[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________