Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join in acknowledging the life and service of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

His was a life of public service. During the Supreme Court's 1951 and 1952 terms, he served as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson. From 1969 to 1971, he served as Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. And from January 7, 1972, to his passing Saturday, he served on the Supreme Court. Through his life of service, Justice Rehnquist has left an indelible mark on this Nation.

In 1969, on appointing Judge Burger as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, President Nixon had said: Our Chief Justices have probably had more profound and lasting influence on their times and on the direction of the nation than most Presidents.

President Nixon was right. And the service of Chief Justice Rehnquist was proof.

In 1971, President Nixon nominated Justice Rehnquist to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice. And in 1986, President Reagan elevated him to the position of Chief Justice. In the history of this Nation, only 16 men have held this high office. Justice Rehnquist presided over the court as Chief Justice for 19 years. Only three men served longer as Chief Justice: Melville Weston Fuller, Roger Taney, and John Marshall.

I felt a tie with Justice Rehnquist, as he had attended Stanford University and Stanford Law School, a few years ahead of me at both schools. In another one of those quirks of history, he attended the same Stanford Law School class with Sandra Day O'Connor, who would later join him on the Supreme Court.

I was also able to observe Chief Justice Rehnquist at close range, in 1999, when he presided over the Senate sitting in the Presidential impeachment trial of President Clinton. Chief Justice Rehnquist had written a book on impeachments. But more importantly, his presence brought dignity and a much-needed sense of humor to those difficult proceedings.

At one point, he noted that a Senate rule forbids both sides in the impeachment trial from objecting to a question.

From the Presiding Officer's chair, the Chief Justice wryly observed: The Parliamentarian says they can only object to an answer and not to a question, which is kind of an unusual thing.

The Chief Justice chuckled, and Senators laughed with him.

At another point, Majority Leader Lott asked how much time each side had used. The Chief Justice checked with the Parliamentarian and first announced that the House Managers had taken 54 minutes and the White House had taken 57 minutes. But then the Chief Justice said that he needed to correct himself, saying that the House managers had actually used up 64 minutes, not just 54 minutes.

House Manager Rogan, who was scheduled to speak next, inquired: I trust that doesn't mean I have to sit down, Mr. Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice quipped in response: It's not retroactive.

Mr. President, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote many opinions with which I do not agree. He was a very conservative Justice.

But I will miss Chief Justice Rehnquist. He was a great figure of our times. We will not forget him.

Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of critical importance to my constituents in Montana. Early this morning, in the dead of night, the House of Representatives took an extraordinary action to delete a commonsense provision in the transportation conference report that would have reopened the runway at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, MT. I am sorry the House acted as if it knows what is best for Great Falls, MT.

I cannot possibly put into words my outrage for the extraordinary action that the House took early this morning. My amendment would have opened the runway that is in the heart of Malmstrom Air Force base, which is active, healthy, and vibrant. Malmstrom is located outside of Great Falls, MT, and is a highly secure missile facility, employing the largest number of security forces in the entire U.S. Air Force.

Currently, the roadways and the infrastructure of Great Falls are strained due to the frequent crosstown movement of heavy cargo and equipment during deployments of the 219th and the 819th Red Horse Squadrons of the U.S. Air Force and National Guard. They must travel from Malmstrom to the other side of town on a congested roadway in the middle of town to fly out of a municipal airport. The Montana Air National Guard conducts all of their missions out of the same municipal airport.

This amendment would have enabled those units to deploy from a runway within their secured perimeter. Despite the mischaracterization of the House, this provision would not overturn a BRAC decision, nor would it influence the current BRAC round. It could not. Malmstrom is not on the BRAC list. The amendment was drafted, discussed, and deliberated in the light of day, agreed to by the relevant committees and conferees.

I was also pleased to have worked with the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the conferees of the highway bill, all of whom accepted this amendment. To now have the House of Representatives cut this provision in the dead of night is an outrage.

My amendment would have simply provided a commonsense solution to a local problem. Local elected officials, civic leaders, the U.S. Air Force, and the National Guard have all requested that I find a way to open the runway at Malmstrom. Senator Burns and I are dedicated to making this commonsense solution happen. But I cannot allow the highway bill to be a victim of the House's actions after the countless hours I have spent making sure it is right for America and right for the State of Montana.

The House actions in the dead of night have put in jeopardy our national highway bill. This bill will pump more than $2.3 billion into my State economy, and I am proud of this bill. It will help sustain and create more than 18,000 jobs and boost safety on Montana's roads. I dare say that very few in this Congress have worked harder to get this highway bill across the finish line than has this Senator. I will not give up the fight to reopen Malmstrom's runway. I have given it my best, but I cannot, in good faith, derail this important bill for the country at this late hour. My colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, and I will continue to work to find another way to make this happen.

This action by the House shows how important was the Founders' genius in creating the Senate, where States with real needs but small populations, such as Montana, have their champions. I will never apologize for fighting for Montana.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for 4 years, Congress has failed to enact a comprehensive Energy bill. Today, however, I am confident we can change that record.

The conference committee has assembled a well-balanced package. It is right for America. We should send it to the President's desk.

The House and the Senate gave the conferees a difficult task. The House and Senate Energy bills took two very different approaches to tax policy. The two bills had very little in common. Thus, we could not include everything in both bills without busting our budget.

Most of the provisions in the House bill promoted investment in traditional energy infrastructure. It favored pipelines, electricity lines, and oil and gas production.

In contrast, the Senate bill--which I helped develop with my good friend Senator Grassley--advanced new technologies. It encouraged conservation efforts, improved energy efficiency, and expanded use of alternative fuels.

Conference negotiations were hard fought. We made some tough decisions.

But overall, the process was very positive. We kept within our budget, and we worked with a spirit of compromise and cooperation.

The energy tax incentives that the conference has recommended take an evenhanded approach to an array of promising technologies.

For example, the bill provides a uniform period for claiming production tax credits under section 45 of the Tax Code. This encourages production of electricity from all sources of renewable energy.

The bill recognizes the value of coal and other traditional energy sources to our economy. It provides investment tax credits for clean- burning coal facilities and projects. It provides substantial tax incentives to facilitate much needed expansion of refinery capacity. And it promotes expansion of American energy delivery systems.

The bill recognizes the need for a diverse energy portfolio, it fosters energy production from wind or coal in Montana to geothermal sources in California, and it will help create jobs by promoting domestic energy production.

The bill also rewards energy conservation and efficiency. It includes incentives for energy-efficient homes, alternative fuel vehicles, and development of fuel cell technology. These incentives are environmentally responsible they reduce pollution, and they help improve people's health.

These energy tax incentives are good for America. They will promote the delivery of reliable, affordable energy to consumers. They will help to create jobs through domestic energy production, and they make meaningful progress toward energy independence.

I am proud of the bipartisan effort that produced the conference agreement. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, after 4 years, the Senate is on the verge of passing a comprehensive Energy bill. This important legislation will lessen America's reliance on foreign sources of energy, boost renewable resources, and provide reliable energy for the nation.

Putting this legislation together and keeping it within budget constraints took hard work and perseverance. First, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, respectively. They provided excellent leadership, and I know their staff stayed up many a sleepless night. They played an important role developing this bill.

I also thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, for his commitment to taking a balanced approach to energy tax policy.

Let me take a moment and speak about the hard work of the Finance Committee staff. The House and Senate bills took two very different approaches to tax policy. Conference negotiations were hard fought. We made some tough decisions. But we got it done within budget limits largely because we worked with a spirit of compromise and cooperation.

I also thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, and Nick Wyatt.

I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service.

I thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for their hard work, cooperation and continuing willingness to work with us through the difficult negotiations that produced this important legislation.

I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Ryan Abraham, and Wendy Carey. I especially want to thank Matt Jones. He is the tax counsel on our staff who has worked for years on the tax legislation in this bill. His hard work and perseverance on this legislation went above and beyond the call of duty. I owe him a deep debt of gratitude. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Jorlie Cruz, Cuong Huynh, Richard Litsey, Stuart Sirkin, and Brian Townsend.

Finally, I thank our hard-working interns: Rob Grayson, Jacob Kuipers, Heather O'Loughlin, Andrea Porter, Ashley Sparano, Julie Straus, Danny Shervin, Katherine Bitz, Drew Blewett, Adam Elkington, Julie Golder, and Paul Turner.

This legislation was a team effort that really paid off.

I yield the floor.

I concur. A seller should be able to rely on the gross vehicle weight rating and the gross combined weight rating established by the manufacturer. Only in situations where the seller modifies the vehicle substantially will the seller be responsible for determining different weight ratings.

Mr. President, after nearly 3 years and countless temporary extensions, the Senate is about to pass a monumental transportation bill. We will provide over $286 billion that will create thousands of jobs and keep our transportation infrastructure healthy.

Getting to this point truly has been a work of dedication and perseverance. First, I thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords, from the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as Senator Bond, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. They provided excellent leadership and cooperation.

I sincerely thank their staffs many of whom spent sleepless nights getting this done. In particular, I thank Ken Connolly, J.C. Sandberg, Malia Somerville, Alison Taylor, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Catharine Ransom, Chris Miller, Malcolm Woolf, Carolyn Dupree, Thomas Ashley, Cara Cookson, Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, Nathan Richmond, Alex Herrgott, Angie Giancarlo, Greg Murrill, Heideh Shahmoradi, Ellen Stein, John Stoody. They played an important role developing the transit title in this bill.

I also thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his commitment to the transportation program.

Let me take a moment and speak about the hard work of the Finance Committee staff. Getting the Tax Title done presented many challenges, not the least of which was getting it paid for. The House bill simply did not provide enough money for our highway infrastructure. The Finance Committee worked together tirelessly to find additional revenue to pay for it.

I want to thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, and Nick Wyatt.

I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service.

I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Matt Jones, Ryan Abraham, and Wendy Carey. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Jorlie Cruz, Cuong Huynh, Richard Litsey, Stuart Sirkin, and Brian Townsend.

I especially express my sincere gratitude to Kathy Ruffalo- Farnsworth. Her extraordinary efforts and contributions in keeping this bill together went over and above the call of duty. I hold her in the highest esteem and can't thank her enough for her counsel and professionalism.

Finally, I thank our hard-working law clerks and interns: Katherine Bitz, Drew Blewett, Adam Elkington, Julie Golder, Rob Grayson, Jacob Kuipers, Heather O'Loughlin, Andrea Porter, Ashley Sparano, Julie Straus, Danny Shervin and Paul Turner.

This legislation really was a team effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last year, the Senate passed significant legislation aimed at shutting down tax shelters. We ramped up disclosure requirements that make it easier for IRS to find those who promoted and invested in these deals. We greatly increased penalties. We made law firms and accounting firms responsible for their part in perpetuating this distasteful business.

Another thing we did was to take a break on interest expense away from participants in listed transactions and those who fail to disclose a reportable transaction.

Usually, if the IRS audits your tax return and doesn't tell you about any adjustments to your tax bill within 18 months after the return is filed, the interest on that tax bill stops. It stops until the IRS does tell you what you owe. It is called ``the 18 month interest suspension rule'' and became law so taxpayers wouldn't have to pay excessive interest if the IRS took a long time to figure out what they owed.

But, people who get involved with tax shelters play hide and seek with the IRS. They hope the game lasts until the time for auditing a tax return has passed. This means that the IRS often doesn't know a taxpayer has bought into a tax shelter until well after 18 months has gone by.

And, this problem is made even worse by those who sell the shelters. Promoters are supposed to keep a list of those who buy their shelters. The IRS can ask for the list--it's one way the IRS can find those who get into these bad deals.

But, often the promoter won't turn that list over to the IRS right away. Once again, it is well after that 18 month mark before the IRS learns about the investment and can do the audit.

It is not right that taxpayers benefit from this 18 month interest suspension rule when the delays are the result of their own hand. Taxpayers involved in deals that abuse our tax system should not benefit from their own fun and games.

That is why we took the interest suspension break away from these taxpayers in last year's Jobs Act. But we only took it away for interest charges after October 3, 2004.

Today, my good friend Chuck Grassley and I introduce a proposal that takes this one step further and eliminates the interest suspension break for interest charges on or before October 3, 2004. Why should these folks get any break when they have manipulated the system in the first place?

The only exception is for taxpayers who have decided to take the IRS up on a published settlement initiative to unwind their transaction. Those taxpayers would continue to qualify for suspension of their accrued interest expense through the October 3 date. The IRS has found these settlement initiatives are a useful way to get these old cases resolved and off the table. I think we should help this process along so the IRS can deal with other aspects of the tax gap.

Our proposal also will plug up another unintended loophole in the interest suspension rules. Earlier this year, the IRS ruled that taxpayers filing amended returns showing a balance due more than 18 months after the original return was filed were also entitled to interest suspension--this applies to all taxpayers, not just those with tax shelters. Since the IRS wouldn't have any way of knowing these taxpayers even owed more tax, it doesn't make sense to give them a break on interest charges.

Over the past several years this country has experienced a scourge of tax shelters. With hard work, we have come a long way in our fight against them. We must be relentless in our quest to wipe them out. We need to remove any incentives that might encourage people to get into these abusive deals. Our proposal is one more blow in our fight to maintain fairness and integrity in our system of tax administration. We request your support for this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last year, the Senate passed significant legislation aimed at shutting down tax shelters. We ramped up disclosure requirements that make it easier for IRS to find those who promoted and invested in these deals. We greatly increased penalties. We made law firms and accounting firms responsible for their part in perpetuating this distasteful business.

Another thing we did was to take a break on interest expense away from participants in listed transactions and those who fail to disclose a reportable transaction.

Usually, if the IRS audits your tax return and doesn't tell you about any adjustments to your tax bill within 18 months after the return is filed, the interest on that tax bill stops. It stops until the IRS does tell you what you owe. It is called ``the 18 month interest suspension rule'' and became law so taxpayers wouldn't have to pay excessive interest if the IRS took a long time to figure out what they owed.

But, people who get involved with tax shelters play hide and seek with the IRS. They hope the game lasts until the time for auditing a tax return has passed. This means that the IRS often doesn't know a taxpayer has bought into a tax shelter until well after 18 months has gone by.

And, this problem is made even worse by those who sell the shelters. Promoters are supposed to keep a list of those who buy their shelters. The IRS can ask for the list--it's one way the IRS can find those who get into these bad deals.

But, often the promoter won't turn that list over to the IRS right away. Once again, it is well after that 18 month mark before the IRS learns about the investment and can do the audit.

It is not right that taxpayers benefit from this 18 month interest suspension rule when the delays are the result of their own hand. Taxpayers involved in deals that abuse our tax system should not benefit from their own fun and games.

That is why we took the interest suspension break away from these taxpayers in last year's Jobs Act. But we only took it away for interest charges after October 3, 2004.

Today, my good friend Chuck Grassley and I introduce a proposal that takes this one step further and eliminates the interest suspension break for interest charges on or before October 3, 2004. Why should these folks get any break when they have manipulated the system in the first place?

The only exception is for taxpayers who have decided to take the IRS up on a published settlement initiative to unwind their transaction. Those taxpayers would continue to qualify for suspension of their accrued interest expense through the October 3 date. The IRS has found these settlement initiatives are a useful way to get these old cases resolved and off the table. I think we should help this process along so the IRS can deal with other aspects of the tax gap.

Our proposal also will plug up another unintended loophole in the interest suspension rules. Earlier this year, the IRS ruled that taxpayers filing amended returns showing a balance due more than 18 months after the original return was filed were also entitled to interest suspension--this applies to all taxpayers, not just those with tax shelters. Since the IRS wouldn't have any way of knowing these taxpayers even owed more tax, it doesn't make sense to give them a break on interest charges.

Over the past several years this country has experienced a scourge of tax shelters. With hard work, we have come a long way in our fight against them. We must be relentless in our quest to wipe them out. We need to remove any incentives that might encourage people to get into these abusive deals. Our proposal is one more blow in our fight to maintain fairness and integrity in our system of tax administration. We request your support for this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I concur with the chairman. The piping in this case is integral to the delivery of cold water from the ocean to be used in the chilling of residential, commercial and other buildings and therefore should qualify for tax-exempt financing.

Energy Efficient Appliances

Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act has strong bipartisan support. Sixty-one Senators are cosponsoring this legislation. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I thank my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, for his leadership in introducing the legislation and bringing the bill to the Senate floor, managing the legislation and doing an exemplary job.

The legislation we are considering will correct a significant injustice that threatens the viability of a lawful U.S. industry; that is, the firearms industry. An increasing number of lawsuits are being filed against the firearms industry seeking damages for wrongs committed by persons who have misused the industry's products. These lawsuits seek to impose liability on lawful businesses for the actions of people over whom the industry has no control. Outrageous. Businesses that comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and produce a product fit for its intended lawful purpose, including elk hunting, duck hunting, target shooting, or personal protection, should not be subjected to frivolous lawsuits that have only one goal--to put them out of business. This is an unacceptable burden on lawful interstate commerce. No other law-abiding industry faces this kind of attack.

People in my State are proud of their independence. We are proud of our outdoor heritage. Montanans are avid sports men and women. We cherish our right to hunt and fish and enjoy the outdoors. Passing this bill will allow us to protect that right by ensuring that the firearms industry stays in business.

Each year, hunters, shooters spend nearly $21 billion. This, in turn, generates more than 366,000 jobs that pay more than $8.8 billion in salaries and wages and provide $1.2 billion in State tax revenues. In addition, excise taxes imposed on firearms under the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, generate critical revenues for State fish and wildlife conservation efforts and hunter safety training. For example, the Pittman-Robertson Act generated more than $150 million in revenue in 2002 alone.

In Montana, hunters and sportsmen generated $250 million in retail sales, generating about 5,592 jobs, over $100 million in salaries and wages, and $11 million in State tax revenues--no small matter.

In addition, threats to the U.S. gun industry also pose a threat to the U.S. military. Many domestic gun manufacturers supply the military with necessary firearms. If these companies are forced out of business, the U.S. military must look abroad to arm itself, and we cannot let that happen.

In short, the U.S. firearms industry serves America's gun owners, serves our sportsmen, and our military very well. It provides good- paying jobs for many Americans. It provides revenues that benefit all Americans. The industry should not be penalized for legally producing or selling a product that functions as designed and as intended. But that is exactly what certain groups are trying to do by asking the courts to step in and micromanage the industry. The Congress and most State legislators have refused to do so.

Let me list some of the demands so you get a flavor of how credible these lawsuits are. Some of these lawsuits would require one-gun-a- month purchase restrictions not required by State law. Others require firearm manufacturers and distributors to participate in a court- ordered study of lawful demand for firearms and to cease sales in excess of lawful demand, if you can imagine. Others require a prohibition on sales to dealers who are not stocking dealers with at least $250,000 in inventory, talking about the small gun

dealers. Others would require systematic monitoring of dealers' practices by manufacturers and distributors.

These are just a few of the sweeping demands made in the lawsuits that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act seeks to stop. As you can tell, these suits are asking the courts to step well outside of their jurisdiction, to legislate regulation of the industry. They also have nothing to do with holding accountable those who actually misuse the firearms.

Most courts have dismissed such lawsuits that are brought before them. A New York appellate court judge stated:

The plain fact is that the courts are the least suited,

least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of

government to regulate or micromanage the manufacturing,

marketing, distribution, and sale of handguns.

However, the time, expense, and effort that goes into defending these nuisance suits is a significant drain on the firearms industry, costing jobs and millions of dollars, increasing business operating costs, including skyrocketing insurance costs, and threatening to put dealers and manufacturers out of business. That is why this bill is so necessary.

Let me be clear about a couple the things. This bill will not close the courthouse doors to legitimate suits against the firearms industry. It will not shield the industry from its own wrongdoing or from its negligence or if the industry puts out a bad product. For example, the bill will not require dismissal of a lawsuit if a member of the industry breaks the law or if someone in the industry acts negligently in supplying a firearm to someone they have reason to believe is likely to misuse the firearm or supplies a firearm to someone they had reason to know was barred by Federal law from owning a firearm or a representative of the industry who designs a defective product. The bill also doesn't protect unlicensed dealers. The bill would only protect federally licensed manufacturers, dealers, or importers of firearms.

This bill is only intended to protect law-abiding members of the firearms industry from nuisance suits that have no basis in current law, that are only intended to regulate the industry or harass the industry or put it out of business, none of which are appropriate purposes for a lawsuit.

Certainly, regulating the industry is well outside the appropriate role of the courts.

We could all agree that when a firearm is used in a criminal or careless manner that causes serious injury or loss of life, that is a terrible tragedy. Those responsible should be punished to the full extent of the law in both the civil and criminal areas. That includes the firearms industry, if one of its members breaks the law or acts negligently in selling a firearm to a criminal or other person they should have known would use the firearm to hurt another person. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will do nothing to change that or shield the arms industry from criminal wrongdoing.

At the same time, it is not right or fair to hold law-abiding members of the industry accountable for independent actions of third parties who use a firearm in a manner that industry never intended. Why, for example, should the industry be held liable if a member of the industry sells a gun to a lawful customer and that gun is then stolen from a customer and used in a crime? That makes no sense.

Again, the fact that a crime occurred is sad and tragic, but that doesn't mean that the firearms industry is in any way responsible for such a gross misuse of its product. But that is exactly what is happening in some of these lawsuits. This bill would put a stop to that. It is a very short, simple bill with a simple purpose. Nothing is hidden in it. It is also critically important to a vital national industry. We need to pass it, pass it now, as the situation will only get worse. I ask my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, every few minutes, a new Chevy Malibu, a popular family sedan, rolls off the assembly line of General Motors Corporation's Fairfax plant Kansas City, KS. The invoice price starts at $17,600.

And every few minutes, across the ocean, a new Toyota Camry, a popular family sedan, rolls off the assembly line of the Toyota Motor Corporation plant in near Nagoya, Japan. The invoice price starts at about $16,600, a full $1,000 less than the Malibu.

One reason for the price difference between the Malibu and the Camry is health care. Yes, health care. For GM, health care costs amount to more than $1,500 for every vehicle it produces. For Toyota, health care costs account for closer to $500 for every vehicle that it produces. That is about the thousand dollars difference.

Two-thirds of Americans get their health insurance at their jobs. The system started in World War II, when the Government capped wages. Employers competed for workers by offering more generous fringe benefits. After the war, a Government tax preference further encouraged employers to provide health insurance.

Almost all Japanese get their health insurance through their government. That is true of pretty much every other major industrialized country.

America's system has yielded high health care costs. The average American spends more than $5,000 a year on health care. That is 53 percent more than the next most costly country. The average Japanese spends only about $2,000 a year on health care.

Last year, GM paid $3.6 billion in health care costs for about 450,000 retirees and their spouses. When GM workers retire, GM continues to pay much of their health care costs as part of the worker retiree benefits plan.

This year, 1,200 Japanese Toyota employees will retire. Within 2 years, pretty much every one of them will switch from Toyota's health insurance plan to the Japanese national plan. At that point, Toyota will pay absolutely nothing in health care costs for those 1,200 retirees and their spouses.

General Motors provides more medical benefits than any other private entity. GM covers 1.1 million Americans, including workers, retirees, and their families. Last year, GM paid for more than 11 million prescriptions for its hourly workers.

Premiums for health insurance have increased 15 percent or more in many years. GM expects that its health care bill will go up $1 billion this year, to $6.2 billion total. That is a year. Last year, GM spent $1.4 billion on prescription drugs alone. Last year, GM put $9 billion into a trust fund to pay for health care costs.

Remember, when those retirees leave Toyota, they do not cover the health care costs. The government does it in Japan.

In the late 1970s, GM controlled nearly half of the American car market. Since then, competitors such as Toyota, Nissan, and Honda have cut GM sales to about a quarter of the American market.

In the fiscal year ending March 2004, Toyota earned $10 billion in profits. GM has now been losing money for three quarters in a row. GM lost more than a billion dollars in the first quarter of this year alone.

Toyota is making nearly $1,500 a car in profit. GM is losing more than $2,300 per car.

Now, part of the blame for GM's declining market share lies with GM's inability to adjust to change. In the wake of the OPEC oil embargo, Japanese car makers sold low-cost, fuel-efficient cars to American families. But OPEC imposed its oil embargo more than 30 years ago, and Japanese car companies still lead the way in energy-efficient cars. Today, only Toyota and Honda mass produce fuel-efficient hybrid sedans.

But part of the blame also lies with the American health care system. Carrying the burden of health care costs handicaps American companies in their race for global markets.

Americans are smart. Americans work hard. But American manufacturers cannot compete with foreign manufacturers when American companies have to bear the extra load of these higher health care costs.

You might think that because Americans pay more for health care, well, at least we get better health care. But we do not.

The average American does not have better access to health services. Forty-five million Americans lack health insurance. Fifteen percent of our population is uninsured. Japan offers better

access to the dialysis and diagnostic image services--MRIs and so forth--than America does.

Nor do we have better outcomes. That is a fancy term for saying our people are not healthier after they see a doctor and go to the hospital. We are not better. The average American woman can expect to live to age 79. The average Japanese woman can expect to live 5 years longer, to age 84. People can expect to live longer in Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and Britain. And all of those countries spend less per person on health care than do we.

America's fragmented system yields high administrative costs. In 2003, administrative costs accounted for nearly a quarter of American health care costs. That is $400 billion--a quarter of what we spend on health care.

America is the only country in the industrialized world without a national health system. We do not have a single-payer system like Canada, Britain, or Switzerland. Instead, we have a system of uncoordinated payers, from private insurers to Medicare, from employers to State Medicaid programs. It is very uncoordinated, very diverse.

America's massive $2 trillion health care bill ought to buy more. America's health care system needs serious reform.

National health care reform appears unlikely any time soon. But we have at our disposal--if Congress can act--the means to attack some of the most glaring inefficiencies in our health care system and reduce unnecessary costs.

We can improve health care by facilitating the use of health information technology. We can improve health care by tying payment to the quality and value of care, rather than just spending on whatever services the doctors and hospital provide, irrespective of the quality and the outcome.

By encouraging investment in health information--technology, computers, interoperability, getting rid of the paperwork--we can reduce unnecessary administrative costs, and we can enhance patient safety and clearly improve the quality of care.

Let me explain. America often invents new medical technologies. We often adopt new medical technologies early. We are leaders in the areas of drugs and devices, pills and procedures, science and surgeries.

But we have not complemented this innovation with the proper use of health information technology. The staggering cost of administering American's pen and paper system of health care claims proves the point.

Mr. President, 30 to 40 percent of American health care transactions still rely on paper claims. That is according to health economist, Ken Thorpe of Emory University. These claims can cost from $5 to $20 each.

But administering health care claims electronically can cut those costs to as little as 50 cents each. Professor Thorpe estimates that requiring automated claims processing would save the Federal Government nearly $80 billion over 10 years. Significant savings would also accrue to the private sector, if it fully automated claims.

And proper use of health IT can prevent unnecessary medical errors, hospitalizations, and other health care services.

Each year, about 7,000 Americans die because of errors in administering their medication. I also had a figure--and nobody disputed this--that the equivalent of two 747s crashing today is the number of Americans who die today because of medical errors. That is many more than people who die of gun deaths or in traffic accidents. The equivalent of two 747s crashing every day is the number of Americans who died on account of medical errors--not bad outcomes but medical errors.

Technology can help ensure that medical professionals give the right drug to the right patient at the right time. We are talking about drugs. We can help to do that by putting bar codes on all drugs, and by using health information technology to link medication administration to a patient's clinical information.

The inability to exchange clinical data among providers often causes duplication of diagnostic tests. Clearly, if you take somebody in Montana who goes on vacation in the great State of Louisiana and gets ill--maybe has a heart attack--and he goes to see a doctor, or goes to the emergency room, that doctor looks at the Montanan, administers some tests, and has no record of the Montanan who happens to be there on vacation--no idea what is going on. He has to start from scratch and run all these tests all over again. Clearly, it is unnecessary duplication. Just think how much more efficient we would be if that Louisiana doctor in that hospital could push a button and my Montanan's health care record would be available. Clearly, it could protect the right of privacy and confidentiality, but just think of the savings that can be made. Think of how much better the health care would be to my Montanan in Louisiana.

We could help make it easier for one doctor to pull up that x ray that another doctor took a week before. Duplication is eliminated and the quality of care clearly improves.

Medicare spends $50,000 more for the average 65-year-old in Miami than for the average 65-year-old in Minneapolis, MN--$50,000 more per beneficiary in Miami than in Minneapolis, MN. You might ask, why is that? In their last 6 months of life, Medicare beneficiaries in Miami visited specialists six times more often than those in Minneapolis. You might say, they are healthier; more is spent on them. Or they go because there are more specialists in Miami compared to Minneapolis. But that is not what is happening.

By using health IT appropriately, we can reduce error and duplication and overuse of services. We can also coordinate senior care to ensure that they receive adequate preventive care and management for their chronic conditions. In fact, patients who see primary care physicians in Minneapolis tend to be healthier, where fewer dollars are spent, than do seniors in Miami who see more specialists. That is counterintuitive, but that is the fact.

Why is America falling behind in health information technology? Part of the reason is lack of investment. The health care industry invests only about 2 percent of its revenues in health information technology. Other information-intensive industries invest about 10 percent. Think of the banking industry.

As a result, many health practitioners in America have limited information technology capability. In Britain, nearly all general practitioners--98 percent--have a computer somewhere in their office. In America, extremely few small physician practices--just 5 percent-- use anything but a pen and paper.

We have to help ensure that health information systems can communicate with one another. We need an agreed-upon set of standards so that health information technology systems can work together. Otherwise, we will have a Tower of Babel preventing communication of critical health information.

We can do better, and that is why I have worked with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and on the HELP Committee to introduce the Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act, a bill which facilitates nationwide adoption of information technologies in the health care field. It will help those systems to talk to one another, it will set up loans and grants to encourage the use of more health IT, and it will help us to improve health care quality.

We need to emphasize quality care. Medicare is the dominant care in America's health system, but Medicare is at best neutral and at worst negative toward quality. Medicare pays for the delivery of a service; Medicare does not pay for the achievement of health. And we see the effect. Patients receive recommended treatments only about half the time, and more care is often not producing better care.

Among the 50 States, levels of cost and quality vary greatly. In my home State of Montana, for example, Medicare spends about $5,000 per year per beneficiary. Quality of care ranks near the top. By contrast, some States spending around $7,000 a year per beneficiary--$2,000 more--have quality that ranks near the bottom.

States such as Montana, with its higher proportion of primary care practitioners, often produce lower costs and better quality. Less expensive care, when concentrated and patient centered, can do more for a patient than high-cost services.

I have introduced a bill with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Enzi, and Kennedy, that will build value into the

way Medicare pays for its services. The Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005 will provide higher Medicare reimbursements to providers who show they are working to improve the quality of care they deliver.

Together, these two bills I mentioned form a package. This quality bill goes hand in hand with the health IT bill I just mentioned. Together, they will help improve American health care and help keep American businesses competitive.

In his recent book about competitiveness, ``The World is Flat,'' Tom Friedman talks about the need to strengthen what he calls the ``muscles'' of the individual American worker. Part of the solution to global competition, he says, lies in ensuring that the American health care system provides our workers with access to health care services without placing them or their employers in financial jeopardy. That means congressional action on health quality, and it means congressional action on health IT. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to realize that goal. Until we act, health care costs will continue to make America less competitive. Until we start investing in health IT, we risk falling further behind. And until we start paying for health care quality, we risk slowing our progress to a better future.

A little more than a century ago, in 1903, a man named Henry Ford established the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, MI. That same year, a man named Orville Wright became the first person to pilot an airplane in powered flight. Americans have been at the forefront of transportation ever since. In 1929, the Duesenberg J, a premier four- door luxury sedan, began rolling off the assembly line. The price was expensive at that time, starting at $13,000.

Like the automotive industry, health care has come a long way in the last century. And like the automotive industry, health care needs to adjust and adjust dramatically to change. If we invest in health IT and start paying for health care quality, we can help both the American automobile industry and the American health care system to keep moving forward.

I yield the floor.

And may Ford produce many more.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords's speech before the World Veterinary Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Industries Act.

I have long been a champion for our Trade Adjustment Assistance program, what we call ``TAA.''

For more than 40 years, TAA has been providing retraining, income support, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. The program has a critical mission: to give trade-impacted workers the skills they need to find new jobs and prosper in growing sectors of the economy.

Maintaining a well-trained workforce is key to our Nation's long-term competitiveness and economic health. And helping those few who lose out from our trade policy choices is key to maintaining public support for trade liberalization.

In the Trade Act of 2002, I spearheaded the most comprehensive expansion and overhaul of the TAA program since 1974. We expanded the kinds of workers who are eligible for TAA benefits. We extended the training benefit to make it more effective and enhanced funding for training. We added new benefits like wage insurance and the health coverage tax credit. We also streamlined the application process to get workers enrolled and retraining sooner.

TAA is a lifeline for those who enter the program. Participating workers in Montana tell me that TAA has made it possible for them to make a new start. It gives them hope that they can do something more than merely survive a plant closure.

One of the industries in Montana that has had all too much experience

with the TAA program is softwood lumber. Our softwood lumber industry has been battered for years by imports of dumped and subsidized lumber from Canada. Over time, and despite decades of litigation, these unfair trading practices have taken their toll.

Since 1999, workers from at least 24 Montana lumber mills have applied for TAA certification. An additional 11 petitions were filed under the now-repealed NAFTA-TAA program.

What surprises me is not that so many Montana lumber workers have applied for TAA--but the inconsistent treatment of their petitions. Of the 24 Montana lumber companies that petitioned for TAA, 16 were approved and 8 were denied. Under the NAFTA-TAA program, 6 petitions were approved, and 5 were denied.

These results do not make sense. These mills are all competing in the same market. They are all competing against dumped and subsidized imports from Canada that drive down prices until U.S. producers cannot survive. The International Trade Commission found that Canadian imports injure or threaten injury to the entire domestic softwood lumber industry. And yet, somewhere between a third and a half of Montana workers laid off in the industry were left to fend for themselves, while the others had the chance to participate in TAA.

So why are some workers getting TAA and others being turned down? The answer lies in the way the Department of Labor reviews petitions. Under current law, petitions have to be filed and reviewed on a plant-by- plant basis and in a total vacuum.

In effect, the Labor Department puts on blinders. It does not consider whether the International Trade Commission has found injury to the industry from imports. It does not ask whether imports are leading to job losses nationwide. It does not examine whether entire occupational categories are being offshored.

Instead, it just asks an individual plant whether it or its customers are buying more imports. If that one plant submits the wrong information, or its customers deny buying imports, its workers lose out--while similar workers up the road get the benefits they deserve.

The plight of softwood lumber illustrates why, in some cases, plant- by-plant certification is not the best policy. And lumber workers are not alone. A similarly checkered record of certifications and denials affects other industries, like textiles and small electronics. Simply put, there are some industries where the trade-related displacements are clearly national in scope.

The industries are easy to identify. They experience multiple plant closures covering multiple states in a relatively short period. They are often industries seeking or receiving relief under trade remedy laws.

In these cases, it makes no sense to consider petitions one plant closure at a time. That creates the risk of inconsistent results for similarly situated workers. And it makes the Department of Labor investigate the same situation over and over again--even when the International Trade Commission, or another Federal agency, has already made a thorough injury investigation.

What would make more sense is a way to certify workers on an industry-wide basis or on the basis of occupational classification in cases where the trade-related layoffs are national in scope. That is what this legislation does.

I should note that, in one rare circumstance, the President already has the authority to certify workers for TAA on an industry-wide and nationwide basis. When the President grants a remedy in a global safeguard case--what we call section 201--he has the option of certifying all workers in the affected industry for TAA.

To my knowledge, this option has been used only once, by President Reagan, in a case involving the footwear industry. In that case, workers laid off from individual footwear plants did not need to petition the Department of Labor for a determination that their job losses were import-related. All each worker had to do was go to a designated office in his State and prove that he lost a job in the footwear industry within the applicable time period.

Normally, there are two steps needed to qualify for TAA under current law. First, the Department of Labor has to certify that a particular layoff is trade-related. That certification covers all the workers laid off at a single plant. Second, each individual worker affected by that layoff has to prove that he or she satisfies a list of criteria to qualify for benefits, such as 2 years' employment at the firm and eligibility for unemployment insurance. In the footwear case, workers were spared the first, group eligibility step and moved right to the second step.

To me, this model makes a lot of sense. If you believe in the purpose of TAA, it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for qualifying workers to access benefits.

This bill achieves that goal in two ways.

First, it makes industry-wide TAA certification automatic in cases where the President, the International Trade Commission, or another qualified Federal agency has already determined that imports are having an injurious effect. If workers lose their jobs in an industry covered by a global or bilateral safeguard or an antidumping or countervailing duty order, within a set period of time, they do not need to file a petition for TAA. Instead, they can proceed directly to the second step of demonstrating their individual eligibility and enrolling through the one-stop centers in their states.

Second, the bill permits, but does not require, the Secretary of Labor to make her eligibility determination on an industry-wide or occupation-wide basis in other circumstances that suggest a plant-by- plant approach is not appropriate. Such circumstances would include cases where the Secretary has received three or more petitions from workers at different plants in the same industry within a 6 month period. It would also include cases where the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee passes a resolution requesting an industry-wide investigation. In these cases, the Secretary may certify workers in an entire industry only if she determines that the statutory eligibility criteria are satisfied on an industry-wide basis.

Now that I have described what this bill does, I think it is important to emphasize some things that it does not do:

It does not change the eligibility criteria or make any new categories of workers eligible for TAA.

It does not make TAA benefits available to workers who quit their jobs or are fired for cause.

It does not change the type or amount of benefits an eligible worker can receive.

What it does is create a fair, predictable, and efficient way to make eligibility determinations where industry-wide effects are obvious.

We owe our trade-affected workers a fair chance to train for the jobs of the future and get back into the workforce. And we owe our employers and our economic future well-trained workers.

We already have a program designed to do just that. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that TAA benefits reach every qualified worker who needs them. This change is long overdue.

I want to thank Senator Coleman for joining me in introducing this important legislation. He has been a strong partner in the quest to make TAA work for every American who needs it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Industries Act.

I have long been a champion for our Trade Adjustment Assistance program, what we call ``TAA.''

For more than 40 years, TAA has been providing retraining, income support, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. The program has a critical mission: to give trade-impacted workers the skills they need to find new jobs and prosper in growing sectors of the economy.

Maintaining a well-trained workforce is key to our Nation's long-term competitiveness and economic health. And helping those few who lose out from our trade policy choices is key to maintaining public support for trade liberalization.

In the Trade Act of 2002, I spearheaded the most comprehensive expansion and overhaul of the TAA program since 1974. We expanded the kinds of workers who are eligible for TAA benefits. We extended the training benefit to make it more effective and enhanced funding for training. We added new benefits like wage insurance and the health coverage tax credit. We also streamlined the application process to get workers enrolled and retraining sooner.

TAA is a lifeline for those who enter the program. Participating workers in Montana tell me that TAA has made it possible for them to make a new start. It gives them hope that they can do something more than merely survive a plant closure.

One of the industries in Montana that has had all too much experience

with the TAA program is softwood lumber. Our softwood lumber industry has been battered for years by imports of dumped and subsidized lumber from Canada. Over time, and despite decades of litigation, these unfair trading practices have taken their toll.

Since 1999, workers from at least 24 Montana lumber mills have applied for TAA certification. An additional 11 petitions were filed under the now-repealed NAFTA-TAA program.

What surprises me is not that so many Montana lumber workers have applied for TAA--but the inconsistent treatment of their petitions. Of the 24 Montana lumber companies that petitioned for TAA, 16 were approved and 8 were denied. Under the NAFTA-TAA program, 6 petitions were approved, and 5 were denied.

These results do not make sense. These mills are all competing in the same market. They are all competing against dumped and subsidized imports from Canada that drive down prices until U.S. producers cannot survive. The International Trade Commission found that Canadian imports injure or threaten injury to the entire domestic softwood lumber industry. And yet, somewhere between a third and a half of Montana workers laid off in the industry were left to fend for themselves, while the others had the chance to participate in TAA.

So why are some workers getting TAA and others being turned down? The answer lies in the way the Department of Labor reviews petitions. Under current law, petitions have to be filed and reviewed on a plant-by- plant basis and in a total vacuum.

In effect, the Labor Department puts on blinders. It does not consider whether the International Trade Commission has found injury to the industry from imports. It does not ask whether imports are leading to job losses nationwide. It does not examine whether entire occupational categories are being offshored.

Instead, it just asks an individual plant whether it or its customers are buying more imports. If that one plant submits the wrong information, or its customers deny buying imports, its workers lose out--while similar workers up the road get the benefits they deserve.

The plight of softwood lumber illustrates why, in some cases, plant- by-plant certification is not the best policy. And lumber workers are not alone. A similarly checkered record of certifications and denials affects other industries, like textiles and small electronics. Simply put, there are some industries where the trade-related displacements are clearly national in scope.

The industries are easy to identify. They experience multiple plant closures covering multiple states in a relatively short period. They are often industries seeking or receiving relief under trade remedy laws.

In these cases, it makes no sense to consider petitions one plant closure at a time. That creates the risk of inconsistent results for similarly situated workers. And it makes the Department of Labor investigate the same situation over and over again--even when the International Trade Commission, or another Federal agency, has already made a thorough injury investigation.

What would make more sense is a way to certify workers on an industry-wide basis or on the basis of occupational classification in cases where the trade-related layoffs are national in scope. That is what this legislation does.

I should note that, in one rare circumstance, the President already has the authority to certify workers for TAA on an industry-wide and nationwide basis. When the President grants a remedy in a global safeguard case--what we call section 201--he has the option of certifying all workers in the affected industry for TAA.

To my knowledge, this option has been used only once, by President Reagan, in a case involving the footwear industry. In that case, workers laid off from individual footwear plants did not need to petition the Department of Labor for a determination that their job losses were import-related. All each worker had to do was go to a designated office in his State and prove that he lost a job in the footwear industry within the applicable time period.

Normally, there are two steps needed to qualify for TAA under current law. First, the Department of Labor has to certify that a particular layoff is trade-related. That certification covers all the workers laid off at a single plant. Second, each individual worker affected by that layoff has to prove that he or she satisfies a list of criteria to qualify for benefits, such as 2 years' employment at the firm and eligibility for unemployment insurance. In the footwear case, workers were spared the first, group eligibility step and moved right to the second step.

To me, this model makes a lot of sense. If you believe in the purpose of TAA, it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for qualifying workers to access benefits.

This bill achieves that goal in two ways.

First, it makes industry-wide TAA certification automatic in cases where the President, the International Trade Commission, or another qualified Federal agency has already determined that imports are having an injurious effect. If workers lose their jobs in an industry covered by a global or bilateral safeguard or an antidumping or countervailing duty order, within a set period of time, they do not need to file a petition for TAA. Instead, they can proceed directly to the second step of demonstrating their individual eligibility and enrolling through the one-stop centers in their states.

Second, the bill permits, but does not require, the Secretary of Labor to make her eligibility determination on an industry-wide or occupation-wide basis in other circumstances that suggest a plant-by- plant approach is not appropriate. Such circumstances would include cases where the Secretary has received three or more petitions from workers at different plants in the same industry within a 6 month period. It would also include cases where the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee passes a resolution requesting an industry-wide investigation. In these cases, the Secretary may certify workers in an entire industry only if she determines that the statutory eligibility criteria are satisfied on an industry-wide basis.

Now that I have described what this bill does, I think it is important to emphasize some things that it does not do:

It does not change the eligibility criteria or make any new categories of workers eligible for TAA.

It does not make TAA benefits available to workers who quit their jobs or are fired for cause.

It does not change the type or amount of benefits an eligible worker can receive.

What it does is create a fair, predictable, and efficient way to make eligibility determinations where industry-wide effects are obvious.

We owe our trade-affected workers a fair chance to train for the jobs of the future and get back into the workforce. And we owe our employers and our economic future well-trained workers.

We already have a program designed to do just that. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that TAA benefits reach every qualified worker who needs them. This change is long overdue.

I want to thank Senator Coleman for joining me in introducing this important legislation. He has been a strong partner in the quest to make TAA work for every American who needs it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to address possible floor consideration of S. 1418, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the adoption of a nationwide interoperable health information technology system and to improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care in the United States.

Senator Grassley and I have been working since January with Senators Enzi and Kennedy on issues of quality and health information technology. Together, we introduced two bills on June 30--one that deals with Medicare quality, and another to enhance quality through the widespread adoption of health IT. The latter is S. 1356, the Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005, which develops a system of quality measurement and implements pay-for-performance in Medicare.

In drafting these two bills, we worked hard to craft language that was complementary rather than contradictory. Ultimately, we viewed these two pieces of policy as working together to build a comprehensive and workable health care quality system.

S. 1418 potentially disrupts the work we have done thus far, by including language that will force the duplication of quality measurement systems. It also raises questions about the jurisdictional reach of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Medicare is the dominant payer in health care, with annual spending exceeding $300 billion. Furthermore, it is Medicare's payment systems that are often adopted by private insurance groups. Private payers use the Medicare physician fee schedule for their own book of business, and we would expect these same insurers to follow Medicare's lead on pay- for-quality.

I appreciate the process that Senators Enzi and Kennedy have undertaken with us over the last several months. And I appreciate the majority leader's desire to move important health IT legislation. Congressional action on this issue is long overdue. But until common ground can be reached on a feasible system of measuring quality, I must reluctantly object to moving forward with S. 1418. I believe that the process outlined in this bill for the development of quality measures may well be unworkable and that it will raise deep concerns for hospitals, physicians, and other providers.

I also believe that the language on the development of quality measures in this bill ought to be designed for Public Health Service Act programs and explicitly applicable to these programs, not to Medicare or Medicaid.

I hope that our colleague, Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Frist, and Clinton, will work with us to craft a bill that is appropriate for programs under the

PHSA and that complements the Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005. Ultimately, I believe that we have the same goals in mind. If we can come to an agreement now, we can continue moving forward with these important policies that can change the shape, quality, and ultimately the cost and benefit of our health care system.

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

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.

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.

Mr. President, how much time remains in control of the Democratic Senators on this resolution?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns have the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of the Burma resolution: Andreas Datsopoulos, Julie Golder, and Adam Elkington.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.