[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7250-7255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSON:
  S. 3310. A bill to designate certain wilderness areas in the National 
Forest System in the State of South Dakota; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to 
protect the Cheyenne River Valley in the Buffalo Gap National 
Grassland. My bill will establish the first National Grassland 
wilderness area in the United States and provide the public with a 
unique experience to enjoy these public lands.
  The Cheyenne River Valley in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland 
includes some of the finest prairie wilderness in the United States. 
Located among isolated buttes and the wide Cheyenne River Valley, these 
lands remain largely isolated and in the form that the Native people 
who first inhabited these lands would recognize.
  The lands of the Cheyenne River Valley--Indian Creek, Red Shirt and 
Chalk Hills--exhibit the characteristics of undisturbed, wild lands. 
Consistent with their natural character, the U.S. Forest Service 
identified these lands for inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation 
System. In fact, since 2002, the Indian Creek and Red Shirt areas have 
been managed by the Forest Service to preserve their wilderness 
qualities, including a prohibition on motorized traffic that created 
one of the largest roadless areas in the Great Plains. My legislation 
builds off the Forest Service recommendation in a manner consistent 
with the history and purposes of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland.
  These lands also support livestock grazing, a productive use and 
integral part of managing the health and sustainability of native 
grassland. My bill safeguards existing grazing, consistent with the 
Wilderness Act, by directing the Forest Service to allow for the 
continuation of grazing.
  By designating a portion of the Cheyenne River Valley as wilderness, 
it is possible to protect its undeveloped character from encroaching 
motorized recreation while providing hunters, rock collectors, campers 
and hikers a new way to enjoy prairie grasslands.
  The public benefits from enjoying a variety of experiences on our 
public lands. These lands provide food and fiber and are a natural 
asset to be responsibly and sustainably managed. America's grasslands, 
with millions of acres of rangeland, can also sustain other purposes, 
including the solitude and primitive character of wilderness. 
Establishing a first-of-its-kind grasslands wilderness fills a long 
overlooked gap and completes the unique history and varied landscapes 
of our National Grasslands.
  I have named this bill in honor of my friend and a great advocate for 
South Dakotan's open spaces, the late Tony Dean. It is his words in 
describing the purposes of creating a grasslands wilderness bill that I 
turn to for the best explanation for why this bill is necessary. Tony 
said:

       Let's relate wilderness from the perspective of a hunter. 
     It does not take a rocket scientist among hunters to 
     recognize that once the opening salvo takes place on opening 
     morning of the big game seasons, no matter where you live, 
     the best hunting is almost always found far from the nearest 
     road.

  That sentiment is what, in part, this legislation is aimed at 
creating: a place held from competition of multiple uses and 
development, a place where the public and future generations can enjoy 
a unique wilderness experience found in few places outside my great 
State.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 3311. A bill to improve and enhance the capabilities of the 
Department of Defense to prevent and respond to sexual assault in the 
Armed Forces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the increasing 
number of sexual assaults in the U.S. military. Not only is sexual 
assault a crime that is incompatible with military service, but it also 
undermines core values, degrades military readiness, subverts good will 
and forever changes the lives of victims and their families.
  We know from the Defense Department's 2009 Report on Sexual Assault 
in the Military that the number of reported sexual assaults in the 
military increased substantially last year--a trend that has continued 
for the last couple of years.
  Unfortunately, according to the Pentagon, we also know that while 
improvements have been made, the number of sexual assaults in the 
military actually reported is far below the estimated number of 
assaults that have actually occurred in the military. It is estimated 
that only 10 to 20 percent of sexual assaults in the military are 
actually reported.
  Obviously, more needs to be done. That is why I have introduced the 
Defense, Sexual Trauma Response and Good Governance, STRONG Act of 
2010. This legislation builds on many of the commonsense solutions that 
were included in the December 2009 Report on Sexual Assault in the 
Military, a report from the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the 
Military Services.
  The Defense STRONG Act of 2010 would guarantee legal counsel from a 
Judge Advocate General to all sexual assault victims, whether or not 
they file restricted or unrestricted reports. Currently, anyone who 
files a restricted report cannot seek legal counsel. Seeking legal 
counsel triggers an investigation, which, in turn, makes that report 
unrestricted--that is, it is no longer confidential and the chain of 
command is notified.
  A directive issued by the Department of Defense in 2005 omitted Judge 
Advocate Generals and civilian lawyers trained in military law from the 
list of individuals that a victim can seek guidance and assistance 
from. The only individuals on the list are Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators, SARCs, Victim Advocates, VAs, health care personnel, and 
chaplains--none of whom are likely to have legal training. But it is my 
belief that the victim of a sexual assault should have the right to 
legal counsel no matter what.
  In its report, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the 
Military Services also found that victims are not offered appropriate 
privileged communications. The report noted that there are 35 states 
that currently have a privilege for communications between Victim 
Advocates and victims of sexual assault. However, because no privilege 
exists in military proceedings, defense counsel are able to identify 
Victim Advocates as a potential defense witness in a court-martial. 
There have been multiple occasions in which information was obtained 
from Victim Advocates in court-martial proceedings and used to try to 
undermine the credibility of a victim with cross examinations 
highlighting inconsistencies in prior statements.

[[Page 7251]]

  There are certain roles that I believe are inherently governmental 
and certainly one is the role of Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, 
which should be filled by either a uniformed servicemember or a DoD 
civilian employee, not a contractor. The Defense Task Force on Sexual 
Assault in the Military Services agreed. So this legislation would 
require one Sexual Assault Response Coordinator per brigade, filled by 
either a full-time military servicemember or a DoD civilian employee.
  Moreover, this legislation also would require that Victim Advocates 
be either a uniformed servicemember or a DoD civilian employee. At the 
battalion level, there are usually two part time Victim Advocates. The 
Defense STRONG Act would require that there be at least one-full time 
Victim Advocate at each battalion, or battalion equivalent.
  Another issue that has long plagued the DoD's ability to adequately 
respond to and prevent sexual assaults in the military is the lack of 
standardization amongst the services. The Defense STRONG Act would 
require the DoD to standardize much of their certification programs in 
a manner modeled after the Defense Equal Opportunity Management 
Institute, training Sexual Assault Response Coordinators as well as 
Victim Advocates. Standardization and professionalization would 
drastically impact readiness.
  This legislation would also require the Department of Defense to 
develop modules specific to each level of Professional Military 
Education. By doing so, we could ensure that military leadership is 
aware of all available resources. This provision would also encourage 
the Department of Defense to craft each level of Professional Military 
Education to the level of responsibility as military leadership get 
promoted.
  Elevating the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Office to the Senior Executive Service level was another recommendation 
put forth by the Defense Task Force Report. A senior leader in this 
office is necessary in order to obtain resources and provide the 
attention this issue requires, much like the Defense Military Equal 
Opportunity Office and the Office of Military and Community Family 
Policy. Leadership at the senior level has already proven instrumental 
in helping advance the DoD's efforts in overcoming domestic violence 
and discrimination and could be just as helpful in combating sexual 
assaults.
  While there is no magic formula for solving a problem that has long 
plagued the Department of Defense, I believe these provisions will 
strengthen the DoD's ability to respond to cases of sexual assault and 
prevent future cases from occurring.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 3313. A bill to withdraw certain land located in Clark County, 
Nevada from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and 
disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing 
or mineral materials, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sloan Hills 
Withdrawal Act of 2010.
  Over the past year, I have been contacted by thousands of people in 
southern Nevada who have voiced serious concerns about a proposed 
aggregate mining operation that would be located on federal land very 
near Henderson, Nevada. I have a simple goal with the legislation that 
I am introducing today. My bill will stop the development of the 
proposed 640-acre gravel pit by withdrawing the area from location, 
entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under all laws 
pertaining to mineral materials. In short, this legislation makes sure 
that the proposed gravel operations at Sloan Hills will not go forward.
  The Bureau of Land Management, BLM, is currently evaluating a 
proposal for a major gravel operation at the site in question. If 
approved, the resulting mine would blast rock, crush gravel, kick up 
dust, and consume precious water resources up to 24 hours a day, every 
day, for 30 years. This would all be done just a few miles from 
numerous Henderson neighborhoods.
  Citizens from all over Clark County have rallied against this project 
because of its potential effect on the health of residents and the toll 
that the blasting other operations would have on an otherwise peaceful 
community. Because this project would be on Federal land local 
governments are limited in their ability to influence the outcome of 
the Sloan Hills proposal. It is clear to all of us, though, that the 
proposed location for this gravel quarry is not in the best interest of 
our community.
  One of the major points of concern raised by Henderson residents is 
the large clouds of fine particulate matter that would be generated by 
mining activities at the Sloan Hills site. The dust kicked up by the 
proposed gravel operation would undoubtedly complicate the current air 
quality challenges in the Las Vegas Valley and would be particularly 
troublesome for members of nearby, age-restricted communities that have 
seniors already suffering from respiratory problems. Blasting and rock-
crushing operations are also expected to generate noise and vibrations 
that will interfere with residents' daily lives.
  This bill is important to me and to the people of southern Nevada. 
Keeping our communities safe and healthy is critical. I appreciate your 
help and I look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking 
Member Murkowski and the other distinguished members of the Senate 
Energy Committee to move this legislation forward in the near future.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

                                S. 3313

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sloan Hills Withdrawal 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF SLOAN HILLS AREA OF CLARK COUNTY, 
                   NEVADA.

       (a) Definition of Federal Land.--In this section, the term 
     ``Federal land'' means the land identified as the 
     ``Withdrawal Zone'' on the map entitled ``Sloan Hills Area'' 
     and dated May 5, 2010.
       (b) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights in existence on 
     the date of introduction of this Act, the Federal land is 
     withdrawn from all forms of--
       (1) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (2) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 
     geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 3315. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to home health services under 
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
from Wisconsin in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access 
Protection Act of 2010, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in 
Medicare home health payment rates.
  Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health 
care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex 
services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to 
keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and 
vulnerable older and disabled persons to avoid hospitals and nursing 
homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security 
of their own homes. Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid 
more costly institutional care, they are saving Medicare millions of 
dollars each year.
  That is why I find it so ironic--and troubling--that the Medicare 
home health benefit continually comes under attack.
  The health care reform bill that was recently signed into law by the 
President includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over the next ten 
years. Moreover, these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come 
on top of $25 billion in additional cuts to home health over the next 
ten years imposed

[[Page 7252]]

by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation.
  These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs 
Medicare less than $18 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it 
certainly is not in the best interest of our Nation's seniors who rely 
on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other 
institutions.
  The payment rate cuts implemented and proposed by CMS are based on 
the assertion that home health agencies have intentionally ``gamed the 
system'' by claiming that their patients have conditions of higher 
clinical severity than they actually have in order to receive higher 
Medicare payments. This unfounded allegation of ``case mix creep'' is 
based on what CMS contends to be an increase in the average clinical 
assessment ``score'' of home health patients over the last few years.
  In fact, there are very real clinical and policy explanations for why 
the average clinical severity of home care patients' health conditions 
may have increased over the years. For example, the incentives built 
into the hospital diagnosis-related group--or DRG--reimbursement system 
have led to the faster discharge of sicker patients. Advances in 
technology and changes in medical practice have also enabled home 
health agencies to treat more complicated medical conditions that 
previously could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or 
inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
  Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the 
board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their 
clinical assessment scores. If an individual home health agency is 
truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not 
penalize everyone.
  The research method, data and findings that CMS has used to justify 
the administrative cuts also raise serious concerns about the validity 
of the payment rate cuts. For example, while changes in the need for 
therapy services significantly affect the case mix ``score,'' the CMS 
research methodology disregards those changes in evaluating whether the 
patient population has changed. Moreover, the method by which CMS 
evaluates changes in case mix coding is not transparent, does not allow 
for true public participation, and is not performed in a manner that 
ensures accountability to Medicare patients and providers in terms of 
its validity and accuracy of outcomes.
  The legislation we are introducing today will establish a reliable 
and transparent process for determining whether payment rate cuts are 
needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring'' that are 
not related to changes in the nature of the patients served in home 
health care or the nature of the care they received. This process will 
still enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact rate 
adjustments provided there is reliable evidence that higher case mix 
scores are resulting from factors other than changes in patient 
conditions. The legislation will also prevent the implementation of 
future Medicare payment rate cuts in home health until the Secretary is 
able to justify the payment cuts through the improved process set forth 
in the bill.
  Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and 
cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts 
will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall 
health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010 
will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to 
have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 3316. A bill provide for flexibility and improvements in 
elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child 
Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined 
in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our 
legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine 
and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind 
Act, NCLB, and provides commonsense reforms in the statute.
  Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet 
with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. 
In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I 
commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation 
issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our 
task force included members from every county in the State and had 
superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, 
business leaders, former state legislators, special education experts, 
assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of 
Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from 
the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development.
  After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final 
report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory 
changes to the act. These recommendations form the basis of the 
legislation that we are introducing today.
  First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in 
the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting state 
education standards. Specifically, it would permit states to use a 
cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of 
students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' 
model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose 
scores improve form, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' 
level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the 
``proficient'' line.
  Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice 
regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to 
identify and work with a particular group of students before being 
identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to 
allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The 
changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts 
and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend 
to occur gradually and over time.
  Third, our legislation would allow the members of a special education 
student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual 
student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment 
to count for all NCLB purposes.
  One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have 
small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup 
size--only 20 students. I was concerned to hear reports that in some 
schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for 
their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute 
explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would 
jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not 
working out in practice.
  This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and 
common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a 
special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone 
knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students 
are referred for special education services precisely because they 
cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to 
determine the best test for each special student will bring an 
important improvement to the Act while still ensuring accountability.
  Fourth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's 
current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 
2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review 
progress by the states toward meeting this goal every three years, and 
would allow him to modify the time-line as necessary.
  Fifth, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of 
multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the 
``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current 
regulations place

[[Page 7253]]

undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach 
multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education 
teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the 
day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for 
one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less 
burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.
  Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater 
flexibility and commonsense modifications to address the key NCLB 
challenges facing Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a 
good education for each and every child; well-qualified, committed 
teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and 
accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization 
process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Dodd):
  S.J. Res. 29. A joint resolution approving the renewal of import 
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
2003; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a joint 
resolution that would renew sanctions against the Burmese junta. As in 
years past, I am joined in this effort by my good friend Senator 
Feinstein. Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and Lieberman are original 
cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation and continue to be leaders on 
the issue.
  Renewing sanctions against the military regime in Burma is as timely 
and as important as ever. Over the past year, the regime has not only 
made clear that it has no intention of reforming, it is also trying to 
stand up a new sham constitution and to legitimize itself in the eyes 
of the world through a sham election. In my view, the United States 
must deny the regime that legitimacy.
  By way of background, a little history is in order. For nearly half a 
century, Burma has been under some kind of military rule, and every 
popular effort to reverse that situation has failed. In 1988, military 
authorities violently put down a popular uprising. Two years later, the 
Burmese people went to the polls and handed an overwhelming victory to 
the prodemocracy opposition, and the junta ignored the results. It 
never seated these popularly elected candidates. It jailed prodemocracy 
leaders, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, and it has maintained its brutal 
rule ever since.
  In response to these events, the United States established on a 
bipartisan basis various sanctions against the Burmese regime. These 
include a 1997 Executive order; the annual import ban, which has been 
renewed annually since 2003; and restrictions on Burmese jade, which 
were enacted in 2008.
  On a number of occasions since 1990, the United States and the U.N. 
have attempted to engage Burma diplomatically. These include, during 
the Clinton administration, a delegation led by Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of State Thomas Hubbard; various efforts by former U.S. 
Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright; and two trips to Burma by 
then-Congressman Bill Richardson in the mid-1990s.
  Other diplomatic efforts included Assistant Secretary of State 
Christopher Hill's ``roadmap'' in 2006, and overtures made by the 
United States through China in 2007. In 2008, ADM Timothy Keating met 
with Burmese officials as part of United States efforts to provide 
humanitarian assistance in the wake of Cyclone Nargis.
  The U.N., for its part, has dispatched a human rights envoy to Burma 
15 times and special envoys 26 times over the past two decades. U.N. 
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has visited Burma on two occasions.
  None of these efforts has yielded anything in the way of reform. 
Indeed, when Burmese citizens, led by Buddhist monks, took to the 
streets in peaceful protest against the government and its policies in 
the fall of 2007, these prodemocracy protesters, much like their 
predecessors, were brutally suppressed.
  Nonetheless, the regime has sought at various times to save face 
internationally. In response to this last major challenge to its 
authority in the fall of 2007, for example, the regime unveiled a 
proposed constitution. But a quick look at the document shows that it 
could scarcely have been less democratic. It precluded Suu Kyi from 
participating in the electoral process and ensured that the charter may 
not be amended without the military's blessing. The noted 
constitutional law professor, David Williams, of Indiana University, 
told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year it was ``one of 
the worst constitutions [he had] ever seen.''
  What is more, the vote to adopt this constitution took place 2 years 
ago in the immediate aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, the worst natural 
disaster in modern Burmese history, and international election 
observers were not permitted access to the country during the vote. If 
the regime was interested in legitimacy, holding a vote such as this in 
the middle of a natural disaster without election observers is not 
exactly the way to do it.
  The results of this vote were roundly condemned, and for good reason. 
Still, despite widespread condemnation of this constitution and the 
circumstances surrounding its adoption, some held out hope that a 
subsequent election law might lead to democratic reform. But those 
hopes were dashed earlier this year when the regime actually issued the 
long-awaited election law. Among other things, the law would force the 
democratic opposition, the National League for Democracy, to expel Suu 
Kyi if the party chose to enter any of its candidates in the upcoming 
national election and it forbids political prisoners and Buddhist monks 
from political participation.
  The deadline for registering candidates and political parties under 
the new law is later this week, and parties that fail to register 
before then will be deemed illegal. In other words, the law's practical 
effect would be to sideline Burma's most prominent democratic reformer 
and force its leading opposition party out of business.
  We also get periodic press reports of ties between Burma and North 
Korea, including a particularly alarming report in recent days about an 
alleged weapons transfer from Pyongyang.
  Last year, the Obama administration initiated a review of United 
States policy with respect to Burma. As a result of that review, the 
administration decided it is time for the United States to take another 
run at engaging the regime. That is why last summer Secretary Clinton 
reportedly proposed to her Burmese counterpart at an international 
conference in Southeast Asia that the United States remove its 
investment ban on Burma in exchange for the unconditional release of 
Suu Kyi. Whatever the merits of this overture, this was a serious offer 
from a high ranking U.S. official aimed at improving bilateral 
relations.
  Yet not only was Secretary Clinton's offer ignored and Suu Kyi not 
freed, the regime actually extended Suu Kyi's detention for another 
year and a half, and several months later, the junta denied her appeal. 
It was shortly after that that the regime released the antidemocratic 
election law I just referred to. So however well intentioned, the 
administration's policy of engagement has, unfortunately, met with the 
same fate as earlier engagement efforts, notwithstanding the fig leaves 
the regime occasionally holds out as supposed proof of its willingness 
to reform.
  Clearly, the regime craves legitimization of its rule. Why else would 
it suddenly move to finalize the constitution it had been working on 
intermittently for 14 years after its rule was challenged by the 
nonviolent Saffron Revolution in the fall of 2007? They did it for the 
same reason they trotted out a transparently flawed election law 
earlier this year: They wanted to provide the appearance of reform 
where there was none. But they cannot have it both ways. If the regime 
wants legitimization, it must show real progress.

       Secretary Clinton's policy review toward Burma concluded 
     that engagement along

[[Page 7254]]

     with sanctions might produce results where sanctions alone 
     had failed. Although we have yet to see any positive results 
     from engagement, the administration itself concedes that 
     sanctions should remain in place. But the administration, to 
     its credit, has been quite candid about the lack of tangible 
     progress by the regime.

  Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell acknowledged as much after 
the release of the Burmese election law. He said:

       [T]he U.S. approach was to try to encourage domestic 
     dialogue between the key stakeholders . . . and the recent 
     promulgation of the election criteria doesn't leave much room 
     for such a dialog.

  It should be noted parenthetically the absence of any tangible result 
from engagement has nothing to do with the work of American diplomats. 
It has everything to do with the type of regime we are dealing with in 
Burma. But, again, the fact remains that no progress--none--has been 
made.
  Legitimacy is the one thing the regime cannot impose by force. But if 
legitimacy is what it wants, a first step would be credible elections. 
At this point there is no reason to believe that is even possible under 
the current constitution, under the current election law, and in the 
current political climate in Burma.
  Renewing sanctions is important because it denies the junta the 
legitimacy it so craves. A sanctions regime says to the junta and the 
world, in no uncertain terms, the United States does not view this 
government as having the support of its citizens. It says the United 
States will not be a party to recognizing the junta's attempts to 
overturn the democratic elections of 1990, the last true expression of 
the Burmese voters.
  Sanctions should remain in place against the junta for the same 
reason the term ``Burma'' is used by friends of democracy instead of 
the junta's chosen name of ``Myanmar''--because Myanmar is the name of 
a government that has not been chosen by its people.
  In short, sanctions should remain in place because lifting sanctions 
would give the regime precisely what it wants; namely, legitimacy.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support sanctions renewal against 
the Burmese regime.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me commend the minority leader for his 
comments on Burma. It was a good education for me here to listen to it. 
I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the 
legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Connecticut.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 29

       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) and section 3A(b)(1) and (c)(1) of the 
     Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today once again with Senator 
McConnell to introduce a joint resolution renewing the ban on all 
imports from Burma for another year.
  We are proud to be joined by Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and 
Lieberman and we look forward to swift action by the Senate, House, and 
the President on this important matter.
  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 6th, the National League for Democracy, NLD, led by Nobel 
Peace Prize Laureate and political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, will 
cease to exist.
  Let me be clear: the NLD is not shutting down out of its own free 
will.
  It is being 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, the State Peace and Development 
Council, SPDC, to solidify its grip on power.
  Let me explain.
  Under the terms of the new constitution, 25 percent of the seats must 
be set aside for the military.
  Think about that: before any vote has been cast, the military is 
guaranteed a 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 is not enough to raise doubts about the military's commitment 
to a truly representative government, it should also be pointed out 
that last week 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 elections will be 
in addition to the 25 percent set aside for active military members.
  Does anyone really 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 elections in 1990?
  First, last month, the regime, which never allowed the NLD to assume 
power, officially annulled its 1990 victory.
  Second, under the new constitution, as a convicted ``criminal'' Suu 
Kyi is barred from running in the elections.
  Finally, under the terms of the election law, in order to participate 
in the upcoming parliamentary elections and remain legally active, a 
political party has to cut ties with any members who are convicted 
criminals.
  Thus, the NLD had to either kick Suu Kyi out of the party and 
participate in the elections or face extinction.
  It should come as no surprise that the NLD refused to turn its back 
on Suu Kyi and give its stamp of approval to the regime's sham 
constitution and electoral law.
  I applaud their courage and their devotion to democracy, human 
rights, and the rule of law.
  While I am saddened to see the regime close its doors, the spirit and 
the principles of the NLD will live on in the hearts and minds of the 
people.
  I know they will one day be able to elect a truly representative 
government.
  As Tin Oo, the 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.
  Now, we must send our own signal to the regime that its quest for 
legitimacy has failed.
  We must send our own signal to the democratic opposition that we 
stand in solidarity with them and we will not abandon them.
  Now is the time to renew the import ban on all products from Burma 
for another year.
  Let me be clear--I am disappointed that the ban has not moved Burma 
any closer to national reconciliation and a democratic government.
  Indeed, as I have noted, the regime has taken several steps in the 
wrong direction.
  But we have the opportunity to review these sanctions every year.
  Last year we passed legislation allowing the sanctions to be renewed, 
once a year, for up to three more years until 2012.
  Simply put, if we fail to renew the import ban, we will reward the 
military regime for its decades' long record of oppression.
  We will reward them for keeping the true leader of Burma, Suu Kyi, 
behind bars and under house arrest for the better part of 20 years.
  We will reward them for forcing the National League for Democracy to 
close its doors.
  We will reward them for 2,100 political prisoners, the use of child 
soldiers, the persecution of ethnic minorities, the use of rape as an 
instrument of war, the use of torture, the use of forced labor, and the 
displacement of civilians.

[[Page 7255]]

  Indeed, the standards for lifting the sanctions are clear. The regime 
must make ``substantial and measureable progress'' towards ending 
violations of internationally recognized human rights; releasing all 
political prisoners; allowing freedom of speech and press; allowing 
freedom of association; permitting the peaceful exercise of religion; 
and bringing to a conclusion an agreement between the SPDC and the 
National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic nationalities on the 
restoration of a democratic government.
  By every measure, the regime has failed to even come close to meeting 
these conditions. So we must act to renew the import ban.
  But we cannot act alone.
  I urge the United Nations and the international community to follow 
our lead and put pressure on the regime to abandon this process, 
release political prisoners, and draft a truly democratic and 
representative constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

                          ____________________