The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RENEWING THE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS IN THE BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S6144-S6146 on July 22, 2010.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
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:
YEAS--99
AkakaAlexanderBarrassoBaucusBayhBegichBennetBennettBingamanBondBoxerBrown (MA)Brown (OH)BrownbackBunningBurrBurrisCantwellCardinCarperCaseyChamblissCoburnCochranCollinsConradCorkerCornynCrapoDeMintDoddDorganDurbinEnsignFeingoldFeinsteinFrankenGillibrandGoodwinGrahamGrassleyGreggHaganHarkinHatchHutchisonInhofeInouyeIsaksonJohannsJohnsonKaufmanKerryKlobucharKohlKylLandrieuLautenbergLeahyLeMieuxLevinLiebermanLincolnLugarMcCainMcCaskillMcConnellMenendezMerkleyMikulskiMurkowskiMurrayNelson (NE)Nelson (FL)PryorReedReidRischRobertsRockefellerSandersSchumerSessionsShaheenShelbySnoweSpecterStabenowTesterThuneUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VitterVoinovichWarnerWebbWhitehouseWickerWyden
NAYS--1
Enzi
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) was passed.
____________________
