[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20186-20189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the clerk to report the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) approving the renewal of 
     import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and 
     Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this legislation continues the 
sanctions already in place against Burma's illegitimate Peace and 
Development Council. If enacted, these sanctions will continue to show 
the SPDC that the United States stands squarely with the long-suffering 
people of Burma and against its brutal regime.
  Just last month, the International Committee of the Red Cross 
condemned the actions of the Burmese regime--a rare vocal stance for an 
organization that has historically worked to bring about change behind 
the scenes. The ICRC's statement, according to international observers, 
is the harshest it has issued since the Rwandan genocide more than 12 
years ago.
  Burma's sham reforms are not fooling the Red Cross and they should 
not be fooling anyone else. The SPDC recently resumed its so-called 
constitutional convention, a convention in which most delegates were 
selected by the regime itself and in which delegates are not allowed to 
offer draft changes without permission. Criticism of the draft 
constitution is prohibited by law. One notable provision in the draft 
forbids the spouse of a foreign national from sitting in Parliament, an 
addition clearly aimed at National League for Democracy leader and 
Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, whose British husband died 
in 1999.
  The SPDC calls the convention a ``roadmap'' to democracy. But on the 
SPDC's map, the destination is not freedom, it is tyranny.
  Until the NLD and Burma's ethnic minorities are fully included in the 
governing process, until this process reflects true democratic 
principles, this convention should be shunned--shunned--by the 
international community. A sham constitutional process is a step 
backwards, not forward.
  With that said, there are some encouraging signs. International 
pressure on the Burmese regime has begun to increase. Members of the 
Association of Southeast Asia Nations have expressed concern about the 
SPDC's behavior, and much like the ICRC's condemnation, recent 
statements of ASEAN members represent a departure from traditional 
practice. Clearly, there is growing international impatience with the 
Burmese regime.
  I am proud to say that the United States has long been at the 
vanguard of the movement to democratize Burma. Others, such as ASEAN, 
are following our lead. They are beginning to recognize the moral 
imperative to help the people of this beleaguered nation.
  I am also proud of the continued unified stance taken by the Senate 
over the years with respect to Burma. On Monday, the Senate Finance 
Committee voted out this bill unanimously. The legislation has 60 
cosponsors and once again enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  I am pleased to be joined again by my good friend and cosponsor, the 
senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. I also thank Rich 
Harper of her staff for all the hard work he has put forward to make 
this legislation possible. On the Republican side, my good friend 
Senator McCain continues to use his respected voice to support the 
Burmese people.
  It is time for the Senate, once again, to go on record and show that 
we stand with the people of Burma. As we do, we can be confident of 
their gratitude.
  In a recent book on the plight of the Burmese people by author Emma 
Larkin, a Burmese man urges outside nations to keep the pressure on. 
``Change has to come from outside,'' he says. ``The world must pinch 
Burma harder. . . . Give any money to these generals and it is like 
watching a poisonous plant grow.''
  Let's show that we stand for freedom and against oppression, for real 
democratic progress and against hollow promises of reform, against the 
poisonous plant that is the SPDC.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to support adoption of this joint 
resolution.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays for when we ultimately 
get back to the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to address two issues this 
afternoon. Before I do, I say to the Republican leader that I will 
gladly support his joint resolution. I spent time in Burma. I have 
observed the situation on the ground. We do need to engage Burma and 
assist in its movement toward better political conditions, but I 
believe sanctions are clearly appropriate.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Webb are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any time 
remaining in the quorum call be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, 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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Darfur

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I return to the floor to discuss the 
ongoing genocide in Darfur. Most of the discussion on the floor of the 
Senate and in Congress for the last several weeks has been about Iraq, 
and appropriately so, yet the time spent dealing with the failed policy 
in Iraq is a stark reminder of how it also distracts us from so many 
other critical issues around the world. One issue in particular is the 
4-year humanitarian tragedy in the Darfur region of Sudan.
  Sadly, in front of the global community's eyes, we have witnessed 
unspeakable horror--mass killings, rape,

[[Page 20187]]

torture, the torching of homes and entire villages. The estimates of 
death are wide ranging, from 200,000 to 400,000. Some 2\1/2\ million 
people have been displaced from their homes, and there is a mounting 
refugee crisis in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic.
  Despite a worldwide call for action, the tragedy continues. The 
genocide in Sudan is becoming increasingly complicated and tragic. The 
violence threatens to destabilize an entire region, and without change 
there is little end in sight. Today, we have an important opportunity 
to break the cycle of violence, an opportunity that we must seize.
  After years of duplicity and stalling, Sudanese President Bashir 
agreed last month to a significantly expanded joint United Nations-
African Union peacekeeping force. We have to seize that opportunity and 
seize it quickly. Unfortunately, there are already disturbing signs 
this window may be closing. Yesterday, the Washington Post covered a 
visit by President Bashir to the Darfur section of his country. 
President Bashir said that people there were ``living normal lives;'' 
that only 9,000 people had died and that ``most of Darfur is now secure 
and enjoying real peace.'' He rejected foreign intervention in the 
conflict.
  This crisis has gone on long enough. Over 2 years ago, President Bush 
declared a genocide in Darfur. Secretary of State Colin Powell joined 
in that chorus. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also agreed. And 
the President said: Not on my watch--remembering the horror of Rwanda, 
where 800,000 people died in a genocide during the Clinton 
administration. President Clinton did not respond at that time, has 
regretted it ever since, and said so publicly. President Bush said the 
same thing would not happen in his administration. I have reminded the 
President now several times on the floor of the Senate and personally 
that his administration is coming to an end. If he is going to do 
anything about the crisis and genocide in Darfur, he needs to move and 
move quickly.
  The need is simple: rapid deployment of a full peacekeeping force. We 
have seen this type of urgency with other peacekeeping forces, 
including last year in Lebanon, and we must act with similar speed for 
the people, the victims, suffering in Darfur.
  Last week, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and I had a good 
conversation. He returned my call on the telephone and we spoke for a 
few minutes. We talked about the importance of rapidly deploying a new 
peacekeeping force and of working toward a long-term political 
settlement in this region. It is my hope that our United States 
Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, will work closely 
with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to make these steps a reality.
  The U.N. Security Council will be meeting soon to authorize this 
force. The Security Council should be firm in its mandate and its 
timeline.
  The needs are clear. The force must have sufficient resources and 
numbers. We can help. The United States has resources set aside for 
peacekeeping efforts in the world. I can't think of many more pressing 
than the genocide in Darfur. If we are not providing soldiers, we 
certainly need to be providing resources.
  It must have a strong chapter VII mandate for protecting civilians, 
peacekeepers, and humanitarian workers. Some of these nongovernmental 
organizations, these humanitarian workers, have been the victims of the 
violence in Darfur. Men and women who are risking their lives to 
provide the basic necessities of life have been the targets themselves, 
for the jingaweit militia and all the violence taking place there. This 
U.N. force must have a clear command-and-control structure and firm 
timetable. It should be clear day-to-day operational instructions come 
from the United Nations. The U.N. mandate must set benchmarks and hold 
the Sudanese Government accountable for any failure to cooperate. In 
particular, there should be no room for further stalling or 
reinterpretation by the Sudanese Government. We have been blindsided 
too many times by President Bashir of Sudan, who has said so many times 
there is no problem in Darfur; you can bring in a force; no, I have 
changed my mind.
  As this man has weaved back and forth, more and more innocent people 
have died and been displaced from their homes. We must match this 
peacekeeping force with a renewed diplomatic effort to bring about a 
long-term political settlement, including naming a Special 
Representative of the Secretary General to monitor implementation of a 
comprehensive peace agreement.
  The force must be deployed immediately. The notion that we are going 
to do this months from now is unacceptable.
  Finally, we need a long-term political settlement to match the 
peacekeeping effort. I call on the United States, the United Nations, 
and the African Union to continue intensive negotiations with all 
parties.
  I also strongly urge all parties, including those representing 
nonsignatory Darfur rebel movements, to participate fully in the U.N.-
African Union-led negotiations and to tirelessly cooperate in the 
effort to bring about a political solution that will return peace and 
stability to the people of Darfur.
  Those who choose not to participate leave themselves open to further 
international isolation and sanction. Each day we delay on peacekeeping 
and political settlement efforts leads to more death, more rape, more 
human suffering, more people displaced from their homes, more desperate 
refugees. Each day we delay, the crisis becomes more complex, with 
increased violence and numbers of refugees spilling over into 
neighboring countries creating burdens and instabilities there. Each 
day we delay gives President Bashir another opportunity to stall and 
back away from his commitment. Each day we delay is a further 
indictment of the global community's failure to act decisively in the 
face of genocide.
  We must not wait another day. Let us not forget the major export of 
Sudan is oil. The major company in Sudan that is drilling the oil and 
exporting it is PetroChina, a company controlled by the Chinese 
Government. The Chinese need to be involved in this as well, first at 
the United Nations and then beyond.
  A few weeks ago, after an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal 
written by Mia Farrow, the actress, the Chinese finally responded and 
made some overtures toward the Bashir Government, saying they had to 
act. We have not heard anything since.
  It is time for the Chinese to step up. If they want to be part of 
this global community, they should stand on the side of civilized 
conduct. They should condemn the genocide in Darfur and do more.
  In closing, I thank President Bush, Secretary General Ban, and U.N. 
Ambassador Khalilzad. I want them to know there is strong support in 
the Congress for swift action to field this peacekeeping force. Many of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken out for years on 
the need to do more to halt the genocide in Darfur. We will and we must 
continue to focus this concern on doing everything we can to halt this 
genocide.
  I hope we have an active voice and role in this debate in the Senate. 
Yes, we can do many things--our legislative business--but not ignoring 
the rest of the world. I hope, in the next 2 weeks, we can take action 
on the floor to adopt resolutions and to make it clear, on a bipartisan 
basis, we want the U.N. peacekeeping force to act and act quickly in 
response.
  We should also be working with the Ambassadors from countries that 
are represented in the African Union, as well as those on the Security 
Council, to reassure them that the United States wants swift action. We 
need to make sure our appropriations bills reflect the need for 
resources to make this a success. As the President said more than 2 
years ago, ``Not on my watch.'' We in the Congress, we in the Senate, 
should say the same, and we should follow that statement with action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

[[Page 20188]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois on his remarks. Not only were they heartfelt but 
they were certainly cogent and certainly correct.
  My warmest congratulations to the, Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I come to speak to the passage of 
the joint resolution renewing the import sanctions on Burma for another 
year. This legislation has been introduced for several years now by 
Senator McConnell and myself. I began working on this issue with 
Senator Bill Cohen a long time ago when he was in this body.
  Yesterday, the House passed the joint resolution by voice vote and 
the Senate Finance Committee reported the McConnell-Feinstein bill to 
the Senate floor on a unanimous bipartisan basis, so I urge my 
colleagues to pass this resolution.
  These sanctions are set to expire in 2 days, that is July 26, and any 
delay will only serve to benefit the ruling military junta in Burma--
the State Peace and Development Council is its name--at the expense of 
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and leader of the National League for 
Democracy Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.
  I remind my colleagues that the National League for Democracy, headed 
by Aung San Suu Kyi, decisively won the last parliamentary elections in 
1989. These sanctions will be renewed for 1 year, so we will have a 
chance to discuss them in a year if the military junta should decide to 
make some reforms. But, simply put, the junta to date has failed to 
take any meaningful steps to release Suu Kyi and other political 
prisoners. There are over a thousand political prisoners many of her 
political party, elected to the Parliament, who remain in prison.
  Last month, we celebrated the 62nd birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi. She 
spent her day, as she has for most of her past 17 years, alone and 
under house arrest--17 long years alone in a house in Burma, with no 
communication with the outside world. In May, the State Peace and 
Development Council renewed her sentence for yet another year.
  I am heartened to know the Senate and the international community are 
coming together to ensure the abuses and injustices of the military 
junta in Burma do not go unnoticed.
  Earlier this year, 45 Senators signed a letter to U.N. Secretary Ban 
Ki-moon, urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu 
Kyi's release. In a recent letter addressed to the State Peace and 
Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of State, 
including former Filipino President Corazon Aquino, former Czech 
President Vaclav Havel, former British Prime Minister John Major, and 
former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, 
called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted 
that:

       Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma but 
     rather peaceful, nonviolent dialog between the military, 
     National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.

  What kind of threat can that be to a government? The calls for Suu 
Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's neighbors. The Association 
of Southwest Asian Nations, known as ASEAN, now recognizes that Burma's 
actions are not an internal matter but a significant threat to peace 
and stability in the region. At a meeting of senior diplomats last 
month, ASEAN made a clear call for Aung San Suu Kyi's release. That 
call is so welcome. I would like to encourage ASEAN to continue to 
speak out.
  Last month, the women of the Senate--and you were one, Madam 
President--came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma, to 
express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, to call for her immediate release 
and urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma.
  We did not do this in vain. The United Nations did pass a resolution 
earlier this year, but unfortunately it was vetoed by China and Russia. 
At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady 
Laura Bush, who added her own voice to those calling for peace and 
democracy in Burma.
  Our message is spreading and it is clear and we will not remain 
silent. We will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all 
political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored 
in Burma. Let us not forget that this human rights situation compels us 
to action. Consider this: There are still 1,300 political prisoners in 
jail. According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, over 3,000 villages 
have been destroyed by the military junta; 70,000 child soldiers have 
been forcibly recruited; and over half a million people are internally 
displaced in Burma today; and over 1 million people have fled Burma in 
the past two decades, destabilizing Burma's neighbors.
  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. Burma is the world's second largest opium 
producer, after Afghanistan, and increasingly a source of trafficking 
of synthetic narcotics.
  Sanctions are not a panacea for every problem, and in many cases they 
don't work, but in this instance, we still hope they can be effective. 
Suu Kyi herself has said this:

       We would like the world to know that economic sanctions do 
     not hurt the common people of Burma. We would like the 
     European Community, the United States and the rest of the 
     world to be aware that sanctions do help the movement for 
     democracy in Burma.

  Members of this body, this is an amazing woman, a Nobel Peace Prize 
winner, under house arrest for the better part of 17 years because her 
party was democratically elected to lead Burma. We should speak out. 
This resolution is one way of doing that.
  I urge its passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of 
H.J. Res. 44, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This legislation 
will send a strong message to the military leaders of Burma, by 
renewing sanctions on their repressive regime.
  As cochairman of the Senate Women's Caucus on Burma, I have closely 
monitored the political situation in that country, including the 
inspiring leadership of a brave Burmese woman named Aung San Suu Kyi. A 
former winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Aung San Suu Kyi has dedicated 
her life for the cause of democracy in her country, including spending 
most of the last 17 years in detention.
  I have been proud to stand with the other women of the Senate on 
behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi. In May 2007, I joined with Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Collins, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Stabenow, and 
First Lady Laura Bush at a press event to show our concern for Aung San 
Suu Kyi, and the need for the U.S. Government to stand in solidarity 
with the people of Burma.
  By passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we are reengaging 
on this vitally important issue, but we can do, and must do, more. The 
U.S. should use its influence with the international community to put 
more pressure on the Burmese to stop the murder, oppression and 
imprisonment of its critics.
   I know that Aung San Suu Kyi--and the people of Burma--will applaud 
this landmark legislation. I am proud to cosponsor it, and I urge my 
Senate colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to offer a few comments on H.J. 
Res. 44, 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, subject to annual renewal by Congress.
  As Senator Baucus and I noted after the Senate passed that 
legislation, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act

[[Page 20189]]

contains a guarantee of ongoing congressional oversight. We felt it was 
important that the Congress revisit the issue of trade sanctions on 
Burma each year. That way, Congress can consider whether, in light of 
any changed circumstances, it is appropriate to renew the ban on 
Burmese imports for another year.
  Unfortunately, the situation in Burma has not improved. The human 
rights record in Burma remains extremely poor. There is a pattern of 
government policies that suppress liberties. The abuses have been 
extensive and the trend continues to worsen. There are reportedly over 
1,000 political-prisoners in jail. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has spent 11 
out the past 18 years under house arrest.
  In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a 
resolution expressing its grave concern over human rights violations in 
Burma. In addition, Burma poses serious risks to peace and security in 
the region. This is not the time to reward the bad actions of the 
illegitimate Burmese Government.
  We should send a strong signal to the military junta that their 
ongoing behavior is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of continuing the trade sanctions against Burma for another year.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, ``Do what you can, with what you have, 
where you are.'' These essential principles for action, articulated by 
President Theodore Roosevelt, aptly apply to America's sanctions policy 
against the Burmese Government.
  Four years ago, Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy 
Act of 2003 in response to the Burmese junta's brutal crackdown on 
democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers. At the time, 
there were few options available to the Congress to change events in 
Burma. Congress did what it could with the tools available at that 
time.
  Tragically, 4 years later, conditions in Burma have worsened. Suu Kyi 
remains under house arrest, which she has endured for most of the last 
two decades. The junta continues to commit gross human rights 
violations including extrajudicial killings, rape, and torture. 
Security forces continue to compel citizens into forced labor, and beat 
and abuse prisoners. And the junta's poor economic policies have made 
Burma one of the most impoverished countries in Asia.
  When Congress considered the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act in 
2003, I expressed reservations about whether these new sanctions would 
have the desired effect. Too often, unilateral sanctions only worsen 
the plight of the oppressed people we seek to support. Too often, they 
fail to weaken the tyrannical governments at which they are targeted. 
That is why Senator Grassley and I worked together to ensure that the 
import sanctions would not be open-ended. We agreed to revisit the ban 
on an annual basis to ensure that they remain the proper policy to 
address America's human rights concerns with Burma.
  Over the last year, we have seen limited progress in our efforts to 
enlist the cooperation of Burma's trading partners to isolate the 
regime. The European Union has renewed its sanctions against Burma. 
Some ASEAN-member countries, which previously declined to publicly 
criticize the Burmese Government, are now calling for change. But none 
of these measures yet amounts to a unified and forceful deterrent to 
Burma's ruling military junta.
  Democracy, national reconciliation, and respect for human rights in 
Burma can only be achieved if we enlist more than just the moral 
support of other countries. We must enlist Burma's trading partners, 
particularly its neighbors, to take more concrete actions that put real 
economic and political pressure on the military generals. I urge the 
administration to intensify its efforts to garner international 
cooperation to isolate the junta. I will support renewal of the import 
ban on Burma, because I am hopeful that we will see greater progress in 
the year ahead. In renewing the import ban on Burma, I believe we will 
follow the right course of action: to do what we can, with the best 
tools available, where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read 
the joint resolution for the third time.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res 44) was ordered to a third reading and 
was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Enzi
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brownback
     Burr
     Clinton
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
  The resolution (H.J. Res. 44) was passed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________