Oil Independence, Limiting Subsidies, and Accelerating Vehicle Efficiency (OILSAVE) Act

Mr. President, earlier this year, while the Senate was resuming its business in a new Congress, two dozen families on the other side of the world were fleeing their homes. Ninety-four men and women, some young some old, grabbed whatever belongings they could carry and headed north along the eastern Burmese border to escape the torment of a brutal regime.

Human rights officials tell us what happened next. Late last month, these families were forced to move again. And as I stand here today, they are cramped inside the homes of other refugees. We are looking forward to summer vacations. They are looking ahead at the bitter work of building new homes in the rain, with their hands, in a remote corner of a stark, isolated wasteland the world seems to have forgotten.

Mr. President, I am here to report that the United States has not forgotten. We will continue to shine a light on the oppressive and illegitimate military regime that drove these families from their homes. And I will rise every year, as I do today, with my good friend the senior Senator from California, to reintroduce a bill that extends for another year a ban on imports from Burma.

Republicans and Democrats work together proudly on some things in the Senate. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act is one of them. I am pleased to say that even though the control of Congress has changed, its commitment to the people of Burma has not. Senator Feinstein and I are joined this year by 57 cosponsors, more than last year and the year before that. On the Republican side, for example, the people of Burma have no better friend than the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Support for the people of Burma is growing on Capitol Hill. Senator Feinstein and the senior Senator from Texas recently formed the Women's Caucus on Burma. The First Lady attended its first meeting last month, adding her voice to a growing chorus of those opposed to the Burmese regime. The voices are not just coming from Washington. But the words and actions of Washington are beginning to cause others to take note of this dire situation.

Last year, the United Nations Security Council agreed for the first time to put Burma on its agenda. In January, a U.N. Security Council resolution that enjoyed the support of a majority of the Council's member nations was unfortunately blocked by Russian and Chinese vetoes. We remain encouraged by the fact that nine countries agreed to hold the regime accountable. We urge Russia and China to reconsider their stance.

We know others are beginning to notice Burma because 3 years ago the Association of Southeast Asian nations called the sufferings in Burma ``an internal matter.'' Yet today ASEAN recognizes that the ``Burma problem'' is its problem, too.

Southeast Asian leaders have spoken out more frequently and forcefully over the last year in calling for democratic reforms. They join the United States and other freedom-loving people who have demanded for years that the military thugs who control Burma loosen their grip.

We know others are starting taking notice because earlier this year the United Nations Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon, urged the release of Burma's roughly 1,300 political prisoners, including the world's only imprisoned Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.

And we know others are starting to take notice because that effort was followed by a letter signed by 59 former heads of state.

The Burmese military regime, the State Peace and Development Council, is on notice: the wider international community, including its neighbors, are increasingly aware and increasingly outraged by its behavior.

Mr. President, The purpose of sanctions is to change behavior. And the changes we seek, in partnership with the Burmese people, are these: concrete, irreversible steps toward reconciliation and democratization that include the full, unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities; ending attacks on ethnic minorities; and the immediate, unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience, including Suu Kyi. The regime also needs to know that a sham constitutional process and token prisoner releases will not be regarded by anyone as progress toward these goals.

The argument against sanctions--that they are most harmful to those they are meant to help--is well known. But it does not apply to Burma. It has long been the policy of the NLD, the winner of Burma's last democratic election, to seek reform through sanctions against the current regime.

And for good reason. Burma's military junta has maintained an iron grip on every aspect of the country's economy. Its leaders flaunt and squander whatever wealth they can squeeze from Burmese workers, leaving the country's economy in ruins--but leaving enough aside for its current leader, GEN Than Shwe, to impulsively relocate the Burmese capital from Rangoon at a cost of millions, or to throw a wedding for his daughter that is reported to have cost millions more.

The military junta has complete control over the flow of goods and money in and out of Burma. And every dollar that is spent on Burmese products is money spent on financing the regime. It is the SPDC, not the allies of the Burmese people, who are responsible for Burma's economic woes.

As diplomatic pressure intensifies, as the rest of the international community undertakes the kind of change we have seen in ASEAN, the supporters of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act are confident this regime will be forced to change its ways.

The situation is urgent. Burma's military regime has become increasingly reckless. And the humanitarian situation is grave and deteriorating: the junta has intensified its abuse of minority groups through rape and forced labor. It continues to harass and detain a new generation of peaceful activists, activists like a young woman named Su Su Nway, who has inspired the world with her resolute defiance of forced labor practices.

In standing up to the Burmese regime, Su Su Nway drew inspiration from Suu Kyi. Now she is inspiring another generation of Burmese activists who are willing to defend their rights and, despite the danger to themselves, refuse to remain silent in the face of the abuses they see.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Su Su Nway was asked by a radio reporter last year whether she feared imprisonment. Her simple but eloquent response should give us hope in the determination of this new generation of

activists. ``I will stand for the truth,'' she said.

The crimes of the Burmese government are well documented. Here is what we know: nearly 70,000 children have been taken from their homes and forcibly conscripted--that's more children than live in all of Lexington, the second-largest city in my State.

Forced labor is a daily threat in the southeastern Karen State, where military personnel force villagers to build roads and shelters, without food or pay, and to leave their homes and farms to do the work. Some are used as human shields against democratic insurgents.

These are the lucky ones. Others are forced to walk ahead of military convoys to act as human minesweepers. If there is a landmine, they blow up. It is from diabolical thugs like these that desperate, exhausted families are fleeing their homes.

Drugs and disease are spreading across Burma's borders along with its people, and it is no secret why. According to the World Health Organization, Burma is home to one of the worst AIDS epidemics in Southeast Asia. Yet it spent just $137,000 last year on the care and treatment of people with HIV/AIDS, even as it spends countless millions on Chinese and Russian tanks and jets.

You can tell a lot about a man from the company he keeps. We could say the same about governments. In late April, Burma established diplomatic relations with the government of North Korea for the first time in two decades. It was reported last month that a North Korean cargo ship docked in Burma. This is a disturbing development to those of us on the outside looking in. It can only be discouraging to democratic reformers inside Burma.

News of North Korea's presence on the Burmese coast came shortly after another troubling piece of news. In early April, Burma's second in command led a delegation on the nation's first-ever high-level trip to Russia. And last month, the Burmese government announced an agreement with Russia to build a nuclear research reactor in Burma.

This should send a chill up the spine of every one of us. Even peaceful nations that lack the proper legal and regulatory framework should not be allowed to have a nuclear program. Those that torture and abuse their own people and consort with rogue regimes such as North Korea should not be allowed to even contemplate it.

And this is how this rogue regime has held onto its power: Internal efforts at reform are violently stamped out, as they were when thousands of peaceful prodemocracy protesters were slaughtered in 1988. In response to a national election in 1990, in which Suu Kyi's party, the NLD, won 80 percent of the seats in a new parliament, the regime simply threw out the results.

By refusing to accept imports from a regime that terrorizes people like Suu Kyi, Su Su Nway, and so many others, we are standing up and facing these tyrants at our own borders and turning them back--until they release these prisoners and begin the process of democratization and reconciliation. Every dollar we keep out of the hands of this junta is one less dollar it can use to fund the conscription of children, its nuclear program, and the war it has waged against its own people for nearly two decades.

Later this month, Suu Kyi will celebrate her 62nd birthday, alone. I urge my colleagues to stand with her as that day approaches. By denying support for those who imprison her, we will pressure them to change.

There are fresh signs that these sanctions have begun to do their work. But we need to keep the pressure on. So I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator Kerry, This comprehensive legislation strengthens and builds upon the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Congress passed OPA 90 shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound, the largest spill in U.S, history. OPA 90 revolutionized oilspill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank or improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response.

It is important to recognize that we have come a long way since OPA 90. This is especially true in my home State of Washington. The Coast Guard's District 13 leads the Nation in oilspill prevention and works closely with the State of Washington, tribal governments, and industry.

While we recognize the good work that is already being carried out in Washington and elsewhere, we must also look to continually improve our

ability to prevent and respond to oilspills. While the probability of a major oilspill has been greatly reduced since OPA 90, the potential impact of such a spill is now greater than ever.

According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oilspills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In 1992, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil; in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons, and a significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. Furthermore, even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating.

Again, to use examples from Washington State: endangered species like salmon and southern resident orca whales are increasingly vulnerable to the acute and chronic impacts of an oilspill. We have a National Marine Sanctuary off our coast that demands stepped-up protection, and we must take care to hold up our trust obligations to treaty tribes whose usual and accustomed fishing grounds would be devastated by a major spill. This is all to say that we must factor the consequence major spill into our equations for risk. My colleagues from around the country can, I am sure, point to similar examples.

In August of 2005, I chaired a Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard field hearing in Seattle. This hearing focused on improving our oil pollution prevention and response capabilities. As a result of testimony from that hearing and conversations with the Coast Guard and other stakeholders, I introduced the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 last March.

The bill I introduce today, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, updates that effort and includes additional provisions.

New provisions include a requirement that the Coast Guard notify States and tribal governments of maritime incidents in Federal waters that have the potential to impact state resources. The bill would also atlthorize the Coast Guard to train and work with qualified State vessel inspectors to bolster their existing ability to inspect vessels in port.

Other new provisions include a requirement for the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations allowing vessel owners to form nonprofit cooperatives to streamline their compliance with vessel response plan requirements. Also new is an authorization for an education and outreach grant program to prevent the frequency of small spills that occur from recreational vessels.

The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 retains key provisions from last year's bill that address a number of areas to improve prevention and response.

First, my bill directs the Coast Guard to finalize all rulemakings remaining from OPA 90 within 18 months. Remaining OPA 90 rules include the critical salvage and firefighting requirements, which would establish a national network of salvage and response vessels and equipment capable of assisting ships in distress. Implementation of the salvage and firefighting rule has been consistently pushed back, most recently in February of this year. It has been 17 years since the passage of OPA 90 and finalizing these rules in a timely manner will greatly improve our prevention and response capabilities.

Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oilspills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oilspills from vessels as well as ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high- risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. My bill would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oilspills from oil transfers. It would also make companies that knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts.

Of particular importance to my State, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oilspill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port'' for Puget Sound to make westerly boundary begin at the entrance to the strait. This change would require oilspill response equipment to be stationed along the entire strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would require improved coordination with federally recognized tribes on oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response.

The bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the oilspill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Dalco Passage Oilspill, and provide $1 million annually to support the council's important work. Finally, this bill would reiterate an OPA 90 directive for the Coast Guard and Department of State to enter into negotiations with Canada to ensure tug escorts for all tank ships with a capacity greater than 40,000 dead weight tons in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Haro Strait.

The slow response to the oilspill in Daleo Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would reinvigorate a Federal research program on oilspill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oilspills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations.

Oilspill prevention and response is timely for Congress to consider because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Hawaii, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, nontank vessels, and oil transfer operations.

One thing we have learned from these spills is that prevention is more cost-effective than cleaning up oil once it is released into the environment. We have also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oilspills.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oilspills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation to encourage the deployment of next generation wireless services in rural areas. Cell phones have become a vital part of so many lives. Today, there are more than 200 million wireless subscribers in the United States alone, a subscribership that continues to grow. This burgeoning success makes it all the more imperative that we foster an environment where this technology and future wireless advancements can flourish and thrive.

As we consider the myriad issues affecting this debate, we must bear in mind that along with mobility, convenience and safety, cell phones today engender countless additional benefits from access to information, global satellite positioning, to entertainment. While wireless phones have been rapidly adopted by the general public, wireless service faces flaws that could hinder further adoption. I can tell you from firsthand experience how frustrated it can be when I am at home in Maine when I cannot get cellular service. Something must be done in order to improve advance the capability of wireless service that people across my State and others are relying on in increasing numbers every day.

We must be vigilant in safeguarding our smaller communities from remaining under served and strive to ensure that they are taken into account as the Federal Government shapes policy in response to this changing technological landscape. As many of my colleagues are well aware, wireless services, such as cell phones, handheld devices, and some Internet services use frequencies on the radio spectrum to transfer voice and data from one user to another. It is the job of the service provider to convert these airwaves into the valuable services that consumers demand. The quality of service in a given place depends on how much investment the service provider has put into infrastructure. More urban locations tend to have better service because the return on investment is much higher because of the concentration of customers. This reality does not mean that rural areas are left without service. Viable business models exist that can sustain service in these more remote locations. Oftentimes smaller, local wireless companies can serve these areas better than nationwide service providers.

But one of the greatest barriers to entry in the wireless industry is acquiring a spectrum license in which a service can be operated. Companies bid billions of dollars for rights to be one of the Nation's most critical technological resources. The digital television transition is on the verge of releasing new spectrum into the marketplace, the much-anticipated 700 megaHertz spectrum auction. While I am grateful that the Federal Communications Commission has stated its intention to auction off the spectrum in licenses that cover both large and small geographic areas, without this consideration, smaller companies will be unable to compete in the bidding process. That is patently unacceptable.

The bill I introduce today aims to address this problem by reiterating to the Federal Communications Commission the necessity of protecting smaller communities during the 700 MHz spectrum that will be auctioned as a result of the digital television transition. In the final auction rules, the FCC must divide some of the frequency allocations into smaller area licenses so that local and regional wireless companies can have an opportunity to compete in the bidding process. The proper balance of large and small licenses will encourage the deployment of advanced services throughout all parts of the United States.

This bill is not meant to circumvent the expertise or purview of the Federal Communications Commission, nor call into question its intentions. It merely directs the FCC to use its acumen and good offices to develop a plan that will benefit the entire Nation. Rural America deserves the same benefits of wireless technologies that are available in urban areas. This act gives those best able to serve remote areas the required tools to deploy those services.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Vessel Conveyance Act, a bill which would prevent inappropriate transfers of surplus United States vessels to nongovernmental organizations.

It has recently come to my attention that two decommissioned U.S. Coast Guard ships that had been conveyed in legislation to a certain charitable organization are no longer being used for the purpose explicitly stated by law. In fact, the ships are no longer in the organization's possession. Unaware of the costs affiliated with maintenance of the ships, the recipient found itself unable to afford the upkeep. Against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, the charity sold first one, and then the second ship, and pocketed the proceeds, which totaled $415,000.

Though the U.S. General Services Administration has a process in place for disposal of surplus vessels, I understand the value of dedicated vessel conveyances under certain circumstances. But we must recognize that these assets are the property of the American people, and they represent a significant investment of public funds. When Congress acts to convey such valuable items to a private entity, it also conveys the responsibility to use the vessel for a specific purpose. In cases where that responsibility has not been carried out, we must be able to seek recourse, and this bill would provide that tool.

Specifically, this legislation would expressly prohibit the recipient of a conveyed vessel from either selling it, or using it for commercial purposes. It would require the Administrator of the GSA to monitor conveyed vessels the same way he monitors ships dispersed under the standard GSA process to ensure that they are being used appropriately, and it gives her the power to reclaim the ship if she determines that those conditions have been violated. The bill would also eliminate the possibility of transfer to an organization lacking sufficient financial stability to maintain a given vessel. Finally, it includes civil enforcement provisions making recipients liable for fines of up to $10,000 per day that they are in violation of their conveyance agreement.

On the rare occasions when Congress determines that a certain asset is uniquely suited to assist a worthy and capable organization, I do not oppose a legislative conveyance. But I will not allow any organization to fleece the American taxpayers by biting the hand that has provided such a generous gift. I am pleased to introduce this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fuel Reduction using Electrons to End Our Dependence on the Mideast Act of 2007, or the FREEDOM Act. Senators Maria Cantwell, Barack Obama, and I have been working closely together since the beginning of the year to author this very important legislation. We believe the FREEDOM Act will begin a dramatic shift in the transportation sector away from liquid fuels and toward the greater use of electrons.

For years I worked hard to pass a strong tax incentive package for alternative fuel and hybrid electric vehicles in the form of the CLEAR Act, which was passed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. When I first introduced the CLEAR Act, more than 7 years ago, there were only two hybrid vehicles available commercially. Today there are dozens of models of hybrids from which consumers can choose.

Already, the move toward hybrid-electric vehicles has helped to reduce the demand for liquid fuel in this country. It has also set the stage for the next technological step, the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. This vehicle would have an extra battery pack, recharged from the electricity grid, giving the vehicle all the benefits of a plug-in battery electric vehicle but also the freedom and fuel efficiency of a hybrid electric vehicle once the battery has used up its charge.

With today's advanced plug-in electric and the coming plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, most commuters will be able to make the round trip from home to work and back using very little or no fuel, relying instead on cheap, clean, and abundant electricity.

As you and many of our colleagues know, per mile, electricity can be much cheaper and cleaner than petroleum, and electrons are generated domestically and independent of the global oil market.

It is difficult to overstate the potential the change to plug-in electric vehicles could make in terms of our energy dependence on liquid fuels. R. James Woolsey, who is a member of the National Commission on Energy Policy, testified before the Finance Committee this spring. In his testimony, he cited a Department of Energy study that estimated that adopting plug-in vehicles would not create a need for new base load electricity generation plants until plug-ins constitute over 84 percent of the country's 220 million passenger vehicles. In other words, we already have the power we need to fuel the vast majority of the cars in this country right now, and it exists in the excess capacity of our existing powerplants. Because plug-in vehicles could mostly be charged at night, during the off-peak hours for electric utilities, this technology represents an elegant solution.

In terms of technology and industry focus, the United States is positioned to lead the world into the future with plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. The FREEDOM Act would help our Nation to take up that position by helping to develop the market, the technology, and the domestic production capacity needed to fulfill this role.

The FREEDOM Act's goals would be achieved through four strong tax incentives: First, a tax credit for consumers who purchase plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; second, for a limited time, a tax credit for consumers who convert their hybrid vehicles to high quality plug-in hybrid vehicles; third, a strong tax incentive for the U.S. manufacture of plug-in vehicles and of major components of plug-in vehicles, such as batteries, electric motors, and electronic controllers; and finally, a tax credit for electric utilities that provide rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive vehicles.

Freedom plug-in credits would cover the consumer purchase of vehicles that use batteries and that plug into the electric grid for at least part of their power. This would include plug-in electrics, plug-in hybrids, and others. The amount of the credit would be based on the kilowatt hours of the vehicle's battery pack, with a cap of $7,500 for passenger vehicles. The same is true for heavier duty vehicles, except that the caps are scaled up for each vehicle weight class.

Freedom conversion credits would go to hybrid-electric vehicle owners who choose to convert their existing hybrid vehicle to a high quality plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. These credits would also be scaled to the kilowatt-hours of the new battery installed in their vehicle. Only high quality conversion kits, which are certified to meet all highway safety and emissions standards would qualify for a freedom conversion credit, and the credits would be available until the market transitions to commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles.

The FREEDOM Act also offers first-year expensing for companies setting up production capacity in the United States for plug-in electric drive vehicles and for major components of those vehicles.

Finally, in the case that an electric utility in the U.S. chooses to offer rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive vehicles, the FREEDOM Act would reimburse the utility for part of that rebate in the form of a freedom utility credit. The amount of the Government reimbursement would be based on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions for each utility.

I want to emphasize that like the tax credits available under current law for hybrid electric vehicles, the tax incentives in the FREEDOM Act are temporary. They are needed in order to help get these products over the initial stage of production, when they are quite a bit more expensive than older technology vehicles, to the mass production stage, where economies of scale will drive costs down and the credits will no longer be necessary. Consumer acceptance of this exciting new technology is vital, and these credits will make it easier and more economical for consumers to choose vehicles that will move us away from dependence on less clean and more expensive transportation fuel produced by other nations.

The consumer acceptance of the hybrid electric vehicle has already proven a benefit to our Nation's energy security, and the plug-in hybrid will lead to an even more dramatic reduction in fuel use in this country. Years ago, I argued that the technologies developed to make hybrids possible would eventually lead us to a commercially available hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I stand by that argument, and I believe that by the time plug-in hybrid electric vehicles become mass produced in this country, we will be ready to use hydrogen fuel cells to disconnect these vehicles from the grid and begin a new age in transportation with much greater freedom of movement and freedom from dependence of foreign oil.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to throw their full support for the FREEDOM Act.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McConnell and 54 of our colleagues to introduce a joint resolution renewing the ban on all imports from Burma for another year.

Simply put, the ruling State Peace and Development Council--SPDC--has not taken the necessary actions to warrant a lifting of the sanctions at this time.

Indeed, Burma represents one of the most critical human rights situations in the world today.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, is confined to her home by orders of the military junta.

She has spent the better part of the past 17 years imprisoned or under house arrest and on May 25, 2003 her sentence was extended for another year.

There is no indication that the regime will free her anytime soon.

This is simply unacceptable. She should be released immediately and unconditionally and the regime should begin real and substantive national reconciliation talks with Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy--NLD.

The NLD, the winning party in Burma's last free elections in 1990 with 82 percent of the seats in parliament, is forbidden from participating in public life. For over 20 years, the military junta has been unwilling to take meaningful steps towards political reconciliation.

And let us not forget: 4 years ago government sponsored thugs attempted to assassinate Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy by attacking her motorcade in northern Burma.

Indeed, the human rights situation in Burma is deplorable and demands a clear, unified response from the international community: 1,300 political prisoners are still 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; over 500,000 people are internally displaced in Burma today, and over 1 million people have fled Burma over the past two decades, destabilizing Burma's neighbors. Also, 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.

Some may argue that while the human rights situation is indeed deplorable, sanctions are not the proper solution and we should try a new course.

I agree that sanctions are not a panacea for every foreign policy concern. I am disappointed that Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and we still have not realized our goal of a free and democratic Burma.

Yet now is not the time to lift the import ban on Burma. First, the military junta has not fulfilled any of the obligations of the ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' that would allow a lifting of the ban. It has not made ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards: ending violations of internationally recognized human rights; releasing all political prisoners; allowing freedom of speech and press; allowing freedom of association; permitting the peaceful exercise of religion and; bringing to a conclusion an agreement between the SPDC and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic nationalities on the restoration of a democratic government.

If we were to allow the import ban to expire, we would reward the military junta for its inaction, its failure to fulfill these basic obligations, and its continued brutal crackdown on the human rights of the citizens of Burma.

We simply cannot afford to send that message to those who bravely stand up to the SPDC and reject their abuses.

I remind my colleagues that we are not voting to enact the import ban in perpetuity.

We are renewing it for one more year and we will have another opportunity to review its effectiveness next year.

Second, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continue to support the import ban.

They recognize that it is not directed at the people of Burma, but at the military junta that dominates economic and political activity in their country and denies them their rights.

Third, we are seeing progress in the international community in putting additional pressure on Burma.

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 dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.''

The calls for Suu Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's neighbors.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations--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.

As Philippine foreign under secretary Erlinda Basilio said: ``It's a consensus that we want to see her early release.''

An editorial in the Jakarta Post recently commented that the regime's refusal to heed these calls ``shows its complete disregard for the growing values of ASEAN.'' That is from the Jakarta Post, May 29, 2007.

We are also seeing progress at the United Nations. In January, for the first time, the United Nations debated a binding, non-punitive resolution on Burma.

Among other things that resolution called on the military junta:

. . . to take concrete steps to allow full freedom of

expression, association, and movement by unconditionally

releasing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners,

lifting all constraints on all political leaders and

citizens, and allowing the National League for Democracy

(NLD) and other political parties to operate freely.

While nine countries voted in favor of the resolution, I am extremely disappointed that China and Russia exercised their veto.

A report by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and retired archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa--``Threat to Peace: A Call for the U.N. Security Council to Act on Burma''--confirms the need for U.N. intervention. It details how the situation in Burma fulfills each of the criteria used for past intervention by the Security Council: overthrow of an elected government; armed conflicts with ethnic minorities; widespread human rights violations; outflow of refugees-- over 700,000; and drug production and trafficking and the spread of