[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5488-S5490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE BURMESE
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 66, which
the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66)
approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during
the quorum call I am about to suggest be divided equally between the
majority and the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, our country is in a very serious
economic crisis. We are told by Mr. Erskine Bowles and Senator Alan
Simpson--Erskine Bowles was chosen by President Obama to head his debt
commission. They gave a statement to the Budget Committee, on which I
am ranking member, that this Nation has never faced a more predictable
economic crisis based on the size of our debt. All of us know that.
The American people are angry with us. They cannot believe it is
possible we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. We are
spending $3.7 trillion this fiscal year ending September 30. We will
take in $2.2 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. This is not
acceptable. We cannot continue.
How did it happen? How is it possible we are borrowing 40 cents of
every dollar that goes out the door, increasing the permanent debt of
the United States? Well, one way is what is happening now before us on
the bill that is being moved today by Majority Leader Reid. It would
add $6.9 billion to the FEMA account for emergencies. We just saw the
legislation less than an hour ago, maybe 30 minutes ago. Has anybody
given any serious thought to that? Seven billion dollars? The general
fund budget of the State of Alabama is $2 billion.
Mr. President, $7 billion is a lot of money, and we have not looked
at it, we have not thought about it. It is above the budget, I guess
above our budget numbers. We do not have a budget. Senator Reid said
earlier this year it would be foolish to have a budget--foolish to have
a budget. We are now well over 860 days in this Senate without having
passed a budget. Is that another reason we are spending the country
into bankruptcy?
Well, I do not think this is an appropriate thing. I strongly oppose
adding another emergency debt spending bill where we have not carefully
examined every penny of it to make sure it is all necessary and
appropriate. No one has seen those numbers and the analysis that would
justify it.
I come from a State that was hammered with the worst series of
tornadoes we have ever suffered in Alabama. I have been to those
communities and towns and seen those families who have lost all they
had, who have lost loved ones and have injured family members. I know
we are going to need to have emergency spending for those programs. We
have fires in Texas and we also have flooding. We know that.
We have certain money set aside for emergencies already. How much
more do we need to spend? I do not know yet.
[[Page S5489]]
I wish to have some very careful expert analysis done before we
announce another $7 billion.
Forgive me if I am frustrated. I think the American people are
frustrated. We went through a continual battle for weeks, months,
really, over the debt ceiling. I did not like the way that bill was
written. I know we had to face up to it, though, and do some things. So
we finally reached an agreement. I did not vote for it in the end. But
it was supposed to save $2.1 trillion to $2.5 trillion--$2,500 billion,
$2,000 billion--over 10 years.
Next year--the fiscal year beginning October 1--it would reduce the
spending for next year by $7 billion--the very same amount now the
majority leader wants us to throw in on top of that as emergency
spending, not within our spending limits, not controlled by our
spending limits, wiping out that entire saving for next year.
Add on top of that, the President has now announced he wants to spend
$450 billion more. And do not worry, it will be paid for, he told us in
the speech Thursday night. How would it be paid for? Well, we will have
this debt committee--I will send them a note and say: You cut another
$450 billion over 10 years. Just promise that you will cut another $450
billion over 10 years, and I will spend $450 billion now. That is the
way we are heading down the road to uncontrollable debt.
I understand the President has announced he wants to raise taxes on
businesses and all by $450 billion, and we may get a proposal on how to
do that today. I do not know. We will see how it turns out. I expect to
read it. I would expect the President, if he is serious, would tell us
precisely what taxes he intends to increase and how much they will
bring in. We have to pass it now, we are told, but we have not seen the
legislation, to my knowledge, yet. They promised it today.
This is not, in my humble opinion, sound management. The President of
the United States has an Office of Management and Budget. Four hundred,
five hundred people work there. He is the superintendent of every
Cabinet department in our country. They all work at his pleasure. The
subcabinet people work for him. He has the entire agencies he can call
on to help produce proposals--the Commerce Department, the Treasury
Department--on what taxes to raise and what taxes not to, how much
should be brought in.
We have opportunities. The President has the staff to send us a
detailed proposal about what kind of emergency spending we ought to be
undertaking. I do not know if Senator Reid conjured this up among his
staff or whether he has gotten a detailed proposal from the House, from
the President.
Suffice it to say, I hope my colleagues will not move forward to a
bill that contains $7 billion in new spending above our statutory
limits that were passed in this debt ceiling--why? Basically to obviate
the need of having a budget.
We need not to be moving to legislation and rushing through that kind
of new spending program because that is precisely how it is that day
after day, week after week, we have increased spending in this country
to the point that it cannot be sustained.
Every witness before the Budget Committee has told us we are on an
unsustainable path. I just had occasion to go over the food stamp
numbers. I knew the food stamp numbers had been going up. When
President Bush left office, we were spending $31 billion, I believe it
was, on food stamps. This year we will spend $79 billion. President
Obama will have doubled spending on food stamps--doubled it--in 3
years, not 4. His first year in office, food stamp spending increased
46 percent.
We need to look under the hood of the engine of this program. We want
to be sure poor people have food. We are willing to do that. Everybody
is. But at a time of fiscal challenge for our Nation, a time of the
largest debt we have ever seen, we have to examine all of our programs.
Can we justify those kinds of increases? Can we justify emergency
spending that is unthought out and not carefully accounted for? I do
not think so. I think we should not go to legislation that seeks to do
that, and I would oppose cloture on this legislation if that is what is
happening, as I believe it is.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, as the Senate votes on H.J. Res. 66, a joint
resolution to renew the sanctions in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act, it is important to acknowledge that over the past year
Burma has undergone a series of changes that may have the potential to
point toward a new direction for the country, after years of isolation
and repression. On November 7, 2010, Burma held its first election in
20 years. With limited international observation, most will argue that
the election was neither free nor fair. Yet it cannot be denied that
the election process initiated a new political dialogue in the country,
with candidates participating from more than 37 political parties.
The election resulted in a new governmental system and opportunities
for engagement. Burma is now in the midst of a key transitional period
that has yielded greater opportunities for interaction with government
leaders and civil society, and restructuring of government and military
institutions. The release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest after
the election has also been an important benchmark in this process. Her
repeated interactions with government leaders are a significant step
forward in encouraging a democratic process and reconciliation within
the country.
There are clear indications of a new openness from the government,
and the United States should be prepared to adjust our policy toward
Burma accordingly. In reauthorizing this legislation, it should be
noted that the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act gives the
President the authority to waive the prohibitions on any or all imports
from Burma if doing so is in the national interest of the United
States. I am hopeful that there will be opportunities to closely
examine any substantive improvements in our relations during this
transitional period, and to take advantage of all of the tools at our
disposal to facilitate Burmese economic development, political
reconciliation, and ultimately greater progress toward democratic
governance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
the joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.
I am proud to be joined in this effort once again by Senator
McConnell, a true champion for democracy, human rights and the rule of
law in Burma.
The House passed this resolution unanimously on July 20 and I urge
the Senate to begin action on it now by supporting the motion to invoke
cloture on the motion to proceed.
These sanctions expired on July 26 and we should extend them as soon
as possible.
We must send a message to the people of Burma that we continue to
stand with them in their struggle for a truly representative
government.
I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in
Burma for over 10 years.
In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation
requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he
determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, re-
arrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression
or violence against the democratic opposition.
President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive order and the
ban remains on the books today.
In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi,
Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy
Act of 2003 which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It
allowed that ban to be renewed 1 year at a time.
It was signed into law and has been renewed one year at a time since
then. A renewal of that ban is now before us today.
Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have
received one piece of good news.
On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the
democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house
arrest.
Her latest detention lasted more than 7, and in total she has spent
the better part of the last 20 years in prison or under house arrest.
Her release was wonderful news for those of us who are inspired by
her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for
freedom and democracy for the people of Burma.
Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days
after a
[[Page S5490]]
fraudulent and illegitimate election for a new parliament that was
based on a sham constitution.
The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of
Burma silent long enough to solidify their grip on power using the
false veneer of a democratic process.
Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were
fooled.
We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were
overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in
1990, but annulled by the military junta, then named the State Law and
Order Restoration Council or SLORC.
In 1992, this military government announced plans to draft a new
constitution to pave the way for a return to civilian rule.
Yet the human rights abuses and the suppression of Suu Kyi and the
democratic opposition continued and no constitution emerged.
In 1997, the junta changed its name to the State Peace and
Development Council, SPDC, in a vain attempt to put a more positive
spin on its oppressive rule and lack of democratic legitimacy in the
eyes of its people and the international community.
Again, nothing changed.
The new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of
the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for
Democracy.
It was approved in an illegitimate referendum held just days after
Cyclone Nargis devastated the country in May 2008 setting up elections
which eventually took place in November 2010.
It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of
Representatives for the military.
That is in addition to the seats won in the November, 2010 elections
by the Union Solidarity and Development Party, which was founded by the
military junta's Prime Minister Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet
members who resigned from the army to form a so-called ``civilian''
political party.
The constitution barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary
elections.
And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors
because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party.
It should come as no surprise that the military-backed party won
nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament.
In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for
Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no
international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists
would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma.
President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither
free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted
standards associated with legitimate elections.''
The National League for Democracy described the elections and the
formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to
a parody.''
Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last Prime
Minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's
new president.
He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military
leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe.
The names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the
State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and
Development Party--but the faces, the lack of democracy, the human
rights abuses and the lawlessness remain the same.
So while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize
that Burma is not free and the regime has failed to take the necessary
steps to lift the import ban.
As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we
must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military
regime to: end violations of internationally recognized human rights;
release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press;
allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion;
and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and
the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the
restoration of a democratic government.
By every measure, the regime has failed to make progress in any of
these areas.
We cannot reward the regime for 2,100 political prisoners, the use of
child soldiers or the persecution of ethnic minorities. We can't reward
the use of rape as an instrument of war or the continued use of
torture. And we can't reward the use of forced labor or the wholesale
displacement of civilians.
Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive,
democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import
ban as a part of a strong sanctions program.
This must include tough banking sanctions.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the
administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta
by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its
leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Block Burmese
Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act.
Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the
import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of
Burma.
I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen
more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma.
But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma
on the efficacy of sanctions:
A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for
Democracy in February 2011 argues that sanctions are not targeted at
the general population and are not to blame for the economic ills of
the country.
Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism,
corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted,
the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and
the rule of law. It concludes:
Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an
all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad
spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement
of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the
democratization process, firmly grounded in national
reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should
be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions
policies.
I agree.
So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung
San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and vote
yes on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.
I yield the floor.
____________________