Joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I return to the floor to discuss the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Most of the discussion on the floor of the Senate and in Congress for the last several weeks has been about Iraq, and appropriately so, yet the time spent dealing with the failed policy in Iraq is a stark reminder of how it also distracts us from so many other critical issues around the world. One issue in particular is the 4-year humanitarian tragedy in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Sadly, in front of the global community's eyes, we have witnessed unspeakable horror--mass killings, rape, torture, the torching of homes and entire villages. The estimates of death are wide ranging, from 200,000 to 400,000. Some 2\1/2\ million people have been displaced from their homes, and there is a mounting refugee crisis in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic.

Despite a worldwide call for action, the tragedy continues. The genocide in Sudan is becoming increasingly complicated and tragic. The violence threatens to destabilize an entire region, and without change there is little end in sight. Today, we have an important opportunity to break the cycle of violence, an opportunity that we must seize.

After years of duplicity and stalling, Sudanese President Bashir agreed last month to a significantly expanded joint United Nations- African Union peacekeeping force. We have to seize that opportunity and seize it quickly. Unfortunately, there are already disturbing signs this window may be closing. Yesterday, the Washington Post covered a visit by President Bashir to the Darfur section of his country. President Bashir said that people there were ``living normal lives;'' that only 9,000 people had died and that ``most of Darfur is now secure and enjoying real peace.'' He rejected foreign intervention in the conflict.

This crisis has gone on long enough. Over 2 years ago, President Bush declared a genocide in Darfur. Secretary of State Colin Powell joined in that chorus. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also agreed. And the President said: Not on my watch--remembering the horror of Rwanda, where 800,000 people died in a genocide during the Clinton administration. President Clinton did not respond at that time, has regretted it ever since, and said so publicly. President Bush said the same thing would not happen in his administration. I have reminded the President now several times on the floor of the Senate and personally that his administration is coming to an end. If he is going to do anything about the crisis and genocide in Darfur, he needs to move and move quickly.

The need is simple: rapid deployment of a full peacekeeping force. We have seen this type of urgency with other peacekeeping forces, including last year in Lebanon, and we must act with similar speed for the people, the victims, suffering in Darfur.

Last week, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and I had a good conversation. He returned my call on the telephone and we spoke for a few minutes. We talked about the importance of rapidly deploying a new peacekeeping force and of working toward a long-term political settlement in this region. It is my hope that our United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, will work closely with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to make these steps a reality.

The U.N. Security Council will be meeting soon to authorize this force. The Security Council should be firm in its mandate and its timeline.

The needs are clear. The force must have sufficient resources and numbers. We can help. The United States has resources set aside for peacekeeping efforts in the world. I can't think of many more pressing than the genocide in Darfur. If we are not providing soldiers, we certainly need to be providing resources.

It must have a strong chapter VII mandate for protecting civilians, peacekeepers, and humanitarian workers. Some of these nongovernmental organizations, these humanitarian workers, have been the victims of the violence in Darfur. Men and women who are risking their lives to provide the basic necessities of life have been the targets themselves, for the jingaweit militia and all the violence taking place there. This U.N. force must have a clear command-and-control structure and firm timetable. It should be clear day-to-day operational instructions come from the United Nations. The U.N. mandate must set benchmarks and hold the Sudanese Government accountable for any failure to cooperate. In particular, there should be no room for further stalling or reinterpretation by the Sudanese Government. We have been blindsided too many times by President Bashir of Sudan, who has said so many times there is no problem in Darfur; you can bring in a force; no, I have changed my mind.

As this man has weaved back and forth, more and more innocent people have died and been displaced from their homes. We must match this peacekeeping force with a renewed diplomatic effort to bring about a long-term political settlement, including naming a Special Representative of the Secretary General to monitor implementation of a comprehensive peace agreement.

The force must be deployed immediately. The notion that we are going to do this months from now is unacceptable.

Finally, we need a long-term political settlement to match the peacekeeping effort. I call on the United States, the United Nations, and the African Union to continue intensive negotiations with all parties.

I also strongly urge all parties, including those representing nonsignatory Darfur rebel movements, to participate fully in the U.N.- African Union-led negotiations and to tirelessly cooperate in the effort to bring about a political solution that will return peace and stability to the people of Darfur.

Those who choose not to participate leave themselves open to further international isolation and sanction. Each day we delay on peacekeeping and political settlement efforts leads to more death, more rape, more human suffering, more people displaced from their homes, more desperate refugees. Each day we delay, the crisis becomes more complex, with increased violence and numbers of refugees spilling over into neighboring countries creating burdens and instabilities there. Each day we delay gives President Bashir another opportunity to stall and back away from his commitment. Each day we delay is a further indictment of the global community's failure to act decisively in the face of genocide.

We must not wait another day. Let us not forget the major export of Sudan is oil. The major company in Sudan that is drilling the oil and exporting it is PetroChina, a company controlled by the Chinese Government. The Chinese need to be involved in this as well, first at the United Nations and then beyond.

A few weeks ago, after an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal written by Mia Farrow, the actress, the Chinese finally responded and made some overtures toward the Bashir Government, saying they had to act. We have not heard anything since.

It is time for the Chinese to step up. If they want to be part of this global community, they should stand on the side of civilized conduct. They should condemn the genocide in Darfur and do more.

In closing, I thank President Bush, Secretary General Ban, and U.N. Ambassador Khalilzad. I want them to know there is strong support in the Congress for swift action to field this peacekeeping force. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken out for years on the need to do more to halt the genocide in Darfur. We will and we must continue to focus this concern on doing everything we can to halt this genocide.

I hope we have an active voice and role in this debate in the Senate. Yes, we can do many things--our legislative business--but not ignoring the rest of the world. I hope, in the next 2 weeks, we can take action on the floor to adopt resolutions and to make it clear, on a bipartisan basis, we want the U.N. peacekeeping force to act and act quickly in response.

We should also be working with the Ambassadors from countries that are represented in the African Union, as well as those on the Security Council, to reassure them that the United States wants swift action. We need to make sure our appropriations bills reflect the need for resources to make this a success. As the President said more than 2 years ago, ``Not on my watch.'' We in the Congress, we in the Senate, should say the same, and we should follow that statement with action.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Illinois on his remarks. Not only were they heartfelt but they were certainly cogent and certainly correct.

My warmest congratulations to the, Senator.

Madam President, I come to speak to the passage of the joint resolution renewing the import sanctions on Burma for another year. This legislation has been introduced for several years now by Senator McConnell and myself. I began working on this issue with Senator Bill Cohen a long time ago when he was in this body.

Yesterday, the House passed the joint resolution by voice vote and the Senate Finance Committee reported the McConnell-Feinstein bill to the Senate floor on a unanimous bipartisan basis, so I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

These sanctions are set to expire in 2 days, that is July 26, and any delay will only serve to benefit the ruling military junta in Burma-- the State Peace and Development Council is its name--at the expense of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and leader of the National League for Democracy Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.

I remind my colleagues that the National League for Democracy, headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, decisively won the last parliamentary elections in 1989. These sanctions will be renewed for 1 year, so we will have a chance to discuss them in a year if the military junta should decide to make some reforms. But, simply put, the junta to date has failed to take any meaningful steps to release Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. There are over a thousand political prisoners many of her political party, elected to the Parliament, who remain in prison.

Last month, we celebrated the 62nd birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi. She spent her day, as she has for most of her past 17 years, alone and under house arrest--17 long years alone in a house in Burma, with no communication with the outside world. In May, the State Peace and Development Council renewed her sentence for yet another year.

I am heartened to know the Senate and the international community are coming together to ensure the abuses and injustices of the military junta in Burma do not go unnoticed.

Earlier this year, 45 Senators signed a letter to U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon, urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release. In a recent letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of State, including former Filipino President Corazon Aquino, former Czech President Vaclav Havel, former British Prime Minister John Major, and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted that:

Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma but

rather peaceful, nonviolent dialog between the military,

National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.

What kind of threat can that be to a government? The calls for Suu Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's neighbors. The Association of Southwest Asian Nations, known as ASEAN, now recognizes that Burma's actions are not an internal matter but a significant threat to peace and stability in the region. At a meeting of senior diplomats last month, ASEAN made a clear call for Aung San Suu Kyi's release. That call is so welcome. I would like to encourage ASEAN to continue to speak out.

Last month, the women of the Senate--and you were one, Madam President--came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma, to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, to call for her immediate release and urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma.

We did not do this in vain. The United Nations did pass a resolution earlier this year, but unfortunately it was vetoed by China and Russia. At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush, who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma.

Our message is spreading and it is clear and we will not remain silent. We will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma. Let us not forget that this human rights situation compels us to action. Consider this: There are still 1,300 political prisoners in jail. According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, over 3,000 villages have been destroyed by the military junta; 70,000 child soldiers have been forcibly recruited; and over half a million people are internally displaced in Burma today; and over 1 million people have fled Burma in the past two decades, destabilizing Burma's neighbors.

The practice of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by the Burmese military. Use of forced labor is widespread. Human trafficking is rampant. Burma is the world's second largest opium producer, after Afghanistan, and increasingly a source of trafficking of synthetic narcotics.

Sanctions are not a panacea for every problem, and in many cases they don't work, but in this instance, we still hope they can be effective. Suu Kyi herself has said this:

We would like the world to know that economic sanctions do

not hurt the common people of Burma. We would like the

European Community, the United States and the rest of the

world to be aware that sanctions do help the movement for

democracy in Burma.

Members of this body, this is an amazing woman, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, under house arrest for the better part of 17 years because her party was democratically elected to lead Burma. We should speak out. This resolution is one way of doing that.

I urge its passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, let me first express my appreciation to my friend and colleague from Michigan, Congressman Levin, for his help in bringing this important legislation to the floor, and to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, for his great assistance and leadership.

Mr. Speaker, nearly two decades ago, Aung San Suu Kyi embarked on a personal journey that would parallel the terrible nightmare of her people, the people of Burma. That was the year in which she helped found the National League for Democracy, a movement to promote democratic change in her homeland. Her long and torturous journey has led her to both a Nobel Peace Prize and seemingly eternal incarceration.

Rather than cede to the widespread calls and massive protests for a free and fair election, a military junta seized and maintained power in Burma. The regime feared the power of one fearless voice for democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi.

In 1990, the military junta finally permitted a general election, which the National League for Democracy won handily. The military promptly nullified the results, preventing the daughter of the very general who negotiated Burma's independence from taking her rightful place as Prime Minister.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, Aung San Suu Kyi has been tossed back and forth in and out of prison and house arrest as though she were simply a pawn in the tumultuous and chaotic game being played by the corrupt fat cats running Burma. But like the people of her nation, she is in fact much more than a pawn; she is an ardent champion of freedom, an exemplary defender of democracy, and one of the strongest willed moral beacons on this planet.

She stands firmly in the tradition of Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, and all other voices of the oppressed. Those legendary figures eventually delivered their people to freedom, and we in this Congress aim to help Aung San Suu Kyi to do just that.

Inspired by her resolve and the resolve of the Burmese people, this Congress has been committed to their cause for many years. Today, we renew import sanctions aimed at forcing democratic change in Burma, which I can say categorically is one of the most repressive regimes on the planet.

America's tough sanctions against Burma, including an import ban, export sanctions, and arms embargo and financial sanctions, have spurred the civilized nations of the world to take similar actions against Burma. The European Union recently updated its own set of sanctions, though they need to be even tougher. The leading members of ASEAN, who for years went out of their way to defend Burma's horrendous behavior, are now exercising their significant diplomatic muscle to promote democratic change in Burma and to free Aung San Suu Kyi.

The United Nations has held its first ever Security Council debate on the security threat to the Asia Pacific region posed by the Burmese regime.

But too many other nations, India and China in particular, continue to prop up the government through shockingly direct, blatant deals, including arms trading with this cruel junta in Burma.

Just this past week, Mr. Speaker, the BBC reported that in any major hotel in Rangoon, and I quote, ``Russian arms dealers, South Korean and French oilmen, Singaporean consultants and Chinese bankers are all mingling over cocktails with their Burmese counterparts.''

Mr. Speaker, these despicable deals undermine the entire international effort to help the Burmese people. And so today, as we renew our import sanctions, we aim both to pressure directly the military junta in Burma, and to influence those in the international community who are currently asleep at the wheel of justice and human rights. Oppressive power can only be delegitimized when it is fully isolated.

Mr. Speaker, Aung San Suu Kyi remains imprisoned. So do the people of Burma. Even out of power and out of sight, she remains a powerful symbol and, therefore, a leader of the plight of some 50 million people in her native land of Burma. We must do our part to carry her torch. And I urge all of my colleagues to vote today for these sanctions once again.

Madam President, this legislation continues the sanctions already in place against Burma's illegitimate Peace and Development Council. If enacted, these sanctions will continue to show the SPDC that the United States stands squarely with the long-suffering people of Burma and against its brutal regime.

Just last month, the International Committee of the Red Cross condemned the actions of the Burmese regime--a rare vocal stance for an organization that has historically worked to bring about change behind the scenes. The ICRC's statement, according to international observers, is the harshest it has issued since the Rwandan genocide more than 12 years ago.

Burma's sham reforms are not fooling the Red Cross and they should not be fooling anyone else. The SPDC recently resumed its so-called constitutional convention, a convention in which most delegates were selected by the regime itself and in which delegates are not allowed to offer draft changes without permission. Criticism of the draft constitution is prohibited by law. One notable provision in the draft forbids the spouse of a foreign national from sitting in Parliament, an addition clearly aimed at National League for Democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, whose British husband died in 1999.

The SPDC calls the convention a ``roadmap'' to democracy. But on the SPDC's map, the destination is not freedom, it is tyranny.

Until the NLD and Burma's ethnic minorities are fully included in the governing process, until this process reflects true democratic principles, this convention should be shunned--shunned--by the international community. A sham constitutional process is a step backwards, not forward.

With that said, there are some encouraging signs. International pressure on the Burmese regime has begun to increase. Members of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations have expressed concern about the SPDC's behavior, and much like the ICRC's condemnation, recent statements of ASEAN members represent a departure from traditional practice. Clearly, there is growing international impatience with the Burmese regime.

I am proud to say that the United States has long been at the vanguard of the movement to democratize Burma. Others, such as ASEAN, are following our lead. They are beginning to recognize the moral imperative to help the people of this beleaguered nation.

I am also proud of the continued unified stance taken by the Senate over the years with respect to Burma. On Monday, the Senate Finance Committee voted out this bill unanimously. The legislation has 60 cosponsors and once again enjoys broad bipartisan support.

I am pleased to be joined again by my good friend and cosponsor, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. I also thank Rich Harper of her staff for all the hard work he has put forward to make this legislation possible. On the Republican side, my good friend Senator McCain continues to use his respected voice to support the Burmese people.

It is time for the Senate, once again, to go on record and show that we stand with the people of Burma. As we do, we can be confident of their gratitude.

In a recent book on the plight of the Burmese people by author Emma Larkin, a Burmese man urges outside nations to keep the pressure on. ``Change has to come from outside,'' he says. ``The world must pinch Burma harder. . . . Give any money to these generals and it is like watching a poisonous plant grow.''

Let's show that we stand for freedom and against oppression, for real democratic progress and against hollow promises of reform, against the poisonous plant that is the SPDC.

I urge my Senate colleagues to support adoption of this joint resolution.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays for when we ultimately get back to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I support extending import sanctions against Burma. Import sanctions have been in place for 4 years and, unfortunately, the Burmese military junta has shown no progress in improving its egregious human rights records. The actions of this regime in Burma are inexcusable.

The U.S. State Department's annual report on the effectiveness of the sanctions observes that Burma's already poor human rights record has only worsened. This regime continues to use forced labor, deny participation in democratic processes, and commit killings. Inexcusable.

Despite the regime's promised road map to democracy, no meaningful progress has been made to create a democratic system of governance. The regime continues to exclude pro-democracy groups from the national convention and to jail pro-democracy opposition leaders. Aung San Suu Kyi has been living under house arrest for 4 years. Therefore, I believe it is necessary and it is appropriate to continue these sanctions to send an important message to Burma leaders that their violation of basic human rights is inexcusable.

I generally approach unilateral trade sanctions with skepticism. Sanctions can have the unintended consequences of harming the people we seek to help. The State Department acknowledges that some opposition figures in Burma, academics, and exiled Burmese question whether U.S. unilateral sanctions have any chance of success without the participation of Burma's major trading partners, including ASEAN members China, India, and other regional countries. I do share their concerns. However, various aspects of the Burmese sanctions system mitigate my concerns to some degree.

The important sanctions will sunset after 1 year unless Congress votes under a privileged resolution to maintain their sanctions and are completely terminated in 2009. Furthermore, the administration is required to submit an annual report on whether the sanctions have effectively improved conditions in Burma and furthered U.S. national security, economic, and foreign policy objectives, along with impact of sanctions on other U.S. national security, economic and foreign policy interests.

Moreover the law grants the President the authority to waive the sanctions if it is in the national interest and also directs the President to craft a multilateral sanctions regime to pressure Burma to improve its human rights.

If we are to be successful inducing change by the Government of Burma, sanctions must be multilateral. There have been high-level international discussions on Burma over the past year. In September 2006, the U.N. Security Council discussed Burma; in December of 2006 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution expressing its grave concern over human rights violations in Burma and calling on the regime to take urgent measures to address these violations. Separately, the ASEAN countries called for the release of those placed under detention and for effective dialogue with all parties concerned. I hope these words will be followed by tangible actions. Continued efforts to build multilateral pressure on Burma are critical to my future support for these import sanctions. I urge support of H.J. Res. 44.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friends and colleagues across the aisle.

I yield back the balance of my time.