[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________