Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2002

Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, for his comments. I agree with his request that we move ahead with amendments. I know there are many Senators with amendments they want to offer. I think the logical thing to do is to try to deal with all of the ethanol-related amendments at this stage in the consideration of the bill. I hope that by offering an ethanol- related amendment now, on behalf of myself and Senator Sununu, we can begin the process of considering these amendments in a thoughtful way and, hopefully, work through them over the next day or two.

Amendment No. 851 To Amendment No. 850

Mr. President, with that, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. It is an amendment to amendment No. 850 that Senator Domenici offered on behalf of Senator Frist and others.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, as I indicated, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of Senator Sununu and myself. It is to improve the waiver provisions in the renewable fuels standard in the Daschle- Frist amendment.

The amendment we are offering seeks to give the President the authority to suspend the ethanal mandate--he could suspend it with regard to a particular geographic area in the country--in the event there is a severe supply or price disruption to U.S. gasoline markets. We have a way of determining when that threshold is reached. It provides a path for immediate action to be taken to deal with that price circumstance.

This is not a requirement that the President act. This is merely authority for him to act if he chooses to do so. I think we need to make that point so all Members understand we are not requiring any action by this amendment; we are expanding the waiver authority so that additional authority exists if the President chooses to use it. Ultimately, someone needs to have the authority to take immediate action if there happens to be a crisis, if a crisis comes upon us.

The Daschle-Frist amendment waiver provisions--and this is on page 12 of the underlying Daschle-Frist amendment--those waiver provisions give each State the right to petition the Administrator for a waiver in the event of severe harm to the economy or the environment. The process that is outlined can take up to 90 days. It is not necessarily going to take 90 days. It could

take longer, as there is no enforcement really built in, but it is supposed to take no more than 90 days.

The State files the petition. The Administrator has the 90 days, maximum, to make a determination of whether the petition should be granted. In making that determination, the Secretary is required to give public notice and an opportunity for comment. That is a 3-month period--or up to a 3-month period--for a determination to be made and for the mandate to be suspended.

In a crisis situation, a significant amount of economic or environmental damage could be done during that period while all of this notice and opportunity for comment is occurring. In my view, we cannot afford that. Ninety days is too long a period.

The amendment we are offering does not seek to disturb or to weaken the underlying Daschle-Frist amendment. It simply gives the President the authority to take immediate action to deal with urgent issues that may arise in particular regions. If a State or region experiences a supply disruption which they might experience with regard to ethanol or a price spike resulting from the mandate, and a suspension of the mandate is necessary, then we are giving the President authority to suspend the mandate for a 30-day period. He could renew that for an additional 30 days if he chose to. But that is the essence of our amendment. If the gasoline prices rise more than 10 cents as a result of the mandate, that is when this authority would come into place.

Now, this is not the price of ethanol rising 10 cents; this is the price of gasoline at the pump rising 10 cents because of the mandate to use ethanol as required in the Daschle-Frist amendment. If the price of gas at the pump rises over 10 cents, and the Secretary makes the determination that immediate action is necessary, then the mandate could be suspended for the 30 days in this affected PADD, this Petroleum Administration for Defense District, or in the effected State or region.

What does that 10-cent rise in the price of gasoline per gallon mean? Let me refer to this chart I have in the Chamber.

You can see that ethanol is going to be blended with other petroleum fuel in gasoline, and 10 percent of it is going to be ethanol. So, in fact, if you saw a 50-cent increase in the price of ethanol per gallon, that would mean a 5-cent-per-gallon rise in the price of gasoline. If you saw a $1 increase in the price of ethanol per gallon, that would mean a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the price of gasoline.

I think this chart makes clear that what we are proposing gives the President the ability to act expeditiously. If there is this kind of $1 increase in the price of ethanol itself, that could translate approximately to a 10-cent increase in gasoline. This is a high threshold. Frankly, I know there are Members of this Senate who would say that should not be 10 cents; we ought to have the President have the authority to act if you have a 3-cent increase or a 2-cent increase or a 5-cent increase, and I might agree with some of that logic.

But the truth is, we have tried to write this in a way that makes it clear that this is not authority we would expect to be invoked or to be available to the President under most circumstances. This is authority which would only be available under extraordinary circumstances.

Today prices are at about $1.15 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, this is roughly where they were back in 1998. There has been some fluctuation.

This second chart that I have in the Chamber shows what has happened to the price of gasoline from 1998 through the current period. You can see that there has been fluctuation in the price of ethanol, but we have not seen enough fluctuation in the price of ethanol from the average price to trigger this authority to ever take place, so that during this entire period this authority would not have come into place. It is clear we are not setting up some kind of a hair-trigger procedure here which will give the President or the Secretary of Energy the ability to step in at will and act.

The amendment we are proposing is simply a safety valve. As I have said several times, it is not automatic. If there is no disruption in supply, if prices do not spike substantially outside the range shown on this chart, then nothing would happen. However, in the event we do have a problem, we would have in place, with this amendment, a procedure for dealing with it.

The reason I think this amendment is important is because fuel transitions are inherently problematic.

We have a lot of history on which to base that judgment. All previous changes to the reformulated gasoline formula have resulted in severe price volatility in gasoline markets. We don't have to go back very far to see that this is the case. In 1996 and in the year 2000, we saw gasoline prices rise substantially, and both times this resulted in gasoline price spikes of more than 30 cents a gallon in California.

There are previous EIA studies that have been done, but they have not addressed short-term issues. That is what we are talking about, short- term supply disruptions. They either look at the long-term outcomes or act to analyze supply disruptions only after they have occurred.

The mandate we are proposing to put into law with the Frist-Daschle amendment does create substantial uncertainty. That has been discussed in some of the debate that has already occurred. The mandate says we will use 5 billion gallons of ethanol in the Nation's fuel supply by 2012. It bans the use of MTBE beginning in the year 2007. While some would prefer to call it a renewable fuels standard, it is in fact a mandate. All of us understand that. By the nature of a mandate, it creates a substantial amount of uncertainty.

While my colleagues may argue that they have crafted a plan that allows plenty of time for the transition from MTBE to ethanol, I have doubts about whether that is the case. Under the mandate in the Frist- Daschle amendment, it is possible that our motor fuels market will see disruptions in supply and price spikes that, if left unattended, could harm consumers and the economy. Our amendment tries to deal directly with that.

We have to keep in mind the MTBE ban affects supply immediately. Once the bill passes, MTBE will be quickly phased out and banned in 16 States; most importantly, in California and Washington and Arizona on the West Coast and in New York and Connecticut on the East Coast. These States in the Northeast in particular are heavily dependent on gasoline product imports from Europe and South America. Venezuela supplies 8 percent of the gasoline volume on the East Coast. The Venezuelan National Oil Company says a renewable fuels mandate could make it difficult if not impossible to import finished gasoline into the United States as they have been doing.

Most of the East Coast imports come into the New York area and need to be suitable for the reformulated gas markets.

As I have said in several ways, there is a lot of uncertainty that we just do not know the answers to. Let me list some of that again. Then I will defer to my colleague from New Hampshire who is here and wishes to speak on behalf of the amendment as well.

Some of the questions that still exist in my mind as regards this mandate are, No. 1, what if we have a supply shortage when refineries are already producing at capacity? What does that do to the price to the consumer? Second, what if our import capacity declines and prices spike even further? Third, what if there is a drought in the Midwest that affects corn production and therefore affects ethanol production? That could significantly affect the price. And it could get the price outside of this area that is reflected on the chart behind me.

Perhaps we could experience problems in transporting the ethanol or an important element in the refinery infrastructure could be damaged at a key hub. There is any number of scenarios that could lead us to supply disruptions, to price spikes. Under those circumstances, we need to have authority vested with the President to take action. We should not be requiring that he take that action, but we should be giving him the authority. We need to be proactive. We need to look forward and analyze potential problems the U.S. motor fuels market could face in the short term, and we need to do this before the disruption occurs.

I urge our colleagues to carefully consider the amendment. It is good policy to build in such a provision to protect consumers in the event of a crisis. It is a good safety valve to add to the bill. It substantially strengthens the bill. I hope my colleagues will agree and that we can add this as an amendment.

I yield the floor. I see my colleague, my cosponsor from New Hampshire, is in the Chamber waiting to speak.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of the leader. I know of his strong commitment to this underlying amendment. I will say what everyone in the Senate knows, which is his reputation, a well-earned reputation, for straight dealing. He indicated to me before I offered the amendment that he would be compelled to oppose it, and I certainly understand. I am anxious to accommodate some of the concerns he has raised.

With that in mind, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, let me explain what I did with the modification. I dealt with the issue Senator Daschle raised about his concern that

the language in the previous amendment, as I offered it with Senator Sununu, allowed the Secretary to act on the basis of a prediction about what was going to happen. That language was in the bill, and I just modified the bill to provide that the President--let me clarify that nothing in this amendment gives the Secretary authority to act. This amendment only gives the President authority to act. The President can only act on the basis of a determination made by his or her Secretary of Energy.

Now, with the modification, it would be a determination made by his or her Secretary of Energy that this ethanol mandate, in fact, has resulted in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to end users or it has resulted in a significant interruption or has resulted in an increase in the average cost by at least 10 cents per gallon as a result of the mandate.

In response to that concern Senator Daschle raised, I want to be clear that we have dealt with that in the modification I have just sent to the desk.

Let me also address briefly the other issues Senator Daschle raised.

He indicated the need for this is not there because, in fact, the Energy Information Agency in the Department of Energy has said this mandate will result in an increase in the price of gas per gallon of less than one-half of 1 cent per gallon, and the California Energy Commission has also concluded that there is no appreciable increase that will result from this mandate.

First of all, if you look into the analyses that were done both by the Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission, they were looking over the long term and saying over the long term there will not be, in their view, a substantial increase in the price of gasoline as a result of this mandate. That may well be true. Our amendment does not deal with the long term. Our amendment tries to deal with the short term, and that is where there is a price spike, where there is a supply disruption that causes the price to go up an additional 10 cents per gallon because of the ethanol mandate, if that occurs, and it may well not occur. So there is a difference between the studies that they did, which are long term, and the issue we are trying to deal with, which is short term.

I also point out that another sort of flaw in the argument, at least in my view, is that we are now saying we do not need to put this extra safety valve in the legislation because we have a prediction by the Energy Information Agency and we have a prediction by the California Energy Commission that this will not be needed down the road. It may well not be needed, and certainly I am not here to predict that it will be needed. I am just saying this is a good insurance policy. This is a good safety valve.

The Energy Information Agency has been known to make mistakes in their predictions. As to the California Energy Commission, although I am not totally familiar with all of their work, I would venture to say they have probably made a few mistakes in their predictions. I do not know exactly where they were on their predictions with regard to the price of electricity in California a few years ago, but they may well have missed the mark in predicting what that price was going to be, and they might well have wished there was some similar authority to this in place that could have been exercised or had been exercised when that crisis hit.

So I think this is good government practice, and clearly under most circumstances the appropriate course is to give public notice, to have opportunity for comment and hearings, have all the sides, all the interest groups come in and give their point of view. That is a good course. But if the price of ethanol has gone up substantially or there has been a supply disruption or there has been something that has occurred that has caused the price of gasoline to jump more than 10 cents that is directly traceable to this mandate, I believe the wise course is for us to give authority to the President to take action if he or she decides to take action.

As I say, there is nothing in this amendment that requires anyone to do anything. This amendment merely gives people authority to take action if a crisis occurs, if a price spike occurs, if they determine that action is appropriate.

It is possible, in some future administration, that there will be a Secretary of Energy who is opposed to ethanol perhaps, but I assume that the American people are going to elect Presidents in the future who reflect their views on most issues. If they do not reflect their views, then of course the voters have the opportunity to hold them accountable when there is a follow-on election.

Clearly, I think we are mandating a substantial increase in the use of ethanol. I am not opposing that in this amendment, but I am saying let us at least be a little bit humble about our own ability to predict what might occur in the future. If, in fact, there is a significant price spike because of some problem in transitioning to this new fuel mixture, if there is some price spike as a result of interruptions in supply, then let's have the President, with the authority, deal with the situation, and let's not just say, okay, we are going to require that they go through the normal hoops, give public notice and comments, have hearings, and all of that. I think there is certainly a time for all of that, but there is also a time to take action. When the American people elect a President, they expect the President to have authority to act when the circumstance requires. That is what our amendment would do, and we hope very much it will be agreed to.

I yield the floor.

I am glad to ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, in response to the question, my understanding is Senator Cantwell, from Washington, did want to speak on this LIHEAP issue. I don't feel comfortable just agreeing we are going to lock her out of that opportunity. I think we have been advising people that the LIHEAP issue had been put aside for some period of time.

Until we can consult with her, at least, and find out--as I understand it, the Senator is suggesting we go ahead and go to a vote on the Gregg amendment?

That would essentially replace the LIHEAP provisions with a sense of the Senate.

I am saying before I agree to that specific time I would like to be sure to protect Senator Cantwell.

Madam President, in response, I have no problem with proceeding to a vote on my amendment on ethanol at this point.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on this issue, not only now as we are in an incredibly critical moment in time in the history of the struggle of the Burmese people for freedom, but for his longstanding advocacy in this noble cause and his commitment to the security and safety of one of the heroic figures of the 20th and 21st centuries, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Again, I thank him for not only motivating this body to rapid passage of this legislation but to his work with the other body which has resulted in us being able to pass it overwhelmingly today. I thank Senator McConnell again, and I regret to say we are a long way from seeing a resolution of this terrible unfolding, unending tragedy taking place in Burma. I guess as a personal pique, I refuse to call it Muanmar, which the junta have changed the name to, and we have a lot more to do. But I believe what we are doing today, because of his sponsorship, will send a message throughout Burma that we have not abandoned this heroic woman, nor have we abandoned the cause of democracy and freedom in this country of gentle people who deserve a great deal better than the group of thugs who have been oppressing them and repressing them for a long period of time.

It has been almost 7 weeks since Burma's military junta orchestrated a savage attack on Burma's democrats and their leader Aung San Suu Kyi. In response Congress acted with extraordinary speed and consensus to send to the President's desk the bill before us banning imports from Burma. It is imperative that he sign it immediately, as I am confident he will.

Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people can't wait, nor should Burma's rulers and neighbors wait a day longer to hear the United States speak with one voice in support of freedom in Burma. Congressional action on this bill is nearing completion, but as the Senator from Kentucky has said, our commitment to Burma's people will not end until they are free. Our resolve will not weaken as long as the junta denies the Burmese people a right to live in a nation ruled by law, not fear, led by the elected leader whose appeal no amount of violence can diminish and whose courage no amount of suffering can dim.

It is now time for Burma's leaders, especially the frontline states, to join the United States and Europe in rejecting half measures and implementing a fundamentally new approach that looks forward to Burma's liberation rather than a mere moderation of an illegitimate regime's rule. Southeast Asia will not be stable or secure as long as the generals rule in Rangoon. Placing hope in a policy of reconciliation that relies more on the junta's goodwill than on international pressure for democratic change will do nothing to alter a status quo that upholds tyranny.

China, India, and Thailand directly suffer the effects of regional insecurity caused by AIDS, drugs, and refugees that flow across Burma's borders. They also suffer the economic consequences of living next to a bankrupt nation whose economy is controlled largely by drug lords and a corrupt military elite. While China may not be troubled by dictatorship in Burma, it would clearly benefit economically from having another Asian tiger on its borders which good government and Burma's natural wealth would make it.

Democratic India would benefit strategically and economically from a fellow democracy in Rangoon that could expand Indian influence in Southeast Asia and serve as a significant trading partner.

We expect more in particular from our ally Thailand which has done little of substance to support change in Burma since the May 30 attacks. As far as I am concerned, business as usual won't cut it. We frankly expect a democratic ally such as Thailand to do more to oppose dictatorship in Burma, both out of principle and because of the insecurity its misrule brings to Thailand. We will be watching for signs of a new policy approach in Bangkok. This will be an issue in our bilateral relationship.

We welcome Japan's announcement of suspending new assistance to Burma as a result of the junta's crackdown. But Tokyo's existing aid programs send a mixed signal to the democrats who were so heartened by popular protests on their behalf in the streets of Tokyo. We would welcome the Government of Japan's reassessment of its entire policy toward Burma.

All of us appreciated ASEAN's joint statement calling for Aung San Suu Kyi's early release at the Phnom Penh summit, breaking with the group's history of noninterference in each other's affairs. But friends of ASEAN want to see it take concrete steps to prove its relevance to security and stability in Southeast Asia.

I remind my colleagues that when ASEAN admitted Burma into ASEAN, it was with the promise and commitment that things would improve in Burma. No one can argue that there has been anything but retrogression and an increase in brutality and, of course, the latest outrage in the capture and mistreatment of their freely elected leader.

Events in Burma are testing ASEAN as never before. Burma's crisis impacts every nation in the region, from AIDS, drugs, and refugees to political and economic instability. Those of us who want ASEAN to succeed expect it to play a leadership role in its own backyard and to deliver on its promises in 1997 that membership would change Burma. Some of us weren't convinced then and we are not convinced today. Burma will soon be preparing to assume ASEAN's presidency in 2006. What kind of an image does ASEAN have with Burma as its president? ASEAN's credibility can't withstand the presidency of a rogue regime that is unreconstructed and brutal, which has the blood of its people on its hands and imprisons their elected leader. As long as Burma festers, ASEAN looks either incapacitated, weak, or irrelevant.

As long as Aung San Suu Kyi remains in prison and the Burmese people live in fear, convinced Burma's neighbors are complicit in their suffering, the problem of Burma will be an issue in America's bilateral relations with nations across Asia. It is time for Burma to command the attention of the U.N. Security Council. Burma's misrule is clearly of international importance. The council has not even formally been briefed by Ambassador Razali Ismail since his visit over a

month ago to Rangoon as the Secretary General's personal representative. The United States should demand that the Security Council take up this issue.

As the United States, the EU, and even ASEAN have acknowledged, Burma is an international problem. The council would be remiss to ignore it, and even a council debate would command the attention of the generals. It might also command some attention in Beijing, Bangkok, Tokyo, and other capitals with the power to make a difference. It is past time for the United States and our allies to press this issue.

I am proud that Congress, with passage of this legislation, is speaking with one voice in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people. The generals must know we won't let up the pressure until Burma is free. The United States stands with the Burmese people in their struggle for the freedom that is their birthright and which the generals have stolen from them. We will do everything in our power to help them take back their country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four editorials be printed in the Record. Two are from the Washington Post, one from the Wall Street Journal, and the final one a comment by Jack Straw, the foreign minister of Great Britain.

Mr. President, the Washington Post editorial of July 14 says:

It's been a month since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

promised prompt action to penalize the generals he referred

to as ``the thugs who run the Burmese government.'' The time

had come, he said in an op-ed article in the Wall Street

Journal, to freeze their financial assets and ban remittances

into Burma. But the administration has taken no such steps.

It's been six weeks since the junta sent 3,000 vigilantes

armed with wooden bats and sharpened iron rods, to beat and

stab Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters as they traveled with her

in the hinterland. [She] apparently escaped injury but was

taken into custody and, except for one brief interview with a

U.N. envoy, has not been heard from since.

And the United Nations? You might think the Security

Council would have swung into action to demand freedom for

one of the world's most courageous leaders and for her

colleagues and to address the threat to regional stability

posed by the increasingly erratic junta. After all, there is

no dispute as to her legitimacy; the party she leads

overwhelmingly won an election in 1990 but has never been

permitted to take its rightful place in government. So far,

however, the chief U.S. response has been the election of

Burma--or Myanmar, as the generals call it--to the presidency

of the General Assembly for the session that begins in

September.

The Washington Post June 22, last year:

But actions of real consequences? So far, none. Southeast

Asian foreign ministers, meeting last week in Cambodia with

Mr. Powell, agreed to send a delegation to Burma no later

than October. October? While one of the world's most

courageous political leaders languishes in one of its most

infamous jails? Where are Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security

Council? Where are the executive orders that President Bush

could issue today?

I appreciate very much, and I referred to, Secretary Colin Powell's article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 12 and, on June 25, Jack Straw's article--the Foreign Secretary, as we all know, of our close friend and ally, England. He wrote:

Last week was Aung San Suu Kyi's 58th birthday. What should

have been a day of

quiet celebration with family and friends for the Nobel Peace

Prize winner was instead spent in detention in a jail outside

Rangoon. . . .

Far from Ms. Suu Kyi's being in ``protective custody,'' the

only people being ``protected'' by her detention are those in

the military regime itself. They hope that by keeping her--

and the democratic movement--incarcerated they can cling on

to power. The military government, which attempts to run

Burma through fear and intimidation, is not only brutal, but

also corrupt and incompetent. A once prosperous country is

being run into the ground. Poverty is rife and diseases such

as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are spreading.

In stark contrast in the Burmese military junta, and to

their enduring fury Ms. Suu Kyi commands the support and

respect of the Burmese people. Ever since her party won an

election in 1990, the regime has harassed and intimidated Ms.

Suu Kyi and her supporters. She has already suffered

long spells of house arrest and imprisonment.

Hundreds of her supporters are also in prison, many without

trial. Others have been blackmailed or intimidated into

giving up politics. But whenever and wherever she travels,

ordinary people still turn out in the thousands to see and

hear her. For them, she is a marker of hope for a better

future.

He concludes by saying:

The hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people cannot be

frustrated. The spirit and justness of the democracy movement

cannot be contained by violence or prison cells. We call on

the friends of Burma, in Asia and around the world, to

redouble their efforts to help Ms. Suu Kyi and the people of

Burma move toward national reconciliation, respect for human

rights, and democracy they so richly deserve.

Mr. President, we need the Security Council to debate this issue. Our Ambassador and our Secretary of State should call for that debate. Our administration, following the passage of this legislation, should immediately implement Executive orders that can further put restrictions on our relations with this gang of thugs in Burma.

Finally, there are probably people who may be viewing this action by Congress today and the comments the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and I are making and saying: You know, Burma is a small country, far away. It is rise or fall. Its type of government has very little impact on the United States economically, culturally, politically, or militarily.

But I argue that that is not the case, particularly when we look at the flow of drugs and many other things that are happening in this country.

Why is it that these Senators are not talking about Iraq? Americans are dying--one a day--there. There is an unfolding scandal, or mini- scandal, about who knew what and when and why, and there is a great politicization of that. North Korea has threatened to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq apparently is doing that. Why isn't the Senate devoting their attention to larger issues that far more vastly affect the U.S. national security?

The answer is simple: This democracy movement in Burma is what America is all about. Over 200 years ago, in a very small country, a very small movement for independence--which was given very little chance--took place in this country. If it had not been for the help of other countries--particularly France--the United States may have achieved its independence over time, but certainly not in the way that we did.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. President, at the risk of redundancy, what is happening in Burma is what the United States is all about--our defense of freedom and democracy, even if it doesn't affect our national interest. That is what makes America different.

I argue that this administration, this Congress, and the American people will reconfirm their commitment to their freedom, democracy, and to one of the great heroic figures in history, and that is Madam Aung San Suu Kyi, who has the profound respect, appreciation, affection, and admiration of all who have encountered her and many who have not.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yes, I think if it is China's view that the Security Council should not take up an issue of basic fundamental human rights and democracy and wish to veto it, that is their right as members of the U.N. Security Council. But the fact is, that does not relieve the United States of our obligation to bring it up.

One other aspect. Since we have met with Mr. Razali on a number of occasions, up until our last meeting with the special envoy of the U.N., Mr. Razali, he was generally upbeat that things would get better in Burma, that some of the restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi would be relaxed, and that we should take this moderate approach. In fact, there was even little criticism of the inclusion of Burma in ASEAN because that would bring them into the fold. Now they are facing the embarrassing prospect of, 2 years from now, Burma taking over the chairmanship of ASEAN itself. That is remarkable.

So it was very interesting to me that Mr. Razali, for all intents and purposes--from my impression of our conversation--has basically given up on the policy of sort of appeasement, bringing along the junta so they would become more democratic, et cetera. In fact, I think his statements, authenticated by events, indicate that that policy has been an abject failure.

Mr. President, the Senate is going to do something important later this morning; that is, send a message to Burma that we don't intend to do business with them any longer. In addition to that, this Freedom and Democracy Act, which will pass the Senate later this morning and go down to the President for signature, will guarantee that we have another debate in each of the next 3 years very similar to the MFN China issue with which we are all familiar where the issue came back before the Senate with an expedited procedure once a year.

This is not the last time we will be dealing with the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, and certainly it will not be the last time we deal with Burma until the legitimately elected leader of that country is not only out of prison but in power.

I thank my colleagues in both the Senate and House for acting quickly on the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The 418-2 vote in the House yesterday complements the 97-1 vote we had on a very similar bill in the Senate on June 11.

The message from the United States Congress to the world could not be more clear--the assault on freedom in Burma will not stand.

With the cooperation and support of my colleagues in the Senate, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act will shortly be on its way to the White House for signature by the President.

When the people of Burma needed support in their struggle for freedom, America acted--and acted decisively.

Unfortunately, there has been no change in the situation in Burma since this measure was first introduced.

It is an outrage and a violation of human decency that democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other democrats continue to be held by the thugs calling themselves the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Instead of giving the world access to Suu Kyi, Burmese strongman General Than Shwe has dispatched his minions to regional capitals on a misinformation campaign laying blame for the May 30 ambush on Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). Few should be duped by this desperate measure, and an import ban and other sanctions against Burma cannot come soon enough.

More must be done to support the struggle of freedom in Burma. It is past time that neighbors--especially Thailand and China--take off their blinders to the multitude of dangers posed by Burma to the region. We already know that HIV/AIDS and drug use unravels the social and economic fabric of bordering countries, and engagement with the SPDC serves only to further perpetuate lawlessness in Burma that

threatens peace and stability, not just in Burma but throughout all of southeast Asia.

The United Nations has a role to play in creating a unified front against the regime. The Security Council should be briefed by U.N. Special Envoy Razali Ismail on the situation in Burma, and further action by that body should be contemplated.

However, words of condemnation are not enough. While I was pleased to meet with Razali when he was in Washington last week, frankly, his time is better spent in Asia shuttling between capitals and marshaling support for the release of Suu Kyi and other democrats and for the recognition of the results of the 1990 elections which have never been honored. Suu Kyi and her party got 80 percent of the vote but were never allowed to take power, and she has been under house arrest for most of the last 3 years.

America's leadership is as important as it can possibly be. By signing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, President Bush will clearly signal that the United States stands by the Burmese people in their hour of need. Our allies should take note of the import ban and other measures contained in the act and immediately follow suit.

The only way this is going to work is on a multilateral basis. It worked in South Africa. Generally, I am skeptical of these kinds of import bans. But there was one conspicuous example of where it worked, and that was in South Africa. The reason it did was because everybody cooperated. We are calling on the international community to isolate these thugs and not do business with them.

Change will come in Burma only if the free world has the collective will to hold the SPDC accountable for its brutality.

Some may continue to beat the ragged drum of engagement, but dialog is as dead as those the SPDC murdered on May 30. It is folly to think engagement will ``encourage positive changes'' within the SPDC. This tiger will never change its stripes. For over a decade, engagement has been tried. While the junta has made hollow promises of ``reconciliation'' with the NLD and ethnic nationalities, general Than Shwe has no intentions of relinquishing power on his own. He must be pressured by the world into doing so.

It is not enough for envoys and diplomats to meet with Than Shwe's underlings and other senior SPDC leaders in Rangoon. Than Shwe's grip in Burma is no less than Saddam Hussein's was in Iraq. If Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, and other Southeast Asian nations are to have an impact on the situation, they must deal directly with Burma's top thug.

Let me be clear. Than Shwe is personally responsible for the May 30 murders and subsequent injury and arrest of countless Burmese democracy activists. He is responsible for the ongoing and systemic egregious human rights abuses perpetuated upon the ethnic nationalities in that country.

The fact that no outsider has seen Suu Kyi since Razali's brief meeting in early June should be a cause for alarm.

We need to know exactly where she is being held and the state of her physical condition. No one has time for peek-a-boo games the junta may be interested in playing.

Suu Kyi must be immediately and unconditionally released, along with all other democrats whose only crime is advocating democracy and the rule of law.

With the passage of this act, our work on this issue is hardly over. The people of Burma can count on America's continued support for the struggle for freedom in their country. I intend to seize every opportunity to advance this cause both in Washington and abroad.

And I know that I can count on many of my colleagues to do the same. I particularly want to thank Senators Feinstein and McCain, who are no less outraged than I at the horrific abuses of the SPDC and the continued detention of Suu Kyi and other Burmese democrats. On the House side, Congressmen Lantos, King, and Hyde were equally energetic in responding to this crisis. Burma has no better friends than these freedom-loving Americans.

Democracy and the rule of law will prevail in Burma. As we near this historic vote this morning, I am reminded of the Reverend Martin Luther King's observation that the ``arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' This morning, we must commit ourselves never to tire in the pursuit of justice in long-suffering Burma until Suu Kyi is free and the struggle for freedom won.

Suu Kyi has kindled the flame of freedom in the hearts and minds of her compatriots. America must ensure that it is never extinguished.

Let me close by saying that the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would not have moved so swiftly through the Congress were it not for the efforts of Senator Feinstein and particularly Senator McCain. Senators Lugar and Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee gave this legislation an opportunity to move quickly. They could have insisted on it going to Foreign Relations. They did not. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus had very useful suggestions to make in terms of the form of the final bill. And my colleague Senator Leahy also played an integral part.

Over in the House, Congressmen Lantos, DeLay, Thomas, Hyde, and King were all instrumental in securing swift passage of the act.

In terms of staff, I just want to mention my crew who were involved: Billy Piper, my chief of staff; Brian Lewis, who is my counsel on the Senate floor; Robert Karem; and Paul Grove, a longtime friend and associate, who is the staff director of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, who has had an intense interest in this issue for a long time.

I give special thanks and recognition to my former staffer who used to have Paul Groves' job, Robin Cleveland, who is now Assistant OMB Director in the Bush administration, who, 10 years ago, sparked my interest in this whole issue. It is hard to believe it has been 10 years, but, unfortunately, not much has changed in Burma. Ten years of the status quo is completely unacceptable. The Burmese people have a friend in Robin Cleveland.

Finally, I thank those in the NGO community for their tireless efforts in support of Burma. There are a lot of very committed activists in the United States who also travel to the area who are intensely interested in this issue and who will never give up until Suu Kyi has an opportunity to be free not only of prison but free to assume the power that she and her supporters earned in the free elections back in 1990.

Mr. President, I know Senator McCain wants to speak. How much time do I have remaining?

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I do want to make a few further observations related to Thailand, Burma's neighbor, and their policy toward Burma.

When Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was in Washington last week, we had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Burma and Thai policy toward the repressive regime. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that Thailand would not change its policy of engagement with the SPDC. I know the President brought it up with him as well because the President told me he brought the matter up with the Thais as well when he met the Thai Prime Minister. If we look at Thailand today, we can see the benefits of this policy they have been following.

Drug abuse has spun wildly out of control, causing His Majesty the King of Thailand to publicly comment on the threats to his beloved country from narcotics trafficking and abuse. With this abuse has come HIV/AIDS, crime and destitution.

Where do these drugs come from? Why, they come from Burma, of course.

Thailand today is home to countless innocent people seeking sanctuary from gross human rights violations and the denial of even the most basic of freedoms. Thailand's response has been

less than compassionate, with many of these men, women, and children detained and deported back to their homeland, and others denied access to humanitarian assistance.

Where do the refugees have to return? Why, Burma, of course.

Tensions along the Thai-Burma border have periodically spilled over into skirmishes between Thai soldiers and those of the SPDC. Burmese investment in armaments, including MiG aircraft purchased from Russia, pose an immediate danger to the entire region.

What is the source of this instability? Burma.

The Thai Prime Minister should have departed the United States with a firm understanding that protection of freedom in Burma was a top priority for both Congress and the administration.

Unfortunately, I do not think he got the message.

I understand that on July 31 and August 1 a meeting will be held in Bangkok between Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Burma to discuss economic cooperation strategies. Prime Minister Shinawatra should take note of the vote we are about to cast and reconsider hosting this meeting.

Instead of promoting economic cooperation strategies, Thailand should be working to free Aung San Suu Kyi and other democrats being detained by the SPDC. Democrats should help democrats during times of duress.

I will have more to say about Thailand at a later date, but we should have a right to expect more from the Thais who have been one of our strongest allies in that region over the years.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Before the Senator leaves, I thank him for his passionate and insightful comments about the situation in Burma. No one has said it better. I also share his view that the U.N. ought to take up this matter. I wish to mention to my friend from Arizona that, in discussion with the special envoy, Mr. Razali, last week, he showed very little enthusiasm. The reason is that China might veto it.

I wonder if the Senator shares my view that I don't care whether China would take such an action, this needs to be discussed before the Security Council, debated among the most important countries in the world. Let the Chinese in public rationalize such an action if they are inclined to do so. I wonder if my friend shares my view on that.

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely correct. This policy of engagement has been a total failure. That is part of what our bill is about today. It is to not only establish a leadership role for the United States but to lead the world in moving in a different direction.

The Senator from Kansas is here, and he also had a chance to meet with Mr. Razali and has made an important contribution to this debate. I believe we have enough time to accommodate not only Senator Brownback but Senator Leahy as well.

Mr. President, if I may briefly say before the Senator from Kansas leaves, I thank him for having a hearing on the Burma situation and for being exceedingly involved and knowledgeable about this issue. I am sure he shares my view that this is going to be a long struggle. We are going to be dealing with this issue, unfortunately, next year when this certification process kicks in and we are back to reviewing the Burmese Government. I hope I am wrong. I hope by this time next year Aung San Suu Kyi is not only out of jail but in power. I would not bet on it.

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his important contributions.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his kind comments on the Burma bill and appreciated his forceful advocacy of passage.

In terms of the parliamentary situation, is there time left on the Burma bill on both sides?

I am prepared to yield back the time that remains on this side if the Senator from Vermont would do the same.

Do we need to ask for the yeas and nays on the Burma bill?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 840 be temporarily set aside.

On behalf of the majority leader and minority leader and other Senators listed, I send to the desk the ethanol amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senate, we are now back on the Energy bill. The pending business is the ethanol amendment. We did dispose of two amendments yesterday. I am hopeful we will not have to redo them, however there is going to be another amendment, at least one, perhaps two, on the ethanol amendment. But in the meantime, the distinguished Republican whip has requested that he be permitted to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

I make that request in his behalf.

I ask the Chair get order in the Senate so he can be heard.

Mr. President, I know there are many Senators who have plenty to do besides being concerned about this Energy bill on the

floor of the Senate. But I want to say for some of us that the Energy Policy Act is a very important subject. The committee has worked very hard. We don't claim to have a perfect bill, but we claim to have a bill that deserves the consideration of the Senate.

For all those Senators who want to review the bill and haven't, I hope they will start. For those who have amendments and haven't reduced them to writing, I hope they get going. For those who have questions about the bill, we are going to be here working on it--both the minority whip and Senator Bingaman. His staff is adequate in numbers and capacity and will be available, as will mine.

With that in mind, we are back to the point where we have set aside the LIHEAP issue that came about yesterday--the issue with reference to the jurisdiction of the different LIHEAP provisions that we wanted to have in this bill where the chairman of the Committee on Health and Human Resources desires that it not be on the bill but rather be returned to his committee for jurisdictional consideration. That will be taken up later.

We are now back to ethanol. Yesterday we had two votes. They were very heavily debated for a long period of time. In each instance both failed. In each instance 60 votes or more were obtained on the side of supporting the bill, which is not just a Republican or Democrat bill. It is a bill put together by Democrats and Republicans, and all kinds of different leadership groups in this country that are concerned about our future in terms of dependence upon oil and its derivatives; those who are concerned about agricultural products and the fact that we produce so much more than we need and that the price is constantly a problem both to the Government because of its support programs and to the farmer because it is difficult to make a living.

Those who are concerned about rural America see this bill as a potential for the injection of tremendous amounts of real investments and real jobs and capital into all parts of rural America because facilities will have to be built that will cost billions of dollars in order to comply with the requirements of this national mandate for ethanol use.

The mandate is a good mandate. It is a national mandate. It is a mandate that says by a year certain we will be using certain quantities of ethanol in our petroleum products that feed the gasoline tanks, and thus the automobiles and trucks of America that use gasoline and diesel fuel.

I am sure there are additional amendments on this issue. I merely wanted to recap for the Senate where we are.

I also wish to say that while we have been on this bill for a number of days, it appears that the only amendments are those that pertain to ethanol. I know there are more. I implore Senators, I beg them, if they have amendments, let us get them ready and bring them down here. Who knows, they may have winners. They may have a much better approach to energy independence in this bill. We stand ready to accommodate and get them before the Senate and get the votes on them as soon as possible.

What I understand the situation to be now, so the Senators will understand, is that the distinguished minority manager, the junior Senator from New Mexico, has an amendment on ethanol. I understand that when he is finished, the distinguished Senator from New York has an amendment. He told the Senator from New Mexico that he would follow the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. I hope that will be the case. If he comes forth, we will not have one vote at a time but rather back- to-back votes. There appears to be a couple of other amendments that may be offered before the day is out.

Then I suggest that as many Senators as possible begin to try to figure out what they want to do with this bill. I know there are Senators who have not had a chance to make up their mind about amendments but I ask that they do that. Actually, there are many of us who want to get an Energy bill. We think the remainder of this week, clear through Friday, and all of next week ought to be sufficient time to get this done. Some do not think so but I surmise that if we tried, and we had amendments going most of the day, with votes taking place each day, we would be surprised how soon we would get this bill completed.

Having said that, I yield the floor to my distinguished fellow Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

Will the Senator join me in asking for the yeas and nays on his amendment?

Let me ask, does Senator Reid know if there is another Senator who has an amendment?

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Should we put Nickles on the list?

We think he will come off.

Might we do it this way, so there will be a bit of finality. It is 10 minutes to 5. Could we enter into an agreement that that is it, unless some Senator contacts you or Senator Bingaman or myself by 5 o'clock?

That is plenty, 10 minutes. At 5:30?

For now we are going with the fact this is all we are

aware of. We hope Senators understand we are perilously close to making that a consent agreement but we have not yet, just in deference to somebody who might still come up with a new idea regarding this subject.

I understand. To give her a little more time, I understand we could have two votes. What we will tell the Senate shortly, about LIHEAP, which may meet with your approval, Senator Bingaman--the idea would be to bring it back immediately following a vote on your amendment. It would make the pending business the LIHEAP amendments, both of them, at which time we would have a vote on the Domenici amendment that was offered in behalf of the chairman of the committee, and there would be a vote. Immediately following that vote there would be a vote, if required, on the LIHEAP amendment.

The Gregg amendment, yes.

Right.

I wonder if we could agree to vote on the Bingaman amendment and then say, when that vote has been completed and we finish it, there would be 10 minutes for debate, at which time I will give 5 of that to the Senator you just described, for her discussion, or 10, whatever you would like, after which we would have a vote? That gives you what you need and it sets up at least two votes and a disposition of your LIHEAP.

All right. Could we just make sure everybody understands we are prepared to move, soon, to bring the LIHEAP issue back on the calendar where it belongs, and to dispose of it this evening?

With that, I assume we will proceed, Senator, to vote on your amendment, if that is all right with you.

Madam President, there has been ample argument in opposition to the Bingaman amendment. The Senator from New Mexico, the manager of the bill, would merely like to say, while I accept the argument of the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico, it seems to this Senator from New Mexico that to adopt the amendment truly creates an unworkable situation with reference to the source, supply, and the management of petroleum needs in the United States. That is all I have to say. I believe there is ample flexibility in the underlying bill. I do not believe we ought to make it more difficult to turn the spigot on and off with reference to the impact of ethanol on the gasoline supply in the country.

I believe it is almost unworkable, for any President to decide, for instance, what caused the increase and to turn that on and off with reference to the supply and refining capacity and the like.

With that, I yield the floor. I am prepared to vote up or down on the Bingaman amendment to the ethanol amendment.

I am going to suggest the absence a quorum for about 10 minutes. Senators are being put on notice during that period of time that we are going to vote shortly. That is why we are having a 10- minute quorum call at this time. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, regular order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I say to fellow Senators, we are going to have a unanimous-consent request that will pertain to ethanol. There will be no further votes this evening. We will have a unanimous-consent request regarding three amendments on ethanol that will be entered into shortly. All three will be voted on tomorrow, and that will dispose of the ethanol second-degree amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Do we have the rest of the consent ready?

Does the Senator think we should wait now and do it or let Senator Schumer begin?

Just so everybody understands, we do intend to have a consent that disposes of all three amendments, with votes on all three, Schumer and two others. But that consent agreement will come along shortly.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only remaining second-degree amendments to No. 850 and that they be related to ethanol: No. 1, Schumer, which we are hearing now, 20 minutes equally divided; Senator Boxer, 1 hour equally divided on two amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that following debate on the Schumer amendment this evening, the amendment be temporarily set aside. I further ask consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Energy bill on Thursday, Senator Boxer be recognized--at that time, she be recognized in order to offer her first amendment.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following debate on the above listed amendments, they be temporarily set aside and the votes occur in relation to the amendments in the order offered at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.

I do not want to object, but I want to ask a question because I am rereading what I just read. It does not seem to me that it says there is a second Boxer amendment.

It says Senator Boxer be recognized to offer her first amendment.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the above listed amendments--it does not say her second amendment.

That is about right.

I don't see anyone here who wants to argue in opposition to you. We have already voted. I know the Senator from New York has great, innovative capacity and that he has proudly come up with an amendment the likes of which the Senate has never seen or heard, but I have an inclination that it is similar to what we have voted heretofore; I don't believe it has been offered to do anything other than cause significant mischief to the ethanol bill which is before the Senate, which I understand has very broad support.

So my argument would merely be, in all deference, to suggest that enough is enough, and just as we voted heretofore in opposition to the other amendments, we follow suit and vote against the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New York.

I only used 3 minutes and I yield back any other time in opposition. I thank the Senator for being generous in only using a small amount of the Senate's time this evening. I do mean the latter seriously.

Will the Senator yield?

I remind the Senator, in response to the Senator from New Mexico and his remarks about this being more of the same and enough is enough and his comment, one thing is different, and that is that the ranking minority member of the Energy Committee was on his amendment, I remind the Senator that same Senator has offered his own amendment and it did not get enough votes. If you get as many votes as he got, you are doing quite well. I don't know that you can expect more by saying he is on it since he has tried his best and failed already.

I am anxiously awaiting for you to decide you have used your time up. Have you?

I am so thrilled. That is the first act of generosity that has occurred with reference to the chairman, who has been trying to get this bill completed. I am very thrilled.

Tomorrow we will have three votes, as I indicated, starting sometime after 10 o'clock. They will all be on ethanol. We have a bill with all kinds of things in it and we will just be finishing the subject matter of both votes on ethanol.

I do thank the minority managers for their efforts, in particular Senator Reid, in trying to narrow down the number of amendments on the Democratic side, which they have done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the situation in Burma is indeed dire and requires our immediate response. We will make that response within the next hour.

S. 1215, which is now the pending business in the Senate, has 56 cosponsors. I particularly want to thank Senator Feinstein, who will be speaking on this measure, and Senator McCain, who have had a particular interest in this subject for quite some time.

Until yesterday, Aung San Suu Kyi and other democracy activists have been held incommunicado by the repressive State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, following an ambush on her convoy several hundred kilometers north of Rangoon. Scores are feared murdered and injured in this blatant assault on democracy in Burma.

In the 11th hour of his trip to Rangoon, the SPDC finally allowed U.N. Special Envoy Razali Ismail a 15-minute meeting with Suu Kyi. We are all relieved that his initial statements indicate that she is alive and unharmed, but the fate of other activists arrested remains unknown.

But simply seeing is not freeing. Razali's meeting with Suu Kyi was not a private one and she remains under the total control of SPDC thugs. Her continued silence in the wake of this bloodshed could not be more deafening, nor--despite Razali's brief visit--her predicament more pressing.

Horrific details of the attack continue to emerge and heighten the need for a swift and decisive response to the SPDC's brutality.

According to Monday's front-page article in the Washington Post, in the ``pitch dark amid the rice paddies'' thugs posing as Buddhist monks stopped Suu Kyi's car. Soon after, a crowd ``set upon her convey, attacking the entourage with wooden clubs and bamboo spikes. . . . Several hundred more assailants ambushed the motorcade from the rear.''

This is no simple act of harassment or intimidation. It was an act of terrorism against innocent civilians who simply believe in democracy and the rule of law in Burma.

The free world and free press have been quick to condemn the SPDC. But strong words from foreign capitals must be matched by stronger actions.

Last week, I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, along with Senators Feinstein and McCain. As I indicated earlier, we now have 56 cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.

Madam President, this bill, among other sanctions, imposes a ban on imports from Burma.

I am pleased that many of my colleagues--including the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Finance Committees--are cosponsors of this important legislation.

Let me share with my colleagues some of the feedback we have gotten from around the country on the act:

An editorial in today's Los Angeles Times stated:

[Burma's] trading partners, other countries in the region

and aid givers like Japan need to get tougher by imposing

sanctions and aid suspensions to push the country toward

democracy; that's the outcome Myanmar's citizens show they

favor every time they get the chance.

By the way, they haven't gotten a chance since 1990.

A Washington Post editorial yesterday advised that because Burmese dictators ``control the nation' economy, an import ban would affect those most responsible for Burma's repression, and senators supportive of democracy in Asia should vote for the bill without conditions or expiration dates.''

Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage recently wrote:

. . . we support the goal and intent of this legislation and

agree on the need for many similar measures. . . . We are

also considering an import ban, as proposed in your

legislation.

A June 6 editorial in the Washington Post suggested that:

While the [Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act] moves through

Congress, Mr. Bush could implement many of its provisions by

executive order. He could find no better way to demonstrate

his commitment to democracy and his revulsion at a brutal

dictatorship.

A New York Times editorial endorsed the import ban and recommended that:

Europe . . . should now block Myanmar's exports as well.

The junta has had a year to demonstrate that its opening was

genuine. Now all ambiguity is gone, and the world's response

must be equally decisive.

A Boston Globe editorial stated that President Bush:

. . . could and should issue an executive order that would

swiftly accomplish [an import ban]. This is not a partisan

matter. The great lesson that ought to have been learned in

the last century is that free democrats betray their unfree

brothers and sisters when they seek to appease dictatorships.

Dallas Morning News editor at large Rena Pederson, who also penned a superb article on this topic in the Weekly Standard, wrote in an op-ed:

The strongest possible pressure must be turned on the

Burmese generals, who apparently calculated their opposition

could be decapitated while the world was preoccupied with

events in the Middle East. They shouldn't be allowed to get

away with such a cowardly fast one. The Bush administration

should support tougher sanctions now. Senator Mitch

McConnell, R-KY., is pushing for increased sanctions.

That is the bill we have before us.

``He will need help . . .''

And we obviously are going to have help with 56 cosponsors, and I hope a very overwhelming vote shortly.

``He will need help, or the Bush administration could accomplish the same thing by executive order.''

A Baltimore Sun editorial rightly concluded: ``. . . this regime ought to be treated somewhat like North Korea, from which imports have long been barred.''

Finally, in endorsing the act, the American Apparel and Footwear Association called upon ``the rest of Congress for the swift and immediate passage of such import legislation.''

The idea of a ban on imports from Burma is not a new one to this body. In he 107th Congress, S. 926 sought to impose such restrictions and was cosponsored by 21 Senators. I would offer that the need for an important ban has only become more urgent in the wake of the May 30 attack on democracy in Burma.

Supporters of a free Burma want America to take the lead in defending democracy in that country.

Supporters of a free Burma believe that serving the cause of freedom is America's challenge and obligation. We should not abandon the people of Burma during the greatest moments of need. The people of Burma have made their aspirations known, and the regime has not silenced them into submission. They have not stilled their hearts for political change and they will not succeed in stemming our collective resolve.

Supporters of a free Burma agree with President Bush that:

Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need

food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives,

humanity rejoices: and everywhere that freedom stirs, let

tyrants fear.

It's time for tyrants to fear in Burma.

I ask unanimous consent that the following items be printed in the Record: a Washington Post article dated June 9; a letter from Under Secretary of State Rich Armitage; editorials from the Los Angeles Times, and the Baltimore Sun, and a Rena Pederson article in the Weekly Standard.

Madam President, I note that Senator Feinstein is here. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be added as a cosponsor.

Madam President, I say to my friend from California, as she was describing the provisions of the bill, the way it is now structured, we will have an annual debate about whether or not these sanctions should be lifted. It will be reminiscent of the most favored nation debates that we had annually regarding the People's Republic of China, which has now graduated to a new status.

But if ever there were a regime that deserved an annual review by those of us here in the Congress, this is a regime that deserves that. So I think that is a debate we are going to look forward to having.

Would you not agree, I say to my friend from California?

Madam President, I first introduced a bill on this subject back in 1993. It is one of these issues that, I must regretfully say, you take an interest in and follow over a period of time and never see anything change. There is never any progress that could be measured--until a year or so ago when the junta led Aung San Suu Kyi basically out of house arrest. We were supposed to applaud that as some kind of remarkable step in the direction of recognizing the outcome of the election in 1998 in which she and her party got 80 percent of the vote. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 while she was essentially incarcerated. She remained under house arrest--except for about a year or so--ever since.

Various strategies have been tried. The Thai Prime Minister, who was in town yesterday--some of us talked with him, and I know he met with the President--this new Prime Minister in Thailand decided to engage in what he called ``constructive engagement.'' Obviously, constructive engagement doesn't work. What this regime needs is to be isolated. I know there are some skeptics even in this body with regard to the ability of sanctions to have a real impact.

Let me tell you, if there is one place in the world where sanctions worked, it was South Africa. The reason it worked there is because everybody participated and they were truly isolated. They became a pariah regime throughout the world, and that led to the dramatic changes that brought Nelson Mandela to power after decades in jail.

That can happen here. The United States needs to lead. Secretary Powell is going out to the ASEAN regional forum in Phnom Penh on June 18 and 19 next week. This is an opportunity for him to put it at the top of the agenda.

I said to the Thai Prime Minister that I thought constructive engagement wasn't working and they needed to join with us and help us lead the other ASEAN countries in the direction of a sanctions regime, on a multilateral basis, that could shut these people down. Some would say, well, if you have effective economic sanctions, it hurts the people. It doesn't hurt the people in Burma because the regime takes all profits off of the exports. They make money on the exports and the drug traffic, which they are quite good at.

So this regime needs to be squeezed by the entire world, isolated, and that is a strategy that we hope to begin today with the passage of this legislation in the next 30 or 45 minutes.

I know on our side, Senator McCain wants to speak, Kay Hutchison wants to speak, and, I believe, Senator Brownback wants to speak. How much time remains?

Madam President, there is a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, there is a technical amendment to the substitute at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that the technical amendment to amendment No. 882 be agreed to.

Madam President, I will retain the remainder of my time, if I may.

Madam President, I am glad the Senator from California mentioned those important corporations. Obviously, they could conceivably benefit from low-cost imports but they are choosing not to allow the regime to make a profit off of these American corporations. They deserve our commendation.

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his contributions to the debate. I very much appreciate it.

I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

I thank my good friend from Vermont for his important contribution in this debate and his kind words about how we got to this point. Ultimately, I guess we will all be judged by whether or not this is effective, I say to my friend from Vermont. For these sanctions to be truly effective, we have to lead and the rest of the world has to join us in sanctions of a regime that truly operates on a multilateral basis like those that worked in South Africa.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Campbell be added as a cosponsor to this bill.

How much time do I have remaining?

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I believe I have about 5 minutes remaining.

How much time remains on the other side?

Maybe we could get some time on the other side. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his contribution. I am not aware of any more speakers on this side.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.