[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 81 (Monday, June 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3891-H3893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN BURMESE
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 97) approving the renewal of import
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. Res. 97
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in
section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bill, I support extending
sanctions on Burma for an additional year within the framework enacted
into law last year under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.
Mr. Speaker, I generally do not believe in unilateral trade
sanctions. They are often emotional responses to atrocious acts and
have unintended consequences, oftentimes harming the people that we, in
fact, were seeking to assist. For example, the State Department notes
that the Burma import restrictions have caused 50,000 to 60,000 workers
in Burma to lose their jobs. These people were not narrowly helped by
the sanctions.
But, at the same time, the actions of the ruling junta in Burma
continue to be unacceptable. I believe sanctions are appropriate if the
circumstances are, 1, limited; 2, targeted; 3, reexamined yearly, and
if we continuously analyze them to make sure they are not causing more
harm than good. We must also examine the question of harm and good in
short term and in long term.
The law passed last year requires the administration to issue a
report on whether sanctions have been effective in improving conditions
in Burma and furthering U.S. objectives. The State Department, in its
first report, states that the sanctions represent ``a clear and
powerful expression of American opposition to the developments in Burma
over the past year.'' The Department observes that the overall human
rights record in Burma has worsened over the past year. While the junta
has made some apparently superficial efforts toward democracy with its
``road map,'' it does not appear that Burma is on the road to true,
fundamental democratic reform.
The State Department's report, however, also notes that no other
country has implemented the same set of economic sanctions as the
United States; and the U.S. import ban would be, according to the
report, ``far more effective'' if other countries would do the same.
So, Mr. Speaker, although I support the extension of the sanctions
for 1 year, I strongly encourage this administration to pursue a more
aggressive multilateral sanctions approach in Burma. That government
must be truly isolated. It is vital that the administration work with
other countries to reach multilateral sanctions. This effort is key if
we are to continue sanctions against Burma.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I also believe
that a more multilateral approach is in order. I also think as we
discuss Burma, we should look at the experience that international
bodies are having, including the ILO and the inability of the ILO, as
it is presently structured, to proceed with any real teeth. I think
that emphasizes why the United States, as we put forth and put together
trade agreements, should incorporate into these trade agreements
provisions that relate to the work, for example, of the ILO and core
labor standards.
I support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member, and I
ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of the time on this
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint
Resolution 97, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my appreciation to my
friend and fellow Californian, (Chairman Bill Thomas), for his
assistance in moving this legislation to the floor so expeditiously,
and to my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their leadership on Burma and
for granting me the privilege of managing this bill today for the
Democratic side.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Burmese regime launched a brutal
crackdown on Burmese democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other
members of the National League for Democracy. Burma's authoritarian
ruler simply could not accept the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi remained
enormously popular a dozen years after the government nullified the
fair and free elections that she won.
Just 10 months ago, Mr. Speaker, President Bush signed into law my
bill imposing comprehensive sanctions on Burma. My legislation was
approved by this House overwhelmingly, 418 ayes to 2 noes.
Sadly, the case for a tough approach toward Burma, including import
sanctions, is even stronger today than a year ago. Countless National
League for Democracy leaders remain behind bars. Aung San Suu Kyi, a
woman of extraordinary courage, is locked inside her house and there is
little prospect that the Burmese junta will engage in meaningful
dialogue with the National League for Democracy and other democratic
leaders.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Burmese regime is currently holding a
``national convention'' to write a new constitution for Burma. The
meeting itself is a complete and utter sham. The Burmese leadership
refused to let Aung San Suu Kyi participate, apparently afraid that her
eloquent words would convince the delegates to move towards democracy
and away from dictatorship.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is moving
forward with this bipartisan initiative to renew Burma import
sanctions. Burma's ruling elite, who have a questionable direct
financial tie to most enterprises in Burma, must understand that they
will be unable to enrich themselves off the American consumer.
To those who argue that the sanctions have not worked, I have two
responses. First, when Congress imposed import sanctions on Burma, we
fully understood that such measures might take years, if not decades,
to bring change to Burma, certainly not 10 months. If 10 months were
the standard duration for American import sanctions, South Africans
would still be governed by the apartheid regime, and Libya would have
developed and deployed nuclear weapons instead of surrendering them to
the United States.
Second, the United States must make it a top priority to convince our
key allies in Europe and in Asia to adopt import sanctions on the
Burmese regime. Unfortunately, the executive branch has made little or
no effort to accomplish this important task. If sanctions fail to
quickly bring change
[[Page H3892]]
to Burma, it is not because they represent the wrong approach; it is
because high-level administration officials have not picked up the
phone to urge our European Union counterparts to adopt targeted import
sanctions on Burma.
While we would all like to see a negotiated solution to Burma's
political crisis, we cannot be naive enough to believe that Burma's
leaders have changed their stripes. They have no intention of allowing
Aung San Suu Kyi, a woman they tried to kill just a few months ago, to
participate meaningfully in free and fair elections, let alone to
transfer power to her political party.
If I am proven wrong, Mr. Speaker, and Burma's ruling thugs win the
Noble Peace Prize in 2005 for working out an agreement with the
opposition, we will have plenty of time to express our congratulations
and to lift sanctions at that point. Until then, we must ratchet up
pressure on the Burmese thugs who are running that country and assure
that our allies do so as well.
Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to a day when we will welcome Aung
San Suu Kyi to Washington as the leader of a free and democratic Burma.
She will follow in the footsteps of Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic
and of all of the other leaders who fought for freedom in Central and
Eastern Europe. But we will achieve that goal only by maintaining
strong pressure on Burma's ruling dictatorial clique and convincing our
allies to do so as well.
I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues
to do so as well.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from California
(Chairman Thomas) for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague for the kind words. I too want to make sure that
the record reflects that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
once again shows that his concern is in the forefront for peoples all
over the world and simply for their ability, their right to express
themselves.
I strongly urge passage of H.J. Res. 97.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.J. Res. 97, a measure
to approve the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. At the outset, let me express my
appreciation to the leadership of the distinguished Chairmen and
Ranking Members of both the International Relations and Ways and Means
Committees for moving this resolution on a timely basis.
On March 25, the Subcommittees on Asia held its third hearing in 2
years on developments in Burma. Unfortunately, it was made clear during
the course of the hearing that Burma made little progress toward
democratic reform in the past year, and in fact the country has yet to
return to even the admittedly low, but hopeful status it had achieved
prior to the May 30 attack on democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi and
other members of the National League for Democracy (NLD).
Indeed, as many suspected would be the case, Burmese Prime Minister
Khin Nyunt's announcement of a seven-point ``road map'' for political
reconciliation in the fall of 2003 has been revealed to be a sham.
Burma's military junta, known as the State Peace and Development
Council, has proceeded with a so-called National Convention despite the
nonparticipation of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and
without freeing the NLD's leader Aung San Suu Kyi. In so doing the
Burmese military leadership has exposed for all to see its
determination to push for a new constitution that would legitimize its
dominance and control over the country's politics and governance, even
under a future ``civilian'' administration.
As my colleagues understand, Burma presents one of the most
complicated and vexing foreign policy challenges in Asia for the United
States and the world community. Numerous political prisoners remain in
detention, including one of the most remarkable and courageous leaders
of our time, Aung San Suu Kyi. The issue is how can the U.S. best
secure their release and help start a meaningful political dialogue in
Burma, while also endeavoring to advance a panoply of other priorities,
including stable democratic governance, human rights, counternarcotics,
regional stability, combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as
economic and human development more broadly.
In this context, it is self-evident that the U.S. is confronted by
multiple dilemmas in pursuing our objectives in Burma. For illustrative
purposes, I would note just a few: the strongly nationalistic, self-
centered outlook of the ruling regime; the reliance by the military
elite on an illicit, underground economy for power and survival; the
inability of major industrial countries to agree on comprehensive
sanctions as the basis for a common strategy; competition for
geopolitical influence in Burma between China and India; and the
ongoing humanitarian crisis for the people of Burma--including for the
hundreds of thousands of internally displaced ethnic minority groups
along the country's borders--that calls out for a more robust and
humane international response.
Nevertheless, in response to repeated efforts by the ruling military
to thwart the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people as well as
to ongoing serious human rights violations, the U.S. has been compelled
to utilize sanctions and coercive diplomacy as the centerpiece of our
policy. Given the deeply disappointing lack of progress in Burma over
the past year, there is no credible option at this time but to renew
current sanctions.
Here it is critically important for Congress and the Administration
to reaffirm our unflinching support for those who want freedom in
Burma. We honor the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues
in the pro-democracy movement, including representatives of Burma's
numerous ethnic minorities. The American people stand with the people
of Burma in a common determination to see decent democratic governance
and national reconciliation in Burma.
I urge support for the resolution.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, too often in this world, evil is not called
evil. In our rush not to offend others or to avoid making judgments,
speech is couched in euphemisms or soft tones. Evil is ignored or
glossed over.
Last year, the United States saw evil in Burma. And last year, the
United States had the courage and conviction to call evil by its name.
Last year, the United States Congress and President Bush imposed harsh
sanctions on the military dictatorship controlling Burma.
Some may say that the term evil is too harsh or that it is offensive,
but in my estimation, there is no other word for what is happening
right now in Burma. Men are routinely pressed into forced labor for the
military. Women are raped and beaten. Countless children have been
orphaned. Villages suspected of resistance are burned. Food is
confiscated or destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced
in Burma and surrounding countries. And anyone can be thrown into
prison at anytime for the slightest infraction or for no reason at all.
Last week, we heard a lot about freedom. We heard that millions of
people are now living in freedom because the Cold War came to an end
because of the unrelenting pressure Ronald Reagan brought to bear
against the Soviet Union. It is easy to think that because the Cold War
is over, freedom has completely triumphed. Sadly, that is not the case.
Millions of people, including the people of Burma, still live under the
lash of dictatorship.
In 2003, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act passed this House by a
vote of 418-2. Four hundred eighteen Members recognized the junta's
evil deeds and voted to isolate Burma from the outside world. This
Congress and this Administration realize that putting pressure on the
dictatorship will hasten its demise almost as certainly as did American
pressure on the Soviet Union.
The United States was once nobly described as a shining city on a
hill. Indeed, millions of people around the world look to the United
States as a beacon of liberty. We must shine our light of freedom
wherever freedom and justice are denied and wherever evil is present.
Today, we have the opportunity to send a message to the people of
Burma and to the rest of the world. By extending the sanctions the
United States imposed on Burma last year, we declare there is still
evil in Burma, and it is unacceptable.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 97.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 97.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
[[Page H3893]]
____________________