[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11995-11997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 97) approving the renewal of import 
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
2003.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 97

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in 
     section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
     2003.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bill, I support extending 
sanctions on Burma for an additional year within the framework enacted 
into law last year under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I generally do not believe in unilateral trade 
sanctions. They are often emotional responses to atrocious acts and 
have unintended consequences, oftentimes harming the people that we, in 
fact, were seeking to assist. For example, the State Department notes 
that the Burma import restrictions have caused 50,000 to 60,000 workers 
in Burma to lose their jobs. These people were not narrowly helped by 
the sanctions.
  But, at the same time, the actions of the ruling junta in Burma 
continue to be unacceptable. I believe sanctions are appropriate if the 
circumstances are, 1, limited; 2, targeted; 3, reexamined yearly, and 
if we continuously analyze them to make sure they are not causing more 
harm than good. We must also examine the question of harm and good in 
short term and in long term.
  The law passed last year requires the administration to issue a 
report on whether sanctions have been effective in improving conditions 
in Burma and furthering U.S. objectives. The State Department, in its 
first report, states that the sanctions represent ``a clear and 
powerful expression of American opposition to the developments in Burma 
over the past year.'' The Department observes that the overall human 
rights record in Burma has worsened over the past year. While the junta 
has made some apparently superficial efforts toward democracy with its 
``road map,'' it does not appear that Burma is on the road to true, 
fundamental democratic reform.
  The State Department's report, however, also notes that no other 
country has implemented the same set of economic sanctions as the 
United States; and the U.S. import ban would be, according to the 
report, ``far more effective'' if other countries would do the same.
  So, Mr. Speaker, although I support the extension of the sanctions 
for 1 year, I strongly encourage this administration to pursue a more 
aggressive multilateral sanctions approach in Burma. That government 
must be truly isolated. It is vital that the administration work with 
other countries to reach multilateral sanctions. This effort is key if 
we are to continue sanctions against Burma.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I also believe 
that a more multilateral approach is in order. I also think as we 
discuss Burma, we should look at the experience that international 
bodies are having, including the ILO and the inability of the ILO, as 
it is presently structured, to proceed with any real teeth. I think 
that emphasizes why the United States, as we put forth and put together 
trade agreements, should incorporate into these trade agreements 
provisions that relate to the work, for example, of the ILO and core 
labor standards.
  I support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member, and I 
ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of the time on this 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?

[[Page 11996]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 97, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my appreciation to my 
friend and fellow Californian, (Chairman Bill Thomas), for his 
assistance in moving this legislation to the floor so expeditiously, 
and to my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their leadership on Burma and 
for granting me the privilege of managing this bill today for the 
Democratic side.
  Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Burmese regime launched a brutal 
crackdown on Burmese democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other 
members of the National League for Democracy. Burma's authoritarian 
ruler simply could not accept the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi remained 
enormously popular a dozen years after the government nullified the 
fair and free elections that she won.
  Just 10 months ago, Mr. Speaker, President Bush signed into law my 
bill imposing comprehensive sanctions on Burma. My legislation was 
approved by this House overwhelmingly, 418 ayes to 2 noes.
  Sadly, the case for a tough approach toward Burma, including import 
sanctions, is even stronger today than a year ago. Countless National 
League for Democracy leaders remain behind bars. Aung San Suu Kyi, a 
woman of extraordinary courage, is locked inside her house and there is 
little prospect that the Burmese junta will engage in meaningful 
dialogue with the National League for Democracy and other democratic 
leaders.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Burmese regime is currently holding a 
``national convention'' to write a new constitution for Burma. The 
meeting itself is a complete and utter sham. The Burmese leadership 
refused to let Aung San Suu Kyi participate, apparently afraid that her 
eloquent words would convince the delegates to move towards democracy 
and away from dictatorship.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is moving 
forward with this bipartisan initiative to renew Burma import 
sanctions. Burma's ruling elite, who have a questionable direct 
financial tie to most enterprises in Burma, must understand that they 
will be unable to enrich themselves off the American consumer.
  To those who argue that the sanctions have not worked, I have two 
responses. First, when Congress imposed import sanctions on Burma, we 
fully understood that such measures might take years, if not decades, 
to bring change to Burma, certainly not 10 months. If 10 months were 
the standard duration for American import sanctions, South Africans 
would still be governed by the apartheid regime, and Libya would have 
developed and deployed nuclear weapons instead of surrendering them to 
the United States.
  Second, the United States must make it a top priority to convince our 
key allies in Europe and in Asia to adopt import sanctions on the 
Burmese regime. Unfortunately, the executive branch has made little or 
no effort to accomplish this important task. If sanctions fail to 
quickly bring change to Burma, it is not because they represent the 
wrong approach; it is because high-level administration officials have 
not picked up the phone to urge our European Union counterparts to 
adopt targeted import sanctions on Burma.
  While we would all like to see a negotiated solution to Burma's 
political crisis, we cannot be naive enough to believe that Burma's 
leaders have changed their stripes. They have no intention of allowing 
Aung San Suu Kyi, a woman they tried to kill just a few months ago, to 
participate meaningfully in free and fair elections, let alone to 
transfer power to her political party.
  If I am proven wrong, Mr. Speaker, and Burma's ruling thugs win the 
Noble Peace Prize in 2005 for working out an agreement with the 
opposition, we will have plenty of time to express our congratulations 
and to lift sanctions at that point. Until then, we must ratchet up 
pressure on the Burmese thugs who are running that country and assure 
that our allies do so as well.
  Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to a day when we will welcome Aung 
San Suu Kyi to Washington as the leader of a free and democratic Burma. 
She will follow in the footsteps of Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic 
and of all of the other leaders who fought for freedom in Central and 
Eastern Europe. But we will achieve that goal only by maintaining 
strong pressure on Burma's ruling dictatorial clique and convincing our 
allies to do so as well.
  I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to do so as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague for the kind words. I too want to make sure that 
the record reflects that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
once again shows that his concern is in the forefront for peoples all 
over the world and simply for their ability, their right to express 
themselves.
  I strongly urge passage of H.J. Res. 97.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.J. Res. 97, a measure 
to approve the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. At the outset, let me express my 
appreciation to the leadership of the distinguished Chairmen and 
Ranking Members of both the International Relations and Ways and Means 
Committees for moving this resolution on a timely basis.
  On March 25, the Subcommittees on Asia held its third hearing in 2 
years on developments in Burma. Unfortunately, it was made clear during 
the course of the hearing that Burma made little progress toward 
democratic reform in the past year, and in fact the country has yet to 
return to even the admittedly low, but hopeful status it had achieved 
prior to the May 30 attack on democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi and 
other members of the National League for Democracy (NLD).
  Indeed, as many suspected would be the case, Burmese Prime Minister 
Khin Nyunt's announcement of a seven-point ``road map'' for political 
reconciliation in the fall of 2003 has been revealed to be a sham. 
Burma's military junta, known as the State Peace and Development 
Council, has proceeded with a so-called National Convention despite the 
nonparticipation of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and 
without freeing the NLD's leader Aung San Suu Kyi. In so doing the 
Burmese military leadership has exposed for all to see its 
determination to push for a new constitution that would legitimize its 
dominance and control over the country's politics and governance, even 
under a future ``civilian'' administration.
  As my colleagues understand, Burma presents one of the most 
complicated and vexing foreign policy challenges in Asia for the United 
States and the world community. Numerous political prisoners remain in 
detention, including one of the most remarkable and courageous leaders 
of our time, Aung San Suu Kyi. The issue is how can the U.S. best 
secure their release and help start a meaningful political dialogue in 
Burma, while also endeavoring to advance a panoply of other priorities, 
including stable democratic governance, human rights, counternarcotics, 
regional stability, combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as 
economic and human development more broadly.
  In this context, it is self-evident that the U.S. is confronted by 
multiple dilemmas in pursuing our objectives in Burma. For illustrative 
purposes, I would note just a few: the strongly nationalistic, self-
centered outlook of the ruling regime; the reliance by the military 
elite on an illicit, underground economy for power and survival; the 
inability of major industrial countries to agree on comprehensive 
sanctions as the basis for a common strategy; competition for 
geopolitical influence in Burma between China and India; and the 
ongoing humanitarian crisis for the people of Burma--including for the 
hundreds of thousands of internally displaced ethnic minority groups 
along the country's borders--that calls out for a more robust and 
humane international response.
  Nevertheless, in response to repeated efforts by the ruling military 
to thwart the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people as well as 
to ongoing serious human rights violations, the U.S. has been compelled 
to utilize

[[Page 11997]]

sanctions and coercive diplomacy as the centerpiece of our policy. 
Given the deeply disappointing lack of progress in Burma over the past 
year, there is no credible option at this time but to renew current 
sanctions.
  Here it is critically important for Congress and the Administration 
to reaffirm our unflinching support for those who want freedom in 
Burma. We honor the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues 
in the pro-democracy movement, including representatives of Burma's 
numerous ethnic minorities. The American people stand with the people 
of Burma in a common determination to see decent democratic governance 
and national reconciliation in Burma.
  I urge support for the resolution.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, too often in this world, evil is not called 
evil. In our rush not to offend others or to avoid making judgments, 
speech is couched in euphemisms or soft tones. Evil is ignored or 
glossed over.
  Last year, the United States saw evil in Burma. And last year, the 
United States had the courage and conviction to call evil by its name. 
Last year, the United States Congress and President Bush imposed harsh 
sanctions on the military dictatorship controlling Burma.
  Some may say that the term evil is too harsh or that it is offensive, 
but in my estimation, there is no other word for what is happening 
right now in Burma. Men are routinely pressed into forced labor for the 
military. Women are raped and beaten. Countless children have been 
orphaned. Villages suspected of resistance are burned. Food is 
confiscated or destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced 
in Burma and surrounding countries. And anyone can be thrown into 
prison at anytime for the slightest infraction or for no reason at all.
  Last week, we heard a lot about freedom. We heard that millions of 
people are now living in freedom because the Cold War came to an end 
because of the unrelenting pressure Ronald Reagan brought to bear 
against the Soviet Union. It is easy to think that because the Cold War 
is over, freedom has completely triumphed. Sadly, that is not the case. 
Millions of people, including the people of Burma, still live under the 
lash of dictatorship.
  In 2003, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act passed this House by a 
vote of 418-2. Four hundred eighteen Members recognized the junta's 
evil deeds and voted to isolate Burma from the outside world. This 
Congress and this Administration realize that putting pressure on the 
dictatorship will hasten its demise almost as certainly as did American 
pressure on the Soviet Union.
  The United States was once nobly described as a shining city on a 
hill. Indeed, millions of people around the world look to the United 
States as a beacon of liberty. We must shine our light of freedom 
wherever freedom and justice are denied and wherever evil is present.
  Today, we have the opportunity to send a message to the people of 
Burma and to the rest of the world. By extending the sanctions the 
United States imposed on Burma last year, we declare there is still 
evil in Burma, and it is unacceptable.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 97.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 97.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________