[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 10, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7561-S7562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 182

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will take very little time.
  To underscore where we are on the Burma sanctions issue, I tried to 
get this bill cleared for this morning for an hour equally divided and 
a rollcall vote, but there was an objection on the other side with the 
suggestion that we modify the bill to have the sanctions end in 1 year. 
Of course, that is exactly the wrong message to send to the military 
junta in Burma. That is not acceptable to this side.
  The Washington Post, in this morning's editorial, gets it right by 
saying: Senators supportive of democracy in Burma should vote for the 
bill without condition for expiration dates. That is the way the bill 
ought to pass. That is the way the bill was introduced. That is the way 
I hope we will be able to reach consent to take it up in the near 
future.
  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations 
Committee be discharged from further action of S. 182, the Burma 
sanctions legislation; that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided 
in the usual form and that no

[[Page S7562]]

amendments be in order; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the 
bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the measure, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is 
obviously a very important matter, and we should address this in a very 
careful and appropriate way. I might say to Senators, this matter has 
not been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. The committee has 
jurisdiction on it. Rather, it is coming straight to the floor with a 
request that there be no amendments, which I think is a little bit 
bizarre.
  I might also point out that in other sanctions areas, for example, 
China, we had a long, deep, involved debate a few years ago and agreed 
to how we should address sanctions, particularly trade sanctions 
against China.
  I might also inform Senators, I have been in consultation with the 
chairman of the Finance Committee who agrees with me that it would be 
inappropriate to proceed at this time, certainly in the manner 
suggested by the Senator from Kentucky.
  I might ask the Senator if he will agree to modify his request in a 
way I think is much more appropriate, particularly even stronger than 
the resolution suggested by the Senator. And that would be for similar, 
as was the case with China MFN, annual extensions or annual sanctions, 
but that the President would suggest that the sanctions be continued 
and that would be the case unless there is a motion of disapproval 
passed by both Houses of Congress. I believe the executive branch 
should be part of this. This is not just a legislative branch issue. 
When it comes to sanctions, clearly the executive branch should play a 
very important role.
  I might ask the Senator if he would agree to modify his request in 
the nature of an annual request. If the President wants to continue, he 
certainly could make an annual request, and that would be subject to 
disapproval by both Houses of Congress.
  Is the Senator agreeable to make that change?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Montana, there is 
already a sunset provision in the bill. It occurs as soon as democracy 
is restored in Burma. There was a legitimate election there in 1990. 
Aung San Suu Kyi and her party won 80 percent of the vote. She has been 
under house arrest now for 14 years. The sanctions would terminate 
under the bill that I hope we will pass just as soon as she is allowed 
to take power. Such a provision is already in the bill. I am happy to 
continue the discussions with my friend from Montana.
  The reason the Finance Committee didn't get the bill is because the 
Parliamentarian sent it to the Foreign Relations Committee and both the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the ranking member 
support the bill, as do the majority and minority leaders of the 
Senate.
  I know the majority leader is waiting to speak on another issue. If I 
could, I will proceed to try to get this on the calendar. I understand 
S. 1215 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I know the 
deepness of the feelings of the Senator from Kentucky. I want the 
record to reflect that this is bipartisan legislation. One of the chief 
cosponsors is the Senator from California. This was not an objection 
made on the other side; it was an objection made by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Finance Committee. I hope this most important 
issue can be resolved along the lines suggested by the ranking member 
and the chairman of the Finance Committee, that this resolution will be 
passed and that each year it would stay in effect until both Houses of 
Congress say it should stay in effect. I think that would be a 
reasonable resolution of this most important issue. I, therefore, 
object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Harkin be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________