Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003

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.

I thank the Chair, and I also thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his leadership on this issue. I am very proud to join with him.

Madam President, in 1996, Senator William Cohen and I introduced a sanctions bill on Bumra. It passed in 1996, and was signed by the President. In 1997, the sanctions were exercised.

We had a brief period of hope during that time, and the ASEAN nations were going to be helpful. It looked like the military junta was going to be receptive. Then, recently, for a brief period, Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratic leader of Burma, was released, and discussions took place. Well, that was short lived and this diabolical attack took place on Aung San Suu Kyi.

According to reports, her motorcade was met by 100 to 200 people at a bridge near Mandalay in northern Burma. Most of these people were disguised as monks. Another 400 people--convicts and other militia recruits who were also disguised as monks--blocked the convoy from the rear. Both groups then discarded their costumes and attacked the entourage with bamboo sticks and wooden clubs, smashing vehicles and beating up their targets. Officially, four people were killed and 50 injured. Witnesses contend that as many as 70 may have been killed and many more injured.

This is outrageous. The level of coordination, the deception, and the brutality of the crimes cannot go unanswered. They really demand a forceful and a substantive response that makes clear the United States will not deal with this junta and will not tolerate such blatant disregard for common human decency.

This legislation sends a message. It says: We will not import their products. And those Burmese exports to the United States are about 25 percent of what Burma exports. So it is a considerable message. It has to be remembered, Aung San Suu Kyi is the democratic leader of Burma. She has never been permitted to serve. Her people have been arrested. Members of the Parliament have been arrested and held in custody. Over 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail, many of them elected parliamentarians. The practice of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by the Burmese military. The use of forced labor is widespread. Trafficking in young boys and girls as sex slaves is rampant, and the government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine. So the United States must act. Now, in general, I do not support trade embargoes as an effective instrument of foreign policy. However, there are certain circumstances--South Africa was one of them, largely because of the world response, and the world saying enough is enough--where there must be change, and where we are prepared to carry out these sanctions together to effect that change. I hope in this sense the United States will lead the way to enact these sanctions in a meaningful way in which other nations will follow.

Our legislation imposes a complete ban on all imports until the President determines and certifies to Congress that Burma has made substantial and measurable progress on a number of democracy and human rights issues.

As Senator McConnell will indicate, there is a provision in the legislation, similar to the most favored nation status for China, that will allow an annual review of this to assess progress. It allows the President to waive the ban should he determine and notify Congress that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do this. It would freeze the assets of the Burmese regime in the United States. It directs United States executive directors at international financial institutions to vote against loans to Burma. It expands the visa ban against past and present leadership of the junta, and it encourages the Secretary of State to highlight the abysmal record of the junta in the international community.

Now, Senator McConnell mentioned that both business and labor are united in support of this legislation. He said the American Apparel and Footware Association, which represents apparel, footware, and sewn products companies and their suppliers, has called for this ban. The president and CEO has stated--and I think this is worth being in the Record--``The government of Burma continues to abuse its citizens through force and intimidation, and refuses to respect the basic human rights of its people. AAFA believes this unacceptable behavior should be met with condemnation from not only the international public community, but from private industry as well.''

So well said.

A number of stores, including Saks, Macy's, Bloomingdales, Ames, and The Gap have already voluntarily stopped importing or selling goods from Burma. The AFL-CIO and other labor groups also support this legislation.

In addition, the International Labor Organization, for the first time in its history, called on all ILO members to impose sanctions on Burma.

Such diversity in support of this legislation speaks volumes about the brutality of this military junta and its single-minded unwillingness to take even a modest step toward democracy and national reconciliation.

And to add to it, Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratic leader, is once again being held in custody. This is unacceptable.

The military junta knows full well they do not enjoy the popular support of the Burmese people. That is why they resort to such actions.

As Aung San Suu Kyi traveled the country, and thousands turned out to hear her speak, the junta realized that after years of house arrest and repression, they had failed to curb the power of her message of democracy, of human rights, and the rule of law. They realized that the Burmese people were determined to see the democratic elections of 1990 fully implemented without delay. So in a cowardly and despicable manner they took this action.

Now we must take action. We must take a stand on the side of the people of Burma and on the side of the values we cherish the most.

I urge support and I hope it will be unanimous.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

I certainly agree, I say to the Senator through the Chair. I think it would be very useful. And I think when the recalcitrance, the repression, is on the floor of this Senate every year, hopefully it will be helpful in changing the minds of this military junta.

Madam President, I will just use a quick minute. I mentioned some of the retail establishments supporting this but I left out a couple. I mentioned Saks Fifth Avenue, and there is also Macy's, the Gap, Bloomingdale's, Ames, Williams Sonoma, IKEA, Wal-Mart, Nautica, and Pottery Barn. I am very proud of these retail establishments for standing up and joining us. I wanted to recognize that on the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak on this legislation.

The weekend before last, the military junta in Burma, ironically going by the name of the State Peace and Development Council, staged a violent clash between a government-supported militia called the United Solidarity and Development Association and activists of the National League for Democracy, the NLD.

As reported in the press, during the ensuing assault on the NLD, these thugs attacked the caravan of supporters led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate and democratic activist Aung San Suu Kyi and subsequently detained her and 19 members of the NLD, killed scores of NLD activists and, in the aftermath, closed down universities and NLD offices in the country. This is intolerable. Today I hope this institution can stand tall by roundly condemning this thieving, bantam tyranny that is taking place in Burma.

The regime claims they are detaining her, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and NLD supporters for their safety. They accuse her of causing unrest and violence and claim she is in danger because of inflammatory speeches she has been giving on her tour of northern Burma.

I find this accusation to be absolutely ridiculous, but nevertheless, a common refrain coming from a government known for flaunting its human rights abuses which include slave labor, rape and forced prostitution, pressing children into the military, all a carefully constructed campaign to terrorize the people of Burma and consolidate the petty kleptocracy.

Aung San Suu Kyi's whereabouts are now known; the UN Secretary General's envoy Mr. Razali Ishmail is in Rangoon working to negotiate her release. I cannot bring myself to believe a word of what the SPDC says. It was reported in the press that she has a serious head injury; however, today I hear that Mr. Razali has seen her and that she is unharmed. My colleague from Kentucky and I do not believe it. And the regime has done nothing to reassure any member of the international community of their intentions. Aung San Suu Kyi is not free, Burma is not free.

In fact, this is part of a clear pattern of continually thwarting the advance of democracy and freedom in Burma--something for which Aung San Suu Kyi is the living symbol. More than that, she has recruited some of the most talented and most dedicated young people to her cause.

As reported by yesterday's Washington Post, one of those young people was a young man by the name of Toe Lwin. This young man, and many others in NLD like him, dedicated every once of his being to the cause. Bringing change to Burma and protecting Aung San Suu Kyi were the things for which he was willing to die.

This young man died trying to protect her. I am told that she sees all of these dedicated, inspiring young people as her children. I am sure that it breaks her heart to know that blood has been spilt in this effort.

We cannot seek a better tribute to this young man's life than by aiding the cause of democracy by passing this bill.

The SPDC seems like a bunch of bush-league autocrats. But what I want my colleagues to know is that this group of thugs is not just some common banana republic or petty dictatorship.

In 1988, the then-called State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC, took power and began its repression of pro-democracy demonstrations. After National Assembly elections in 1990, which were poised to overwhelmingly bring to power Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, SLORC annulled the elections, began jailing thousands of democracy activists, suppressed all political liberties, and periodically placed Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.

And this is just the opening line of the story. These thugs conscript thousands of their citizens, including children, into the military to serve as porters and to work on state development projects. In addition, narcotics is a big business for the ruling Burmese generals; however, there are some who will claim that we are getting full cooperation in combatting Burma's trade in heroin and amphetamines.

The most recent International Narcotics Control Strategy Report published by the Department of State reads, ``Burma is the world's second largest producer of illicit opium.'' It continues stating ``. . . no Burma Army Officer over the rank of full Colonel has ever been prosecuted for drug offenses in Burma. This fact, the prominent role in Burma of the family of notorious narcotics traffickers, and the continuance of large-scale narcotics trafficking over the years of intrusive military rule have given rise to speculation that some senior military leaders protect or are otherwise involved with narcotics traffickers.''

Yet I understand there was an active effort by some embedded bureaucrats to give the junta a free pass on drug certification. We are not dealing with the boy scouts of Southeast Asia.

I think that is the wrong approach to dealing with the problem of the SPDC's

brutal rule. If today's paper is accurate, then it looks as if our government is beginning to take the correct steps to respond to the situation. We have put eleven countries on notice, notably Thailand and China, for their support of Burma.

This may be the mortal blow that weakens the regime. That is why next Wednesday I have planned hearings to discuss the support for the SPDC coming from key players in the region. Some of these countries need to give us some private assurances about their willingness to forgo continued support of the regime. Others need to be put on notice for the degree and nature of support for the SPDC junta.

Singapore, North Korea, Russia, and Malaysia have all been in cooperation or given assistance in the political, economic or military spheres. I will be inviting members of the administration and the NGO community to give their knowledge of on-the-ground support for the

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed on the time controlled by Senator Feinstein.

Madam President, I rise in support of the efforts of Senator McConnell and Senator Feinstein and acknowledge the leadership of Senator Baucus, as well, in working this out. Senator McConnell has been tireless in his efforts to promote democracy in Burma and has been an acknowledged leader in this area. I thank him for not relenting.

I think it is to state the obvious that it is vital for us to express our concern for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. On May 30, Government-affiliated thugs ambushed an automobile convoy carrying the leader and many of her supporters. Dozens of people were reportedly killed and injured in the crash. She was detained by Government authorities, who also ordered the NLD offices closed nationwide.

Aung San Suu Kyi remains under arrest, and the Government has refused to allow supporters or members of the diplomatic community to meet with her.

When Burma's military rulers freed Aung San Suu Kyi of house arrest last year, they claimed her release was unconditional and they pledged to continue the U.N.-facilitated dialog, which led to her freedom. With last month's premeditated attack and her current detention, the junta has abrogated all of its commitments and warrants no more time.

It is not hard to discern the motives of the junta.

They are scared. They are scared the people of Burma will rally and remove them from power, and they are right to be afraid. As Aung San Suu Kyi has toured schools, hospitals, businesses, and government organizations around Burma, she has been met by joyous crowds, and it is obvious to all observers that she remains as loved by the people of Burma as the military junta is reviled. It is time for the present military oligarchy to fade into history.

Burma's transition to democracy would be a most welcome development for all of Southeast Asia.

Despite pledges to crack down on narcotics production, the military continues to collaborate with heroin and methamphetamine traffickers. It has failed to address the legitimate demands of ethnic minorities for significant regional autonomy within a federal state, preferring military pressure to political accommodation.

The generals have enriched themselves while bankrupting the country. They have dismantled Burma's education system and ignored the growing threat to public health posed by AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. As the State Department notes with characteristic understatement in its most recent human rights report:

The quality of life in Burma continues to deteriorate.

That may be the understatement of the month. It is well past time for the generals to do what they said they would do; namely, begin a process that would eventually transfer the reins to a representative civilian government that would enjoy domestic and international legitimacy.

Unfortunately, there are few indications that the regime intends to step down. Indeed, they apparently had high hopes the United States Government, taking note of Aung San Suu Kyi's release last year, would take steps to lift the many sanctions imposed when the army brutally suppressed Burma's democracy movement in 1988. The regime spent $450,000 to retain the services of a prominent Washington lobbying firm to help push the President and Congress to normalize relations, restore access to international financial institutions, and resume foreign aid.

They were willing to spend $450,000 to improve their image, but last year the officials operating the government spent less than $40,000 nationwide on HIV/AIDS care and prevention. Each of the nation's 35,000 primary schools receives on average less than $1 from the central government each year; $35,000 for the national education budget; $450,000 for lobbying in Washington.

No amount of money can hide the character of the Burmese military rulers. As the United States people stood with Nelson Mandela in his bid for freedom and democracy for the people of South Africa, so we should now stand with those who are moving Burma toward a free and open society and the National League for Democracy as they try through peaceful means to end the tyrannical, brutal rule of Burma's military rulers.

Again, I thank Senators McConnell and Feinstein for their leadership in this area, and I am confident we will win wide support of our colleagues. It is time that we are clearly standing on the right side of this issue.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for his leadership, and I thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. I thank Senator McConnell for his longstanding support of this brave and heroic person and the movement she leads.

Several years ago, I happened to visit Myanmar, which I will refer to from now on as Burma. I had the great honor--one of the great honors of my life--to meet this incredible hero, this incredible leader, this incredible person who has spent her life under duress, under punishment, under pressure, under house arrest, even to the point of physical mistreatment at the hands of this gang of thugs that runs and has ruined this country.

I will never forget the day I met her. I will never forget the grace, the dignity, and the heroism that was clearly radiating from every part of this incredible person who very appropriately has been recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize.

I remind my colleagues that she has been kept under house arrest for many years. She was released in 1995 finally, and then she was again confined to house arrest in 2000. Just a few days ago, as a motorcade of about 250 people drove through, about 500 armed soldiers, members of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Association, and an unknown number of convicts recruited from Mandalay prison with the promise of reward and freedom rushed and attacked it.

In the ensuing melee, which lasted about an hour, the attackers beat up NLD members, shot them with catapults, soldiers opening and firing, killing and wounding a large number of NLD members.

Aung San Suu Kyi was taken into custody in an unknown place. Apparently, thank God, according to the U.N. envoy, Mr. Ishmael, she is in good physical condition.

This junta has ruined the country. It has deprived the people of their fundamental freedoms. This gang of thugs has mistreated this great person in the most disgraceful fashion. She should be free. She should be free to lead her country as was already endorsed by one free and fair election overwhelmingly.

Why did they do that this time? Because everyplace Aung San Suu Kyi went, the people welcomed her by the thousands, and the junta could not stand it. So they had to kill her people, her supporters, and they had to throw her back into prison.

What did one of the leaders who is supposed to be a moderate, whom I also met when I was in Burma, GEN Khin Nyunt--remember that name--say? He said:

Everyone needs to abide by the rules and regulations to be

observed everywhere.

Adding:

It is to be noted that the basic human rights would not

protect those who violate an existing law.

What existing law? What existing law that would ever be judged a legitimate law in any court in the world was Aung San Suu Kyi in violation of when they killed her supporters, mistreated her, and put her back into prison?

I do not know why the Japanese, the Thais, the Chinese, and the ASEAN nations, that ostensibly are supposed to

be standing up for freedom and democracy, are not doing everything possible to punish this regime, free this incredible person, and let the people of Burma have a free and fair election.

I thank, again, Senator McConnell. I point out that we should be taking every single measure possible, and I do not believe the Secretary of State should attend the ASEAN gathering in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, unless Aung San Suu Kyi and the situation in Burma are No. 1 on the agenda of ASEAN. Are we going to sit by and watch the brutalization of a people, the imprisonment of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the repression and devastation of a nation be carried out by a gang of thugs that call themselves generals? I hope not.

I hope the message today in the legislation we are considering, thanks to the Senator from Kentucky, is a message that this is the beginning--this is the beginning--of our efforts to free this person and to free the people of Burma.

I yield the floor.