brands. 
Coke is Coke, the world over.
  I might digress and say 40 years ago I hitchhiked around the world 
with a knapsack on my back in northern Ghana. I went to a little hut. I 
got off from the back of a truck. I was riding with the cattle in the 
back of the truck. My driver stopped to pray. He pointed his little 
prayer mat toward Mecca. In that little hut there was a little 
refrigerator, no electricity, and there was Coca-Cola. It was a world 
brand back then. Just think of all the world brands we could have 
today. On today's voyages, one can find the familiar yellow arches of 
McDonald's in Cyprus, Slovenia, and Oman.

  The American standard becomes the global standard and the 
international sign of excellence. Excellence means that half of the 
world's 20 largest companies are American companies--companies like 
Citigroup, IBM, and General Electric.
  Importing products from our trading partners challenges domestic 
companies to compete. Competition keeps American companies nimble. 
American companies are constantly coming up with new products and 
better ways to make them.
  Just look at the number of U.S. patents filed by Americans versus the 
rest of the world. Americans filed nearly 90,000 patents in 2003. That 
is 50,000 more than the next most innovative country, Japan. In 
innovation, we are still number one.
  The biggest payoff from international trade goes to the American 
consumer. As more and more companies trade and produce what they are 
best at producing, prices in supermarkets and department stores 
plummet. Cheaper products mean that we can afford more of what we need, 
and our standard of living improves.
  The now-ubiquitous cell phone provides a great example. Ten years 
ago, it was an unaffordable luxury for most Americans. Using one in 
public aroused curiosity, but trade forced prices to drop. Now many 
Americans see cell phones as a necessity.
  Leaders have not always appreciated the benefits of trade. After the 
stock market crash in 1929, America enacted the Tariff Act of 1930. 
That act imposed the now-infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that deepened 
the Great Depression.
  During the Presidential campaign of 1932, President Hoover warned 
that repealing the Smoot-Hawley tariffs would devastate the U.S. 
economy, why? Because Americans could not compete successfully with 
workers in poorer countries with lower wages and lower costs of 
production. It was Franklin Roosevelt who argued that worldwide 
reduction of trade barriers would benefit both America and its trading 
partners.
  Roosevelt's victory, along with his signing of the Reciprocal Trade 
Agreements Act, ushered in the modern era of American trade policy.
  During World War II, Secretary of State Cordell Hull argued that 
economic protectionism had fed the animosities that led to the war. He 
advocated freer trade in the postwar era as a bulwark for peace and 
prosperity.
  This vision led to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 
otherwise known as GATT, negotiated during the Truman administration. 
This forerunner to today's World Trade Organization brought down the 
disastrously high Smoot-Hawley tariffs and freed $10 billion of trade 
from duties.
  Democrats can be proud of our role in expanding free trade. 
Democratic administrations completed and implemented the last three 
rounds of GATT negotiations. In 1967, the Johnson 
administration completed the Kennedy Round. In 1979, the Carter 
administration completed the Tokyo Round. In 1994, the Clinton 
administration completed the Uruguay Round.

  The Clinton administration completed the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, negotiated the historic bilateral trade agreement with 
Vietnam, and granted permanent normal trade relations to China, 
ultimately paving the way for China's membership in the WTO.
  The success of trade liberalization has been spectacular, touching 
the lives and well-being of all Americans. Freer trade has lowered our 
tariffs from about 40 percent in 1946 to about 4 percent today, and 
made our trading partners do the same. Freer trade has increased our 
national income by nearly $1 trillion a year. Freer trade has increased 
the average American household's income by nearly $10,000 a year. Freer 
trade with China alone saves American households $600 each year.
  Today, 12 million Americans, 1 of every 10 workers, depend on exports 
for their jobs. International trade now accounts for a quarter of our 
gross domestic product, up from just 10 percent in the 1950s.
  Trade opens our lives to new opportunities and choices. Trade gives 
us new foods to eat, new movies to watch, and new products to buy.
  Strengthening trade ties also contributes to peaceful relations with 
our trading partners. Our quality of life improves as the world grows 
ever smaller, shrinking with the better communications and 
transportation links that develop with increased commerce.
  Back in China, Guangzhou Airport has a terminal designed by an 
American company, boarding gates supplied by a Danish company, and an 
air traffic control tower engineered by a company from Singapore.
  America's Dell Computers is giving the Chinese competitor Lenovo a 
run for its money in China. Dell now has become China's third-largest 
seller of PCs, and Dell now produces 3 million PCs in China, as many as 
Lenovo.
  America should welcome China's greater integration into the world 
market. It may mean that we will have to work a little harder, study a 
little bit harder, and think a little bit quicker to keep ahead. But 
those are talents at which Americans excel.
  In the middle of the 15th century, China made an abrupt change in 
foreign policy. Remember just earlier all those ships around the world? 
China turned inward and abandoned outward-looking trade. Imperial 
edicts banned overseas travel. To reduce commerce with foreign nations, 
the new Chinese dynasty burned a swath of land 30 miles deep for 700 
miles of its southern coast. Any merchant caught engaging in foreign 
trade was tried as a pirate and executed.
  With the Emperor's death in 1435, the government put a stop to the 
voyages of the Treasure fleet. Chinese court officials destroyed the 
plans for the Treasure ships, the accounts of their

[[Page S8445]]

voyages, and almost every map and document of the previous period. 
Sadly, China's golden Ming age came to an end, China's economy fell 
backward, and the treasure ships became shrouded in the mists of 
history.
  We cannot yet know whether the voyages of today's fleets of Chinese 
ships will lead to another golden age for China like that of the Ming 
Dynasty. But we also cannot expect that China will somehow once again 
abruptly reverse course and turn inward. That will not happen.
  Try as regimes after the Ming dynasty did, they could not erase the 
history of the Ming treasure fleets, whose voyages will leave a memory 
forever.
  Let us respond to today's Chinese fleets with the best spirit of the 
Ming admiral, and the best spirit of America.
  Let us work to advance freer trade, so that for America and for 
China, we can, in the words of the Ming admiral, ``manifest the 
transforming power of virtue.''
  Let us work to advance freer trade, to make a better world both for 
ourselves, and for ``regions far away hidden in a blue transparency of 
light vapors.''
  And let us work to advance freer trade, because both in terms of new 
innovations and new trading partners, America's greatest voyages of 
discovery still lie ahead of her.
  Mr. President, under the previous order, do we have up to 10 minutes 
reserved for the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. VITTER). The Senator is correct. The 
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friend and colleague from Arizona on the floor. 
I understand by previous agreement we are voting at 12:20, so I am glad 
to divide the time that is remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator from Massachusetts will yield for a 
moment, I believe I have the last amount of time before the vote. I ask 
the Chair, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 18\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will not likely use the entire 18\1/2\ minutes. The 
vote is scheduled to begin at the end of the time, or do we have a time 
specific for the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the end of the time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I will proceed then for my 10 because I understand 
there will be adequate time for the others.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my statement appear at an 
appropriate part of the debate on this issue.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the matter before the Senate today, 
the Burma sanctions, I want to point out that this legislation 
addresses one of the worst human rights tragedies in the world, the 
atrocious acts of the Burmese junta. They suppress dissent. They jail 
opponents. They deny the basic rights of free speech, freedom of 
religion, and freedom of assembly, and they have had Aung San Suu Kyi 
under house arrest for many years. So the action we take today is 
appropriate.
  I am proud Massachusetts has led the way to encourage sanctions 
against this abusive government. In 1996, the Massachusetts legislature 
adopted a law barring State agencies from doing business with companies 
that do business with Burma. It was the first step toward national 
action.
  I hope our Senate colleagues will support this measure here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senators McConnell and Feinstein for their 
leadership in renewing the sanctions contained in the 2003 Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation.
  As we renew the sanctions, I note with sadness that the situation 
inside Burma grows ever dimmer. The military junta in that country 
controls the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and 
the lack of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese 
regime has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers, and 
forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists 
remain in prison, including elected members of Parliament, and last 
month the courageous woman Aung San Suu Kyi celebrated her 60th 
birthday in captivity. Her resolve in the face of tyranny inspires me 
and I believe every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she 
stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, 
captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. Burma's 
rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents: peace, 
freedom, and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run the 
country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish 
her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the 
millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom and those of us outside 
Burma who seek justice for its people.
  I know my friend from Kentucky has been very involved in this issue. 
I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Kentucky and I engage in a 
brief colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Kentucky is recognized along with the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I again thank my friend and colleague from Kentucky for 
his commitment to democracy and freedom in Burma in general and his 
continuing advocacy on behalf of this Nobel Prize winner and truly 
great citizen of the world.
  One of the issues I would like to discuss with the Senator from 
Kentucky is the fact that a few years ago, Burma was allowed into ASEAN 
on the premise that there would be some kind of progress made and by 
being part of this organization they would seek some kind of 
legitimacy.
  Now, apparently, next year ASEAN is scheduled to meet in Burma. I 
wondered about the Senator's thoughts about that. Maybe we should give 
that some more attention as the time approaches.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Arizona for bringing it up.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that the Senator from Arizona has 
actually had an opportunity to meet Aung San Suu Kyi. I heard him say 
before what an inspirational experience that was. I wish I had the 
opportunity to actually meet her at some point. As the Senator from 
Arizona pointed out, she basically has been under house arrest for some 
15 years.
  This outrageous regime in Burma is scheduled, as the Senator from 
Arizona pointed out, to host in Rangoon the ASEAN meeting in 2006. It 
will be an interesting test of whether the policies of the governments 
in ASEAN, which basically add up to constructive engagement, will be 
honored even through that, and everybody will go traipsing to a meeting 
in Rangoon.
  I had an opportunity to have a few words with the Prime Minister of 
India. They, like ourselves, abhor the regime there and revere Suu Kyi 
but nevertheless pursue this policy of constructive engagement. Maybe 
the scheduled meeting in Rangoon will be a way to bring this whole 
issue to a head and move the governments in the area in the direction 
of some kind of policy other than constructive engagement. Obviously, 
this policy is not going to work. I share the Senator's view.
  It is unacceptable for ASEAN to meet in Rangoon while this regime is 
in power and Suu Kyi is in jail.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend for his continued sponsorship for and 
renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I believe it has had 
an effect inside Burma. I do believe the people who are in prisons and 
mistreated, as well as San Suu Kyi herself, are aware of our efforts on 
their behalf.
  I thank my friend from Kentucky for his continued efforts on behalf 
of these people. I believe we should continue to ask that one day they 
will achieve their freedom--not if, but when. I think the Senator's 
efforts and our passage of this legislation will help get them there. I 
look forward to exploring other options and ways we can put continued 
pressure on this bunch of thugs to at least allow this brave woman a 
chance to live some semblance of a normal life. She certainly deserves 
it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I make a further observation to my good friend from 
Arizona. The Prime Minister of India mentioned a meeting that Than 
Shwe, the head thug of the thug regime that controls Burma, apparently 
came to in New Delhi sometime within the last

[[Page S8446]]

year. One of the arguments he made with reference to reform was that 
Burma was so ethnically diverse that it simply could not handle 
democracy. I am sure my friend from Arizona shares my view of the irony 
of that. What could be a more ethnically diverse country than India?
  No one knows this, but India is the second-largest Muslim country in 
the world, whose President is a Muslim and has had a total democracy by 
Western standards these many years, going back to independence. India 
has done a superb job of absorbing all of these different minorities, 
many of whom do not speak the same language, into a genuine democracy 
for over 50 years.
  India itself is a repudiation of the argument that the head thug was 
using against any kind of reform in Burma.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know my friend from Kentucky and the 
Senator from California and all Members will renew our assurance to the 
people of Burma and their brave leader that we will not rest and we 
will not stop until they achieve freedom and democracy, which is a God-
given right.
  I thank my colleague from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank, again, the Senator from Arizona for his 
continuous interest and outspoken involvement in this issue over the 
years. It has been fun to be in collaboration with him.
  I will say a few words on Burma before the Senate votes, and at the 
end of my remarks I will ask for the yeas and nays on the measure to 
renew sanctions for another year on Burma.
  These sanctions are absolutely necessary. If you do not want to take 
my word for it, here is what a Thai journalist wrote in a recent 
opinion piece in that country's newspaper called the Nation:

       Whatever momentum was gained from the international calls 
     to free Aung San Suu Kyi and to allow for democracy in Burma 
     on the occasion of the opposition leader's recent 60th 
     birthday must be sustained at all costs. The outpouring of 
     support from presidents, prime ministers, intellectuals, 
     Nobel laureates and activists demonstrated one simple truth--
     the Lady matters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, 
     perpetuated by junta apologists and other vested interests in 
     the past five years, that the long-suffering opposition 
     leader of the National League for Democracy has been the main 
     stumbling block of progress because of her attitude toward 
     political processes and national reconciliation, Suu Kyi is 
     in fact loved and respected by the Burmese and other people 
     around the world.

  He had it right. The Lady matters.
  Under the paranoid misrule of Burmese hard-liner Than Shwe, the human 
rights and dignity of the Burmese people continue to be grossly abused. 
The litany of atrocities--from the use of rape as a weapon of war to 
the murder, torture and intimidation of political activists--are well-
known and well-documented. It seems as though the only ones denying 
that a problem exists in Burma are the very miscreants responsible for 
creating and propagating that problem.
  Second, with the SPDC scheduled to assume chairmanship of the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, next year, as Senator 
McCain and I were just discussing, the time has come for ASEAN to fish 
or cut bait.
  Again, listen to what others from that region are saying, such as 
former deputy prime minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim who wrote last 
month in the Asian Wall Street Journal:

     . . . It is now evident that constructive engagement [by 
     ASEAN with the SPDC] has not only failed to bring about 
     democratization, but was never seriously intended to 
     encourage any move in this direction. Instead, as far as 
     ASEAN is concerned, the policy amounts to a subconscious 
     manifestation of collective guilt.

  I offer that the absence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at 
the recent security meeting in Laos portends America's involvement with 
ASEAN should the SPDC be at the helm. The difference might be that no 
American official attends ASEAN events in her stead.
  In case ASEAN members have not noticed, President Bush is a stalwart 
supporter of freedom in Burma.
  As is Secretary Rice. As is the U.S. Congress.
  My colleagues may recall that 14 Nobel laureates wrote an open letter 
on the occasion of Suu Kyi's 60th birthday, which applauded ``those 
countries that have imposed sanctions to deny the regime the wealth it 
craves to sustain itself'' and reminded the world that ``Burma was 
admitted to ASEAN to lift its people up, not to drag the organization 
down.'' ASEAN members should feel similarly--how could they not?
  Finally, the world must press for the immediate and unconditional 
release of Burmese democracy activists Aung San Suu Kyi and all 
prisoners of conscience.
  Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic 
minorities have an indisputable role to play in the peaceful 
reconciliation of that country's myriad problems. This role cannot, and 
will not, be fulfilled so long as these courageous individuals remain 
behind prison walls or in the gun sights of SPDC goons.
  Earlier today we had an opportunity to hear India's Prime Minister 
address a joint meeting of Congress.
  In my discussion with Senator McCain in the Senate, I just pointed 
out the Indian Government certainly does not approve of the regime. I 
questioned the policy of the constructive engagement of India. They are 
at least thinking about whether that is the appropriate policy in India 
for the future. It was interesting and noteworthy the Prime Minister of 
India happened to be here on the very same day we took this measure up.
  I particularly thank Senator McCain, Senators Feinstein, Reid, Frist, 
and Leahy, to name but a few, who have been involved in this issue from 
the beginning. This is an important statement of principle for America. 
I urge my colleagues to support this measure overwhelmingly.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockfeller), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
       Enzi
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Landrieu
     Rockefeller
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) was agreed to.

                          ____________________