[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13806-13810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS IN THE BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT 
                                OF 2003

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of S. J. Res. 39, the Burma import 
restrictions bill. I further ask unanimous consent that the statutory 
time limit be yielded back, and the joint resolution be read a third 
time and placed back on the Senate calendar. I further ask

[[Page 13807]]

unanimous consent that the Senate then proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H. J. Res. 97, the House Burma resolution, and that 
all time be yielded back, and the Senate proceed to a vote on the 
resolution, with no intervening action or debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. What do these resolutions do?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last year, the Senate passed a 
resolution imposing sanctions on the thug regime that has been running 
Burma for the last 25 years. It comes up for annual renewal, much like 
the most-favored-nation procedure we used to apply to China. This is 
that resolution renewing the sanctions for another year.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I thought there was another resolution 
the Senator mentioned.
  Mr. REID. We are going to do that one next.
  Mr. BYRD. That was all, Mr. President, this one resolution?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am sorry, I did not hear.
  Mr. BYRD. The Burma resolution, is that the only resolution to which 
the Senator referred?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, the only resolution.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Will the distinguished Senator from Kentucky modify his 
request to allow for a 10-minute vote rather than the normal 15 
minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is perfectly acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There 
will be a 10-minute vote on this resolution.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S. J. Res. 39) approving the renewal of 
     import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and 
     Democracy Act of 2003.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution 
will be returned to the calendar.
  The clerk will report H. J. Res. 97.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H. J. Res. 97) approving the renewal of 
     import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and 
     Democracy Act of 2003.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S.J. Res. 39, 
approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. I am a cosponsor of this resolution, 
and I believe that these sanctions must be renewed.
  The resolution states that the State Peace and Development Council, 
SPDC, the military junta of Burma, has failed to make substantial 
progress toward implementing a democratic government and that import 
sanctions and other restrictions against the SPDC must remain in force 
until ``Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that 
includes the full and unfettered participation of the National League 
for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the country.''
  The situation in Burma remains disturbing. The military junta in 
Burma continues to commit egregious human rights abuses against its 
population. Human rights organizations have documented the systematic 
rape of Shan women on a massive scale by Burmese military forces and 
the recruitment of children, as young as 11, into the Burmese national 
army. Torture, extra judicial executions, forced labor and widespread 
political repression all characterize the Burmese political landscape. 
Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, NLD, and 
other senior NLD members remain under house arrest. Approximately 1,300 
political activists, including elected members of parliament, languish 
in Burmese prisons, as punishment for their nonviolent pursuit of 
democracy.
  Despite the SPDC's announcement of a new political initiative, a 
``roadmap'' to democracy, they continue to break their promises of 
political reform. On May 17, 2003, the junta opened a constitutional 
convention that the junta promoted as being a first step toward 
democracy and democratic elections. The NLD boycotted this convention, 
after the junta refused to free Aung San Suu Kyi. The SPDC's 
continuation of the convention without the key political parties of the 
NLD and the United Nationalities Alliance, a group of ethnic parties 
that participated in the 1990 elections, demonstrates the emptiness of 
the SPDC's commitments to reform.
  The military junta not only creates hardship for the Burmese people, 
but threatens stability in the region and beyond. Reports have emerged 
that Burma and North Korea have reestablished military and trade links 
after a termination of diplomatic relations in 1983. The U.S. State 
Department accused North Korea of seeking to sell surface to surface 
missiles to Burma's government and reported that Washington was aware 
that the Burmese regime is interested in acquiring a nuclear research 
reactor.
  In addition, Burma continues to be a primary source of narcotics in 
Asia, as one of the world's largest trafficker of methamphetamine and 
second largest producer of opium. In their International Narcotics 
Strategy report for 2003, the U.S. State Department reported that major 
Wa traffickers, of the ethnic Wa group in northeastern Shan State, 
continue to operate with apparent impunity. In addition, in the Annual 
Presidential Determinations of Major Illicit Drug-Producing and Drug-
Transit Countries for 2003, the President designated Burma as having 
``failed demonstrably'' to make substantial counter-narcotics efforts. 
According to U.S. State Department, the government of Burma continued 
to be deficient in dismantling drug organizations, attacking drug-
related corruption and addressing money-laundering issues. Officials in 
China, Thailand and India have expressed serious concerns about illicit 
drugs flooding into their countries from Burma and the increase of drug 
addiction among their youth.
  Human trafficking in Burma is also of enormous concern. In the State 
Department's Trafficking in Persons report for 2004, Burma was placed 
in Tier 3, a category for those countries which are not in compliance 
with the minimum standards of the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2003 and are not making significant efforts to 
bring themselves into compliance. According to the State Department, 
not only is Burma a source country for persons trafficked for forced 
labor and sexual exploitation, but government officials and the 
military are complicit in trafficking. Human Rights Watch states, 
``recruiters for Burma's army frequently apprehend boys at train and 
bus stations, markets and other public places, threatening them with 
jail if they refuse to join the army. . . . After brutal training, 
child soldiers are deployed into units, where some are forced to fight 
against ethnic armed opposition groups.''
  Adding to regional instability, over 1.6 million person have fled 
Burma due to persecution and violence. In addition, it is estimated 
that there are between 600,000 and 1 million internally displaced 
persons within the country.
  The United States and its international partners, including the 
United Nations, ASEAN and the European Union must persist in their 
demands for political reform in Burma. The renewal of these sanctions 
sends a powerful message to Burma that the United States is not 
satisfied with their facade of democratization. I also strongly urge 
the European Union to strengthen their existing sanctions on Burma. The 
SPDC must take immediate steps to release Aung Sang Suu Kyi and other 
political prisoners and to create a broad-based democratic government 
that respects human rights and the rule of law.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend Senators McConnell and Feinstein 
for their efforts to renew sanctions contained in last year's Burmese

[[Page 13808]]

Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor.
  The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to promote 
human rights. In few places is the lack of freedom and justice more 
appalling than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, led by 
General Than Shwe, controls the population through violence and terror. 
The Burmese regime has a record of unchecked repression. It has 
murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and 
employed rape as a weapon of war. Last year, the Burmese military junta 
launched an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung 
San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then, the regime has 
kept more than 1,000 political activists imprisoned, including elected 
members of parliament.
  Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Because she stands for democracy, 
this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold 
sufferings at the hands of the regime. The junta fears Aung San Suu Kyi 
because of what she represents--peace, freedom, and justice for all 
Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, 
but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and 
example shines brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for 
freedom, and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its 
people. She recently celebrated her 50th birthday, under house arrest.
  Last month, the National League for Democracy courageously boycotted 
the junta's so-called ``National Convention.'' The government portrayed 
this sham convention as the first step in a ``roadmap to democracy,'' 
but it is clear that it is intended to blunt international pressure, 
rather than as a serious step in a democratic process. No ``roadmap to 
democracy'' will have any credibility so long as Aung Suu Kyi remains 
in confinement.
  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.
  In recognition of this, last year the Congress overwhelmingly passed 
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.
  For this reason I stand in support of the joint resolution that will 
renew the import restrictions contained in last year's legislation--
sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. 
These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of 
reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic 
minorities. I note, however, that while the American people have spoken 
with one voice in support of freedom in Burma, it is past time that the 
leaders of other nations do the same. No other country has yet 
implemented U.S.-style economic sanctions. The Europeans should reject 
half measures and join the United States in targeted sanctions against 
the military regime. China, Thailand, India, and other Asian nations 
uncomfortable with a tougher response to the junta's crimes must 
understand that diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will 
profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationship with the western 
democracies.
  The picture today in Burma is tragically clear. So long as a band of 
thugs rules Burma, its people will never be free. They will remain 
mired in poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their 
indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward. With our action today, 
we will support this spirit.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I speak about Burma and U.S. sanctions 
policy. Last year, thugs working for the illegitimate Burmese 
government attacked opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her 
supporters with clubs and sharpened sticks, killing as many as 70 pro-
democracy activists.
  The government then held Suu Kyi in what it cynically called 
``protective custody.'' Those events prompted international outrage and 
led the United States to pass the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
2003.
  That Act banned all imports to the United States from Burma. Chairman 
Grassley and I worked hard to ensure that these sanctions would be 
effective--and that Congress would continue to play a key role in their 
implementation.
  I did not want Congress to impose trade sanctions on Burma without 
any opportunity to review the policy and revise it if it wasn't 
working. So the act requires that Congress debate and vote on whether 
to renew the import ban every year. That is why we are here today.
  What has the import ban accomplished? In 2002, the last full year 
without a ban, Burma exported $356 million to the United States, mainly 
in garments and apparel products.
  Since the U.S. blocked all imports from Burma, more than 100 garment 
and apparel factories have closed, throwing 50,000 to 60,000 people, 
mainly young women, out of work.
  And according to the State Department, many of these young women, 
lacking jobs and opportunities are, in desperation, quote, ``turning to 
work in the sex industry or being forced or duped into prostitution by 
traffickers.''
  On the other hand, Burma's military rulers are doing just fine. The 
State Department notes that ``the military leaders' personal power and 
wealth have little connection to the well-being of the country. The 
country's economic and military elite derives its greatest earning 
power from the trade of natural resources with neighboring states and 
countries in the region.''
  I have long been critical of unilateral sanctions. They almost never 
work. They may be an effective expression of our rage, but as a rule, 
they do not destabilize oppressive regimes, and they often hurt the 
unfortunate people they are intended to help.
  The ban on imports from Burma is no exception to this rule. 
Multilateral sanctions can be effective. That's why I insisted that the 
act require the administration to work toward making the sanctions 
multilateral. But to date, no country in the world has joined the 
United States in banning imports from Burma--not one.
  Now, let me emphasize that Burma's government is despicable by any 
measure. Security forces commit murder, use rape as a weapon of war 
against ethnic minorities, and utilize forced labor. Democracy 
activists are arrested and dissent punished. Conscription of child 
soldiers is widespread.
  There is no dispute that Burma's actions require a response. The 
question is whether unilateral trade sanctions are the proper response.
  This is not an easy question. I hope that my colleagues have thought 
hard about the consequences. I hope they have made an honest assessment 
of the merits of maintaining the import ban.
  We cannot forget that the votes we cast have real consequences. Those 
thousands of young women being forced into prostitution should serve as 
a harsh reminder.
  After struggling with the issue for some time, I decided to support 
renewing the import ban for another year.
  On balance, I believe we should allow the administration more time to 
try to convince other countries to join in sanctioning the outlaw 
regime in Burma. But I would urge the administration to make this more 
of a priority. Their efforts so far have produced little result.
  If I am to find any consolation in this state of affairs, it comes 
from the fact that Congress has a say in whether the trade sanctions on 
Burma continue. We have retained our Constitutional authority over 
international commerce.
  This is consolation to me because it is hard to evaluate any 
unilateral sanctions program without looking back on our failed 
sanctions against Cuba.
  Since 1960, when the Cuban embargo was first put in place, the United 
States has pursued a unilateral policy of driving the Castro regime out 
of power. Even as the rest of the Soviet bloc collapsed, the Castro 
regime has

[[Page 13809]]

retained its control on the Cuban island.
  The U.S. embargo has failed. In fact, it is obvious to me that the 
embargo actually shelters Castro, and has directly contributed to the 
strength of his regime.
  But the unilateral embargo has remained in place for more than forty 
years. Had Congress originally required an annual vote on the Cuban 
embargo, as we have now done with the Burma sanctions, the embargo 
would have been eliminated long ago.
  Instead, the Cuban sanctions were created without any end in sight, 
without any exit strategy, without any plan for its removal. So, here 
we are, thirteen years beyond the fall of the Soviet Union, with the 
last vestige of the Cold War alive and well 90 miles from our shores.
  That's why Senators Roberts, Enzi and I have introduced legislation 
to give Congress a voice on Cuba sanctions. This legislation mirrors 
the legislation on Burma that we are discussing today.
  It would allow sanctions against Cuba to continue--but would require 
both Houses of Congress to vote annually to renew the sanctions. Absent 
such a vote, the sanctions would end.
  This is a reasonable approach to Cuba, and to sanctions more 
generally. Of course, that's also why this legislation won't pass this 
year. The Administration and Congressional leadership are well aware 
that Cuba sanctions would not survive a Senate vote.
  In fact, last year, overwhelming majorities in the Senate and House 
voted to suspend enforcement of the travel ban. Everyone here remembers 
that those votes were ignored by the leadership in both chambers, and 
the travel ban remained in place.
  I hope that Congress can learn from the mistakes we have made--and 
are still making--in Cuba. I hope that Congress will work toward a more 
responsible sanctions regime. I stand ready to work with my colleagues 
to make that happen.
  Let me close by thanking Senators McConnell, Feinstein, and Grassley 
for their work on the Burma legislation. Senators McConnell and 
Feinstein have been tireless advocates for democracy in Burma. They 
deserve to be commended.
  I would also like to acknowledge some of the staff who have worked 
hard on this issue--Paul Grove, Michael Schiffer, Everett Eissenstat, 
and Stephen Schaeffer.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in support of the joint resolution 
renewing the sanctions against Burma. The House has overwhelmingly and 
in a bipartisan manner passed this resolution, and I urge the Senate to 
do likewise.
  Last year, following the brazen attack against the motorcade of Nobel 
Peace Prize winner and National League of Democracy leader Aung San Suu 
Kyi, the United States took a firm stand on the side of human rights 
and democracy for the Burmese people by passing the Burmese Freedom and 
Democracy Act and imposing a complete ban on Burmese imports.
  One year later, Suu Ky remains under house arrest and the military 
junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has failed to 
make ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards a true dialogue on 
national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 
parliamentary elections, decisively won by the NLD.
  As a result, the Senate has no choice but to support renewing the 
sanctions for another year.
  Let me be clear. I do not believe sanctions are a panacea for every 
foreign policy dispute we have with another country.
  I have long supported the reform of our sanctions policy, and, in my 
view, Congress should have the opportunity to revisit sanctions imposed 
on other countries on a case-by-case basis and in a timely fashion.
  I am cosponsor of Senator Baucus's legislation to allow Congress to 
vote up or down on the sanctions imposed on Cuba for that very reason.
  It seems clear to me that 40 years later, those sanctions have not 
achieved our foreign policy goals. Yet, under different circumstances 
and conditions, sanctions can be effective.
  Burma, in my view, is such a case. One year is not a sufficient 
period of time to judge the effectiveness of the sanctions, and there 
is reason to believe that the international community is coming 
together to put additional pressure on the military regime.
  I was disappointed that the European Union and the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) did not follow the United States' lead 
last year and impose tough sanctions on the military junta.
  Nevertheless, the EU, for one, is beginning to realize that 
engagement with Rangoon has failed to achieve the desired results.
  Last week, the EU refused to include Burma in two lower-level 
meetings with ASEAN representatives and, in response to ASEAN's demand 
that all of its members be allowed to attend, the EU canceled the 
meetings.
  Supporters of freedom and democracy in Burma should welcome this move 
and continue to urge our allies to put additional pressure on the 
military regime.
  There is also some positive movement within ASEAN itself, including 
Malaysia, the country that sponsored Burma's entry into the Association 
and has supported ``non-interference'' in domestic affairs of other 
members.
  Earlier this month, a group of Malaysian parliamentarians--from the 
government and the opposition--formed a committee to press for 
democracy in Burma. The group called on the SPDC to immediately and 
unconditionally release all political prisoners and restore democratic 
government.
  The parliamentary group stated: ``The caucus also calls upon the 
(Burma) government to respect ASEAN and international opinion and 
return to the mainstream of responsible international norms and 
behavior.''
  Of course, we would all like to see ASEAN, the EU, and others to take 
additional steps to put pressure on Rangoon to respect human rights and 
restore democracy. But we must continue to take the lead.
  I believe that by passing this resolution and renewing the sanctions 
on imports from Burma for another year, we will enhance our leadership 
in this area and rally the international community to our cause. Now is 
not the time to weaken our resolve.
  Some may argue that the sanctions do no harm to the members of the 
military junta and instead place additional hardships on the Burmese 
people.
  The military junta itself cynically suggested that the reason why 
human trafficking is a rampant problem in Burma--as cited in the latest 
State Department report--is due to the desperate economic conditions 
caused by the sanctions imposed by the United States.
  Let us not forget that for over 15 years the military junta has 
brutalized its won citizens, engaged in numerous human rights abuses 
including rape, forced labor, and human trafficking of young boys and 
girls, and run the Burmese economy into the ground.
  And the consequences of the regime's repressive rule extend far 
beyond its borders. As Senator McConnell and I pointed out in an op-ed 
that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the spread of narcotics, HIV/
AIDS, and refugees across the region can be traced back to Rangoon.
  As South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu stated earlier this year: 
``To dismantle apartheid [in South Africa] took not only commitment, 
faith, and hard work, but also intense international pressure and 
sanctions. In Burma, the regime has ravaged the country, and the 
people, to fund its illegal rule. Governments and international 
institutions must move past symbolic gestures and cut the lifelines to 
Burma's military regime through well-implemented sanctions.''
  We cannot say for certain these sanctions will work. But we can be 
certain that if we do nothing and allow these sanctions to expire, the 
military junta will strengthen its grip on power and the day of Suu 
Kyi's release from house arrest and the re-birth of democracy in Burma 
will be put off further into the future.
  We simply cannot afford to make that mistake and turn our backs on

[[Page 13810]]

those who are looking to us for hope and inspiration.
  I urge my colleagues to renew their support for freedom and 
democracy, Suu Kyi and the Burmese people and support this resolution.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Shall the joint resolution pass? The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) 
and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
       Enzi
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kerry
     Lugar
     Roberts
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 97) was passed.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________