[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8217-S8222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 86, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 86) approving the renewal of 
     import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and 
     Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
debate from 12:30 to 6:30 this evening on energy security be equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees with respect to the 
motion to proceed to S. 3711; provided further that following any 
opening remarks of the two leaders on Thursday, July 27, the motion to 
proceed be agreed to, and the Senate then begin the consideration of S. 
3711.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Address of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, before speaking on the Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act, I want to make a few comments about the 
speech of the Prime Minister of Iraq which we just had an opportunity a 
few moments ago to hear in the joint session over in the House Chamber.
  Today we mark a step forward in the war on terror. A mere 3\1/2\ 
years ago, the dictator, Saddam Hussein, would have addressed his 
regime's legislature of lackeys. Today, the democratically elected 
Prime Minister of Iraq addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress.
  A mere 3\1/2\ years ago, the dictator, Saddam Hussein, ruled Iraq. He 
terrorized his own countrymen with murder, torture, and weapons of mass 
death. He posed a security threat to the entire region and to the 
United States. The international community decided he had to face 
serious consequences.
  In March of 2003, America, as we all well know, led a multinational 
coalition of forces to depose the dictator and to liberate Iraq. Since 
then, the country has made remarkable progress as it throws off the 
shackles of tyranny and embraces democracy.
  Iraqis have held three successful national elections, ratified a 
constitution, elected a permanent unity government, and formed a 
cabinet with a strong prime minister at its head: Prime Minister Nouri 
al-Maliki, whom we had the pleasure of hearing from just an hour or so 
ago.
  It took our country 13 years to go from independence to the 
implementation of our Constitution. Iraqis have done it in 3--and under 
the glare of the 24-hour news cycle coverage and the threat of 
terrorist attacks.
  When Prime Minister Maliki ascended to the podium today, it was hard 
to deny the importance of the moment. His presence in this Capitol 
represents a victory for democracy. And his country is, and will 
continue to be, an important ally in the war on terror. Of course, 
there will be many tough days ahead in Iraq. There is no denying that 
the security situation represents a real challenge. But America does 
not avoid challenges, and we do not abandon our allies when the going 
gets tough.
  We are moving forward in Iraq. The country recently realized its 
highest oil production and export levels since before its liberation, 
and during the past 3 years, per capita income in Iraq has doubled.
  I would also like to call to my colleagues' attention an article 
titled ``Iraq as a Sovereign Nation'' written by the Prime Minister 
that appeared in Monday's Wall Street Journal. It points to very 
tangible proof that Iraq is moving forward.
  The Iraqi province of al-Muthanna, located at the southernmost border 
of that country, has become the first province in which local Iraqi 
forces have taken full responsibility for law enforcement and security, 
taking over for our coalition forces. President Bush has frequently 
said: As Iraqis stand up,

[[Page S8218]]

we will stand down. That is exactly what has happened in al-Muthanna, 
home to over a half million Iraqis.
  Local Iraqi police and military have stood up and taken the place of 
1,400 coalition troops. The Governor of al-Muthanna has command of the 
provincial police. Iraqi national police and Iraqi Army troops will 
operate in the province under the control of the Prime Minister and the 
National Government.
  The transfer of power in al-Muthanna is only the first step. The 
Prime Minister writes that ``current estimates envision half of Iraqi's 
provinces transferring security responsibility before the end of 
2006''--this year. He and I agree that this process should not be 
driven by an arbitrary timeline but by the situation on the ground; 
nevertheless, this is an encouraging sign.
  He goes on to write that the decisions for future transfers of power 
will be made based on the threat assessment in the province, the 
readiness of the local Iraqi forces, the readiness of the local 
governmental authorities, and overall coalition force posture.
  The historic achievement of local control in al-Muthanna represents 
an important step forward in our mission in Iraq. As Iraqis stand up, 
we will stand down, and we will leave behind a proud and free Iraq.
  The Prime Minister ends his article by saying:

       With God's help, and continued assistance from 
     the coalition, our regional neighbors and the larger 
     international community, our people will unite and 
     prosper. Together, we can and will succeed.

  I think we should all commend the Prime Minister for his vision and 
leadership. America will and must continue to stand by Iraq. None of 
what has been achieved in the last 3 years there has been at all easy, 
but we have succeeded and we will continue to succeed because freedom 
and democracy are stronger than the terrorists' tools of mayhem and 
fear.
  Great credit must go to President Bush for his strong leadership in 
the war on terror which has enabled us to reach this transfer of power 
in al-Muthanna, and soon, in other provinces as well. I also commend 
the Iraqi Government, Iraqi police, and Iraqi security forces for their 
hard work in promoting stability in the country.
  Of course, Madam President, I know our colleagues join me in thanking 
the men and women of America's Armed Forces for their courage, 
dedication, and sacrifice.
  Stability in Iraq means stability in the region and greater security 
at home. As the Prime Minister said in his speech just delivered, 
according to translation:

       Do not imagine that this problem [of terrorism] is solely 
     an Iraqi problem, because the terrorist front represents a 
     threat to all free countries and free peoples of the world. . 
     . .The responsibility of facing this challenge lies on the 
     shoulders of every country and every people that respects and 
     cherishes freedom.

  The Prime Minister is exactly right. For that reason, America must 
stand firm in the war on terror, and we must stand side by side with 
our Iraqi allies in their war on the terrorists.
  Before I finish, let me say a few words about the current situation 
in the Middle East regarding Israel and Hezbollah. Israel is America's 
longstanding friend and an ally in the war on terror. In fact, the 
horrors of September 11 awoke many in this country to what Israelis 
face daily and have faced daily for literally years. That country has 
been and continues to be on the front lines of the war on terror. I, 
for one, support Israel's efforts during this intense time to do 
whatever it takes to defend her people and her borders.
  Maybe some have forgotten, but the terrorist group, Hezbollah, killed 
241 American service men and women in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah's love 
of death and destruction is on a par with al-Qaida. They are enemies to 
every peace-loving, democratic country. They are a threat, and Israel 
has a right to pursue them wherever they exist.
  Now, Madam President, if I may, I would like to turn to speak in 
support of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which is the bill 
before us this afternoon.
  This May, along with a number of cosponsors, including my good 
friends, Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain, I introduced this bill 
for Senate consideration. Passage of this bill would mean continued 
sanctions against the illegitimate, dictatorial regime that currently 
holds Burma literally in its grip--the Orwellian-named State Peace and 
Development Council, or SPDC. This Senate will be acting on behalf of 
those in Burma who are being repressed. The Burmese people want these 
sanctions because they want democracy, justice, and freedom, and we 
stand with them.
  I see my friend, Senator McCain, here to speak on this issue as well. 
He has actually had the privilege of meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, 
the hero of Burmese independence, an opportunity that has been denied 
to most because she has been essentially under house arrest for 10 of 
the last 17 years.
  The broad, bipartisan coalition in this Chamber for this legislation 
indicates America's firm resolve to oppose the tyrannical SPDC regime, 
and America's recognition that Burma, under the SPDC, poses an 
immediate threat to its region. To put it simply, the allies of the 
Burmese people have a moral obligation to continue to stand up against 
the SPDC. I take great pride that we are continuing to do so.
  As many of my colleagues are well aware, last year, the extension of 
sanctions was signed into law by President Bush on July 27, 2005. It 
enjoyed strong, bipartisan support and passed this body by a vote of 97 
to 1. Unfortunately, recent events have reminded us of the need to keep 
up the pressure on the villainous SPDC regime.
  Ibrahim Gambari, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for 
Political Affairs, visited Burma in May as a representative of 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He met with the ringleaders with the SPDC 
as well as Nobel Peace Prize winner, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who, as I 
indicated earlier, is a political prisoner and has been the leader of 
that country's democracy movement for quite some time. Suu Kyi, as I 
indicated earlier, has spent 10 of the last 17 years in detention or 
under house arrest for her efforts to bring freedom and democracy to 
her people. Many other members of her party, the National League for 
Democracy--the NLD--have been detained as well.
  After returning, U.N. Diplomat Gambari wrote a column for the 
International Herald-Tribune titled ``A Crack in the Burmese Door.'' 
After acknowledging the SPDC's years of repression and misrule, Gambari 
wrote:

       Last month, something seemed to change. Burma's locked door 
     popped open a small crack.

  Gambari wrote this based on his discussions with the SPDC. But I 
think we should judge actions rather than words, and those actions tell 
an entirely different story. In fact, nothing fundamentally has changed 
in Burma. Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and the regime continues 
to engage in outrageous behavior.
  I do not share Mr. Gambari's optimistic view that the SPDC is ready 
to, as he puts it, ``turn a new page.'' In my view, the junta is only 
interested in deflecting growing pressure from the international 
community to change its repressive ways--and in avoiding the U.N. 
Security Council's consideration of a nonpunitive resolution that 
addresses the threat the SPDC poses to its own people and the entire 
region.
  Shortly after Mr. Gambari's visit, Suu Kyi's house arrest was 
extended for another year--double the length of the extensions she 
typically receives, under the regime's perverted concept of a legal 
process.
  Even worse, Suu Kyi's life. was threatened in a state-run newspaper. 
The New Light of Myanmar, a mouthpiece for the SPDC junta, printed the 
following in a story on July 6:

       The days of Daw Suu Kyi and NLD are numbered. They are 
     heading for the tragic end . . . Daw Suu Kyi and the National 
     League for Democracy (NLD) pose the most dangerous threat to 
     the nation.

  That is an ominous threat. And the people who make it have the power 
to see it carried out.
  They have made an attempt on her life before, and are apparently 
threatening to do so again.
  In addition to the immediate danger its misrule poses to the Burmese 
people, we cannot forget for a single moment that the military regime 
in Rangoon poses a significant and non-traditional threat to the entire 
region. Their litany of abuses is well known.
  Refugees spill into Thailand, fleeing the SPDC's brutal war against 
ethnic minorities.

[[Page S8219]]

  Illegal drugs pour across Burma's borders into China, India, and 
Thailand, and destroy the lives of the region's youth.
  And an unchecked HIV/AIDS virus closely follows drug trafficking 
routes, leaving disease and human tragedy in its wake.
  It is worth noting that the SPDC spent $70,000 in 2004 to combat HIV/
AIDS. This is in stark contrast to the millions of dollars spent on 
weapons from China and Russia--and, according to recent news reports, 
North Korea.
  This is no time for the international community and multilateral 
organizations, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 
ASEAN, to soften its stance on Burma.
  I want to emphasize for my colleagues one very important point. This 
Senate has already done much on behalf of the Burmese people. Now it is 
time for the U.N. to do its part.
  We need less talk and more action at the U.N. in support of 
democracy, freedom, and justice in Burma. We must keep in mind that the 
situation is so dire in Burma that the U.N. has already adopted 28 
nonbinding resolutions regarding that country. It is now time for the 
U.N. Security Council to act.
  The criteria and justification for bringing a country before the 
Security Council was outlined in a report commissioned by former Czech 
President Vaclav Havel and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. There 
is no one in this Chamber who does not applaud their sustained efforts 
to bring about a peaceful solution to the Burma problem.
  In fact, the Senate passed in May a measure that I sponsored calling 
on the U.N. Security Council to discuss a binding, nonpunitive 
resolution on Burma that calls for the immediate and unconditional 
release of Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners in that country; 
an end to abuses against minorities, including the use of rape as a 
weapon of war; and the beginning of a meaningful national 
reconciliation process that includes the unfettered participation of 
the NLD and ethnic minorities with the SPDC.
  It is time for the U.N. Security Council to take such action. It is 
time for free nations to stand for freedom.
  I specifically call on the respective governments of Ghana and the 
Republic of Congo, current nonpermanent members of the Security 
Council, to support this resolution.
  Ghana, in particular, is a country that values freedom and the rule 
of law, and support for the resolution would unequivocally demonstrate 
that they stand on the side of justice in Burma.
  I urge our Representative to the United Nations to continue efforts 
to move toward Security Council consideration of a nonpunitive 
resolution on Burma. To do any less would be to take a step backward.
  Mr. President, the Congress has stood with the people of Burma in 
their quest for freedom and democracy. It is time for the U.N. Security 
Council to do the same.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank Senator McConnell and Senator 
Feinstein for their leadership once again in renewing the sanctions 
contained in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to 
cosponsor and support this resolution.
  I again thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from 
California for their leadership and their advocacy. I thank Senator 
McConnell for his very strong and inspirational remarks that he 
completed.
  As we renew these sanctions, the situation inside Burma continues to 
worsen still. The military junta in that country controls the 
population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack of 
freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime has 
murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and 
employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain 
imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. And that 
courageous woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, has spent yet another year in 
captivity.
  Aung San Suu Kyi's resolve in the face of tyranny inspires me and, I 
believe, every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she stands 
for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, 
and untold suffering at the hands of the regime. Burma's rulers fear 
Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and 
justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run the country have 
tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral 
courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the millions of 
Burmese who hunger for freedom and for those of us outside Burma who 
seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the 
members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work. 
We must continue to press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an 
irreversible transition to democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve 
no less.
  And, while we see encouraging signs that the world is no longer 
content to sit on the sidelines, not everyone has gotten the message. 
Nine years after Burma joined ASEAN, the Southeast Asian nations remain 
too passive in the face of Burma's outrages. The European Union has 
recently announced that it will waive a travel ban on Burma's top 
leaders so that the Burmese foreign minister can attend the Asia-Europe 
meeting in Finland this September. It is hard to see what new actions 
the Burmese junta must commit in order to induce the world to treat the 
junta like the pariah it wishes to be.
  At least there should be no mistaking where the United States stands 
when it comes to repression in Burma. The U.S. Congress has been in the 
forefront of efforts to isolate that country, and we stepped up these 
measures significantly in 2003 with the Burmese Freedom and Democracy 
Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, 
and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not 
forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will 
stand up for justice in their country. Today's renewal of the import 
restrictions--sanctions that are supplied by supported by the National 
League for Democracy--is just one of those steps. I believe that these 
restrictions must remain in place until Burma embarks on a true path of 
reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic 
minorities.
  But the import ban must not be the only step. The U.S. has pushed for 
a resolution at the United Nations Security Council, and this step 
should garner wide support. The Europeans and ASEAN too should take up 
the Burma issue and put it on their front burners. Every responsible 
member of the international community must realize that the desire of 
people to be free is universal, and it does not stop at the gates of 
Rangoon. The people of Burma desire freedom and democracy, they have 
expressed this desire, and they shall one day have it. The question is 
not ``if'' but ``when.'' We shall help them get there, and we shall 
never forget their brave struggle.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from 
California for their leadership on this very important issue.
  There are many issues that are before America's attention today and 
that dominate our television and our newspapers. But this struggle for 
freedom on the part of the Burmese people has been there before and, 
unfortunately, will be after. We must be steadfast in our advocacy 
until they attain the freedom that they deserve under the leadership of 
this magnificent, Nobel Prize-winning hero for men and women throughout 
the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I can say to my friend from Arizona before he 
leaves the floor, it is hard to imagine that the world simply doesn't 
pay any attention to this outrageous regime. I ask my friend, if they 
had a weapon of mass destruction, probably we would be paying a little 
more attention to this pariah regime--does my friend from Arizona not 
agree?
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my friend from Kentucky. Let me respond by 
referencing, again, this struggle carried out by this magnificent 
woman. She has endured 17 years of house arrest. When her husband was 
in England, he was dying of cancer. She has two sons, by the way. He 
was dying of cancer, and she wanted, of course, to go to be with her 
husband in his last hours. The

[[Page S8220]]

junta said: Yes, you can go, but you can never come back.
  Among the incredible sacrifices she has made, she was not even 
allowed to be with her husband as he died.
  One time she was surrounded by these thugs who killed some of her 
supporters. She was in a car for a week--inside of her car for a week, 
surrounded by these unspeakable, brutal thugs who were the goons of 
this regime.
  The things she has undergone. Yet, incredibly, whenever she is with 
these thugs from this junta, she treats them with the utmost courtesy. 
She serves them tea. She treats them as only a woman of her caliber can 
treat her mortal enemies.
  Her story needs to be told and retold throughout the world, thousands 
and thousands of times. As a person who is a hero worshiper, an 
admirer, I believe that heroes have an important place in our Nation 
and the world. When I see her, she ranks in the first ranks of heroes 
in the world. It seems to me, with all due respect to the other nations 
of the world--our European friends, our ASEAN friends, and others--that 
we should be far more energetic in her advocacy and advocacy of freedom 
for her people.
  I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator as well. He makes a very important 
point.
  The United Nations has not responded to efforts to prod them into 
moving this item up on the agenda. It could well be because of the lack 
of enthusiasm, shall I say, of the Chinese and the Russians--two 
permanent members of the Security Council. Nevertheless, the efforts 
persist. This U.S. sanctions bill is important, but it is not going to 
get the job done. We know that. It would require multilateral sanctions 
of a dramatic basis, such as were imposed against South Africa, to get 
the job done. At least at this point, the ASEAN countries seem to be 
more interested in doing business there than they are squeezing the 
regime.
  There was, however, one encouraging sign. Burma was scheduled to host 
the ASEAN meeting this year. That did, I think, embarrass the members 
to the extent that they were unwilling to do that. So ASEAN obviously 
is not meeting in Burma in 2006.
  The struggle continues. I thank our colleagues. This is going to pass 
on a voice vote shortly. I thank our colleagues for their awareness of 
this issue. I think it is one that will be before us for some time to 
come.
  I don't know if there are other speakers. I see the Democratic 
leader. Does he wish to speak on this bill?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, 3 years ago, Burma's military junta 
arrested democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and returned her to the 
house arrest that she has endured with only intermittent periods of 
release since 1989.
  Three years ago, Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy 
Act of 2003, and we have renewed the sanctions called for under that 
legislation every year since then.
  That legislation is set to expire this summer, and we are now 
considering whether to extend its provisions for another 3 years.
  Tragically, Burma's human rights record has worsened, rather than 
improved, in the 3 years since Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and 
Democracy Act.
  Earlier this year, the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi was extended for 
another year. More than 1,100 political prisoners languish in jail in 
Burma, prevented from expressing their aspirations for a democratic 
government.
  The military junta ruling Burma still refuses to enter into a dialog 
with the opposition National League for Democracy. Its brutal treatment 
of ethnic minorities and advocates of democracy remains unabated. 
Forced labor is a widespread problem, and labor activists are regularly 
imprisoned for trying to combat it.
  The failure of Burma's dictators to address the HIV/AIDS and avian 
influenza situation in the country contributes to the horrific 
situation of the Burmese people.
  And the regime's effects are not confined to Burma's borders. 
Thousands of refugees have fled to Thailand, Malaysia, India, and 
Bangladesh. Burma is the world's second largest opium producer, 
supplying 90 percent of the heroin from Southeast Asia. It is also the 
single largest producer of methamphetamine in the region.
  One year ago, nearly to the day, I stood on the Senate floor and 
questioned whether these economic sanctions were the most appropriate 
tool for bringing about the kind of change we need to see in Burma.
  The arguments against economic sanctions continue to be quite 
compelling. First of all, they have a very poor record of success. The 
kinds of governments that merit this sort of treatment are not 
sensitive to international opprobrium, nor are they swayed by it to 
make changes. Second, economic sanctions tend to hurt the people that 
they are intended to help. Ordinary people lose their jobs, while the 
military and its leaders are left untouched. Third, severing economic 
ties shuts off an important avenue of dialog that can promote change.
  Those who support the sanctions point out, rightly, that Burma's 
rulers are not willing to engage in dialog, either at home or with its 
neighbors. It is plain that Burma's military dictators are not 
interested in being members of the international community. They have 
rebuffed the United Nations. And they have refused to allow U.N. 
Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to visit Burma 
since November 2003.
  They are equally uninterested in improving the lives of their people, 
or participating in the global economy. While more and more nations 
have turned to freer markets to bolster their growth, Burma has 
actually worked to dismantle fundamental economic institutions like 
property rights, contract enforcement, sustainable fiscal policies, and 
a reliable currency.
  It is difficult to imagine an environment less conducive to growth 
and less attractive to foreign investment. Revenues from oil and gas 
exports flow to the regime. Businesses and farmers are routinely shaken 
down. And productive assets are concentrated in the hands of the 
regime's cronies.
  In December of last year, America led the effort that produced the 
U.N. Security Council's first-ever discussion of the human rights 
abuses in Burma. I welcome the administration's efforts to increase 
international pressure on the military dictatorship.
  But if we are serious about trying to isolate the junta through 
sanctions, we cannot act alone. The European Union has also imposed 
sanctions on Burma, but neighboring countries continue to trade with 
Burma and to direct investment there.
  The administration needs to work with other countries, especially the 
countries in the region Thailand, China, India--that are still 
economically engaged with the dictatorship to intensify the pressure on 
the regime.
  The countries in the region have the most to lose from the worsening 
of the situation in Burma. As the oppression and abuse continue, more 
refugees will flee across the borders. As the junta focuses on 
enriching itself and ignoring the needs of its people, more drugs will 
flow across the border, and the risk of diseases like HIV/AIDS, 
malaria, antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis, and avian influenzas will 
increase in the region.
  Despite my reservations about the effectiveness of sanctions to 
effect change, I will support this resolution, extending the Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act for a further 3 years.
  This extension adds our voice to the voice of the Burmese people, 
muffled by the oppressive regime, in calling out for democracy and 
human rights. It is my hope that our action today will increase the 
awareness of the worsening human rights situation and bolster 
international support for democracy in Burma.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 86, 
which will renew the import ban we first imposed on Burma in 2003.
  The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was our response to the 
reprehensible attack on the National League for Democracy which 
occurred on May 30, 2003, and the arrest of many NLD officials, 
including their leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
  I worked with my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Baucus, to 
develop and pass that legislation. We authorized a ban on imports from 
Burma for 3 years, subject to annual renewal by Congress.
  Well, the 3 years are about to end, and unfortunately the situation 
in

[[Page S8221]]

Burma has not improved. The latest report from the State Department 
notes the continuation of killings and rape, use of forced labor, 
forced conscription, arrests and disappearances of political activists, 
and other abuses by the ruling military junta. And on May 23, 2006, the 
ruling junta extended for another year the unjustified house arrest of 
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. To renew trade with Burma now would send exactly 
the wrong signal. We need to renew the import ban as a visible 
demonstration to the ruling junta that their actions are unacceptable 
and that they must change their ways.
  We also need to encourage other nations to take strong action. The 
European Union has imposed some sanctions. Canada, Australia, Japan, 
and Norway also have some restrictions in place. I think they should 
each join us in doing more. Other nations should be acting as well, in 
particular, China. I urge the administration to continue engaging our 
trading partners to join us in strengthening sanctions against the 
ruling military junta. We need to work together in order to spur 
meaningful democratic reform in Burma.
  For these reasons, I support authorizing the import ban for another 3 
years, and I support the outright renewal of the import ban for another 
year. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage 
of H.J. Res. 86 and getting it to the President's desk for his 
signature as soon as possible.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of 
legislation to renew the ban on all imports from Burma for another 
year.
  The House unanimously passed this bill earlier this month and I urge 
the Senate to follow suit today.
  This bill amends the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
2003 to allow the sanctions to be renewed, 1 year at a time, for up to 
6 years.
  Simply put, the ruling military junta, the State Peace and 
Development Council has done nothing over the past 3 years to warrant a 
lifting of the sanctions.
  It has failed miserably to make ``substantial and measurable 
progress'' towards recognition of the 1990 elections--decisively won by 
Aung San Suu Ky's National League for Democracy--and a full restoration 
of representative government.
  If we vote to lift the sanctions prematurely, we will only reward 
Rangoon for its rejection of democracy, human rights, and the rule of 
law.
  Let us review the facts.
  Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the 
National League for Democracy, is confined to her home by orders of the 
military junta. She recently celebrated her 61st birthday under house 
arrest and on June 9, 2006, her detention was renewed for another year.
  She has spent the better part of the past 16 years imprisoned or 
under house arrest.
  The human rights situation in Burma is deplorable and demands a 
clear, unified response from the international community: 1,300 
political prisoners are still in jail; according to a report by the 
Asian human rights group, Assistance Association for Political 
Prisoners, 127 democracy activists have been tortured to death since 
1988; 70,000 child soldiers have been forcibly recruited; the practice 
of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by the Burmese 
military; use of forced labor is widespread; human trafficking is 
rampant; and the government engages in the production and distribution 
of opium and methamphetamine.
  Given this substantial list of abuses, it is no surprise that a 
recent report by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and retired 
archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa--``Threat to Peace: A Call for 
the UN Security Council to Act on Burma''--confirms the need for United 
Nations intervention.
  It details how the situation in Burma fulfills each of the criteria 
used for past intervention by the Security Council: overthrow of an 
elected government; armed conflicts with ethnic minorities; widespread 
human right violations; outflow of refugees--over 700,000--and drug 
production and trafficking and the spread of HIV/AIDS.
  The report should be required reading for all members of the United 
Nations who doubt whether or not the Security Council should take up 
Burma immediately.
  Some may argue that because the sanctions have not achieved their 
desired goals--the release of Suu Kyi, the restoration of a free and 
democratic Burma--they should be terminated.
  I could not disagree more. First, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic 
opposition continue to support a ban on all imports from Burma.
  Second, the international community is coming together to put 
pressure on Burma: In July 2005, ASEAN forced Burma to forgo its 
scheduled rotation as chairman of the organization; on December 16, 
2005, the U.N. Security Council debated the situation in Burma for the 
first time.
  Last month, the United Nations Under Secretary for Political Affairs 
briefed members of the Security Council on his meeting with Suu Kyi, 
her first meeting with a foreigner since 2004; a group of legislators 
from member countries strongly urged ASEAN last week to take concrete 
measures to resolve the political situation in Burma; Malaysian Foreign 
Minister Syed Hamid Albar, whose country currently chairs ASEAN, 
blasted Burma in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week for 
undermining the credibility of ASEAN by not moving closer to democracy.
  And, finally, I believe we are making progress on having a majority 
of the United Nations Security Council support adding Burma to the 
agenda of the Security Council for debate and possible passage of a 
binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma.
  By taking a leadership role on this issue, the United States has 
inspired other countries in the United Nations to put pressure on Burma 
to respect the wishes of its people and the international community to 
release Suu Kyi and restore a democratic, representative government.
  They have begun to recognize that--as the Havel-Tutu report 
documents--Burma's actions not only represent a threat to the rights 
and freedoms of the Burmese people, but to the region and international 
community as a whole.
  I strongly urge those members of the Security Council who have not 
done so to add their names to the growing list of countries who support 
adding Burma to the council's agenda. Passage of this legislation today 
will serve as another beacon of hope for the Burmese people and another 
example of leadership that will bring other countries to their side.
  I remind my colleagues that under the provisions of this legislation, 
we will have the opportunity to debate sanctions on Burma every year. 
That is how it should be.
  Sanctions are not a panacea for every foreign policy dispute. But, 
when they are backed by a robust international response, they can be 
effective and they can compel change.
  Archbishop Desmond Tutu has rightly said, ``As long as [Suu Kyi] 
remains under house arrest, not one of us is truly free''.
  Today, I urge the SPDC to release Aung San Suu Kyi, recognize the 
1990 elections, and engage in a true dialogue with the National League 
for Democracy.
  I urge the United Nations Security Council to debate and pass a 
binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma that recognizes the threat the 
regime poses to the region and calls for Suu Kyi and all prisoners of 
conscience to be released.
  And, finally, I urge the Senate to renew the sanctions on Burma for 
another year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Kentucky has been working 
on this matter for years. I appreciate his vigilance and diligence. I 
also say to my friend from Arizona, for the Senator from Arizona to 
stand and talk about brutality and suppression means a lot. He 
understands it. We all know he understands it, having been a victim of 
that for years when he was a prisoner of war. I appreciate the 
leadership of these two fine Senators moving this matter forward.
  I am going to speak on another issue at this time, Madam President. 
Are there others from either side who are going to speak on this 
matter?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Nevada, I am not aware of any 
other speakers on either side.
  Mr. REID. Then we should pass it, and I will get the floor and move 
on.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time remains?

[[Page S8222]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of the time on this side.
  Mr. REID. I yield all of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
third reading and passage of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 86) was ordered to a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________