[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13798-13800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 83, which the 
clerk will state by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) approving the renewal of 
     import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and 
     Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, all time 
is yielded back, except for 20 minutes, with the time equally divided 
and controlled between the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the 
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, or their designees.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today the Senate considers extension of 
economic sanctions against the Burmese regime. The Senate should pass 
this resolution.
  Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy leader 
in Burma, said ``the people in Burma are like prisoners in their own 
country.''
  Dr. Suu Kyi, herself, remains, quite literally, a prisoner. The 
Burmese regime has kept her under house arrest on trumped up charges 
for 14 of the last 20 years.
  She persists in her dream of freedom and democracy for Burma. By 
extending economic sanctions against the Burmese regime, we hope to 
make that dream a reality.
  The Burmese regime seems intent on keeping its people in chains. 
According to the State Department, the regime continues to conscript 
children into the military and engage them in forced labor. It 
continues to violate freedoms of expression, assembly, association, 
movement, and religion. It continues to use murder, abduction, rape, 
and torture against its opponents.
  I have often questioned whether unilateral trade sanctions are the 
best path. But several trading partners--including the European Union, 
Canada, and Australia--have joined us in imposing sanctions against 
Burma. The State Department has found that these sanctions have made it 
more difficult and costly for the Burmese regime to profit from 
imprisoning its people.
  Let us stand with the Burmese people. Let us seek to free them from 
their captivity, and let us renew these sanctions.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today our colleagues will vote on 
H.J. Res. 83, which would extend sanctions on the Burma regime for 
another year. As in years past, I am joined in this effort by my good 
friend, Senator Dianne

[[Page 13799]]

Feinstein. Alongside the 2 of us are 66 other cosponsors, including 
Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and Lieberman.
  This overwhelming bipartisan support for sanctioning the junta 
reflects the clear view of more than two-thirds of the Senate that the 
generals currently ruling Burma should be denied the legitimacy they 
are pursuing through this year's sham elections.
  Renewing sanctions against the military regime in Burma is as timely 
and as important as ever. The ruling State Peace and Development 
Council is continuing its efforts to try to stand up a farcical new 
Constitution by holding bogus elections. These elections--whenever they 
take place--will be dubious for a number of reasons. First, the junta 
continues to imprison Nobel Peace Prize laureate and prodemocracy 
leader Aung San Suu Kyi. The generals have made it clear they will 
prevent her from participating in any government under the new 
Constitution.
  Second, the military leadership effectively forced Suu Kyi's party, 
which overwhelmingly won the last Democratic election way back in 1990, 
to shutter its operation.
  Third, the Burmese electoral watchdog, which is essentially an arm of 
the SPDC, recently issued rules on campaigning that are ludicrous on 
their very face. For instance, they prohibit a variety of 
electioneering activities such as organizing marches, holding flags, 
and chanting slogans.
  As if things in Burma on the election front were not alarming enough, 
the potential security threat posed by the regime has become 
increasingly worrisome. The last several months have continued to 
produce press reports of ties between Burma and North Korea, including 
particularly alarming indications of alleged weapons transfers from 
Pyongyang.
  I am hopeful the time will soon come when sanctions against the 
Burmese Government will no longer be needed and that, as did South 
Africa in the early 1990s, the people of Burma will be able to free 
themselves from their own government. However, as recent events 
indicate, the Burmese junta maintains its iron grip on its people and 
continues to carry out a foreign policy that is inimical to U.S. 
objectives.
  For these reasons, the United States must deny this regime the 
legitimacy it so craves and await the day when the Burmese people will 
be permitted to govern their own affairs.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I will speak briefly on the 
resolution.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield such time as the Senator from California may use.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I wish to give just a little history 
to back up this resolution.
  In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation, 
which required the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma, if he 
determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, 
rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale 
repression or violence against the democratic opposition. In fact, at 
that time, Secretary Albright met with the ASEAN nations and tried to 
encourage them to be of help. They were of no help, so the President, 
by Executive order, then instituted this investment ban.
  In 2003, after the regime or some of its quislings attempted to 
assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi when she was on a march in the center of 
the country, 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. That is 
essentially what we are doing today. It was signed into law and has 
been renewed 1 year at a time since then.
  I became involved in this struggle for peace and democracy in no 
small part due to the courage and valor of this wonderful woman. I 
think I admire her as much as any woman in the world. Her message of 
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law continues to inspire not 
only her fellow citizens but people all over this great world, with her 
courage and her resolve in the face of constant oppression.
  For the past two decades, Burma's despotic military rulers have 
engaged in a campaign of persecution against Aung San Suu Kyi, 
tarnishing her image wherever they could, unjustly convicting her of 
violating an illegitimate house arrest last year, and extending her 
unlawful detention.
  She has spent the better part of 20 years under house arrest. She has 
not seen her two sons who live in the United Kingdom for years. She was 
not permitted to visit her husband when he was dying of cancer in the 
United Kingdom.
  Yet Aung San Suu Kyi remains resolute in her dedication to the 
pursuit of peaceful national reconciliation, as do the members of her 
political party, the National League for Democracy.
  Now, more than ever, the people of Burma need to know that we stand 
by them and support their vision of a free and democratic Burma.
  On May 6, her party, the National League for Democracy, closed its 
doors. Let me be clear. They did not shut down of their own free will; 
it was forced to disband by an unjust and undemocratic constitution and 
election law, both drafted in secret and behind closed doors by the 
ruling military junta.
  Under the terms of the new constitution, 25 percent of the seats must 
be set aside for the military. Think about that for a moment. Before 
any vote has been cast, the military is guaranteed one-quarter of the 
seats in the new 440-member house of representatives.
  How will this new institution be any different from the current 
military regime?
  If that isn't enough to raise doubts about the military's commitment 
to a truly representative government, it should also be pointed out 
that the regime's Prime Minister, Thein Sein, and 22 Cabinet Ministers 
resigned from the army to form a new civilian political party, the 
Union Solidarity and Development Party.
  Any seats won by this new party in the upcoming election will be in 
addition to the 25 percent set aside for active military members.
  Does anyone truly believe the regime has embraced democracy and the 
concept of civilian rule? Unfortunately, it will be business as usual 
for the people of Burma and the democratic opposition.
  What about Suu Kyi and her National League of Democracy--winners of 
the last free parliamentary election in 1990? First, earlier this year, 
the regime, which has not allowed the party, the NLD, to assume power, 
officially annulled its victory in the 1990 parliamentary elections, 
which would have made Suu Kyi the head of the Burmese Government.
  Second, under the new constitution, Suu Kyi is barred from running in 
any future election.
  Why is this? What has she done to deserve this?
  Well, in 2009, an American swam across the lake to her house, 
uninvited, and remained there for 2 days. She did not know this man. 
She had never communicated with this man. She had nothing to do with 
him, but he was obviously exhausted after swimming across the lake, and 
he remained in her house for 2 days. She was then arrested and 
convicted for allowing him to remain in her house, which, according to 
the regime, violated the terms of her house arrest.
  Because of this conviction, she cannot participate in this or any 
future election under the new constitution. So here is the only 
democratically elected leader--elected 20 years ago--under house arrest 
for the better part of those 20 years. She survived an assassination 
attempt. She is ostracized and kept from any interaction with her 
political colleagues or her family and, finally, she can never run for 
any office again.
  As a result, the NLD was faced with a clear choice: either kick Aung 
San Suu Kyi out of the party and participate in the election or face 
extinction.
  It should come as no surprise that the party refused to turn its back 
on Suu Kyi and give its stamp of approval to the regime's sham 
constitution and electoral law.

[[Page 13800]]

  I applaud their courage and their devotion to democracy, human 
rights, and the rule of law.
  I am saddened to see the regime close its doors, but the spirit and 
principles of this party will live on in the hearts and minds of its 
people. I know that, one day, they will be able to elect a truly 
representative government.
  As Tin Oo, NLD's deputy leader and former political prisoner, said:

       We do not feel sad. We have honor. One day, we will come 
     back; we will be reincarnated by the will of the people.

  This is a clear message to the regime that an illegitimate 
constitution and election law cannot suppress the unyielding democratic 
aspirations of the people of Burma.
  We must send our own signal to the regime that its quest for 
legitimacy has failed. We must send a signal to the democratic 
opposition that we stand in solidarity with them, and we will not 
abandon them.
  I also thank former First Lady Laura Bush, who joined with virtually 
all the women of the Senate to hold a press conference back in 2007. 
Mrs. Bush was willing to use her First Lady status to support this 
cause. I think it is a gesture that will not be forgotten by any of us.
  Now is the time to renew the import ban on all products from Burma 
for another year. The regime has taken many steps in the wrong 
direction.
  I live for the time when this military junta will recognize that 
keeping this brave woman under house arrest, absent any interconnection 
with any of the people of her party or of her country for 20 years, is 
an unjust penalty.
  Simply put, we still have hope. Hopefully, the military junta, as 
they are called, will one day recognize that Burma should be a free and 
democratic nation and that an election should be open to all people and 
all runners. Then the opportunity for major change and recognition of 
the people of Burma in the Council of Nations will take place.
  I regret very much that we have to do this for another year. I am 
grateful to Senator McConnell for joining me over the years, as 
annually this has been recognized and a vote has been taken to continue 
the sanctions.


                                  NLD

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise for a colloquy with my 
colleague, the senior Senator from California, to discuss 
interpretation of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, as amended.
  I ask my Democratic colleague, who is the lead cosponsor of this 
legislation, is it her understanding that the prodemocracy National 
League for Democracy party has officially decided to boycott the 
upcoming 2010 Burmese elections.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is. The National League for Democracy in 
March of this year indicated it could not participate in the elections 
due to the junta's repressive election law. It therefore declined to 
register as a political party and consequently under the new law was 
abolished as a political party in early May.
  Mr. McCONNELL. In light of the NLD's boycott of the elections and its 
consequent dissolution under Burmese law, is it my friend's 
understanding that the NLD may be driven underground as a result of its 
decision or be forced to reconstitute itself in some other capacity?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is. The NLD has indicated it will try to 
continue to help the Burmese people in ways other than as a legally 
registered political party.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it the understanding of the senior Senator from 
California that the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, as amended by 
the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, makes several references to the 
``National League for Democracy''?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, it is. There are several such references in the 
legislation as amended.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it also the Senator's understanding that references 
to the ``National League for Democracy'' should be interpreted to 
include any appropriate successor entity to the NLD, be it a 
nongovernmental organization or some other comparable group?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. It is my view the proper statutory construction 
given the term ``National League for Democracy'' would be to include 
any appropriate successor entity, group or subgroups that the NLD may 
form in the future.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend for clarifying this matter. It 
appears that both cosponsors are in full agreement on the proper means 
of interpreting this term.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are going to vote momentarily. In the 
meantime, I thank the Senator from California for her steadfast support 
to the cause of justice and for supporting this resolution and taking 
up the cause of Aung San Suu Kyi. I don't know of anybody else in this 
body--and Senator McConnell has been forthright in his support, but I 
want people to know how strongly the Senator from California has been 
an advocate for Aung San Suu Kyi, and I deeply appreciate it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back, both minority and majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The joint resolution 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, shall it pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) was passed.

                          ____________________