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

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss events in the country of Burma. Every year since 2003, I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, and every year introduction of this bill has been accompanied by a somber message to the Senate: that reform in Burma is nowhere in sight. That is what I have said every year going back to 2003.

This year, I am pleased to say that though the bill's language is the same, the message is far different, as is the legal effect of the legislation. In a remarkable turnabout of events over the past 18 months, Burma has made dramatic changes for the better. In response to these developments, the administration recently decided it will ease many of the economic sanctions against Burma through exercise of its waiver authority. As a result, this year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would effectively renew only a handful of the sanctions against the regime and would preserve the administration's flexibility to use its waiver authority.

In 2008, the Burmese junta put in place a new Constitution--a very flawed document. It does not ensure civilian control of the military. In fact, the charter may only be amended if over 75 percent of the Parliament vote in favor of such changes and one-fourth of the seats in Parliament are reserved for the military.

In November 2010, Burma held an election under this new charter, which was universally derided as being neither free nor fair. The party of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi--the National League for Democracy--refused to participate due to the unfairness of the electoral process.

Restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly were manifest, and there was a prohibition against political prisoners, such as Suu Kyi, running for office. Not surprisingly, the junta-supported party won over three-quarters of the nonappointed parliamentary seats. The new government took office on April 1, 2011.

Shortly after this seemingly unpromising election, some signs of change began to appear. Suu Kyi was freed after years under house arrest. By July 2011 she was permitted to leave Rangoon for the first time since her release. In August she visited the new capital, Naypyitaw, and met with the new President, Thein Sein.

In September 2011 the government lifted its prohibition against major news Web sites and dropped anti-Western slogans from state publications. That same month the regime announced it would suspend action on a controversial dam to be constructed by China in Kachin State. The project was strongly opposed by democracy advocates and ethnic leaders.

As part of its reforms, the legislature enacted a bill that permitted Suu Kyi to participate in the April 1, 2012, by-election and made it possible for her party to reregister, after having technically lost its party status for boycotting the November 2010 balloting.

In January of 2012 a score of political prisoners were released and a preliminary cease-fire agreement was reached with the Karen, appearing to end one of the longest running ethnic disputes in the world.

In April 2012 Burma held a by-election to replace lawmakers who had assumed Cabinet roles. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the election. Of the 45 seats that were open, the NLD contested 44 and won 43.

Suu Kyi herself won a seat in what was clearly a dramatic victory for the opposition. This spring, for the first time in a quarter of a century, Suu Kyi was granted a passport and traveled outside Burma. Thus, in a mere 18 months, Suu Kyi has gone from political prisoner to Member of Parliament. That in and of itself is a remarkable change, and it reflects more broadly the wide-ranging reforms that have occurred in the country.

In response to the Burmese Government's efforts, on May 17 the State Department announced that it would undertake a number of administrative steps to ease sanctions against Burma. These include removing both the investment ban and the financial services ban against Burma, except in transactions involving bad actors. In addition to suspending certain economic sanctions, the administration announced that it would exchange full Ambassadors with Naypyitaw.

Mr. President, I support each of these steps taken by the State Department.

What caused the Burmese Government to initiate these democratic reforms? It is hard to know for certain, but sanctions seem to have played an important part in bringing the government around. No country likes being

viewed as a pariah, and the Burmese regime seems no different.

When I visited Burma back in January, the one thing I heard from all the government officials with whom I met--the President, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of the Lower House--they all said: We want the sanctions removed.

Suu Kyi herself publicly stated a few months ago that ``to those who ask whether or not sanctions have been effective, I would say yes, very, very confidently, because this government is always asking for sanctions to be removed. . . . So, sanctions have been effective. If sanctions had not been effective this would not be such an important issue for them.'' All of that is from Suu Kyi herself.

So some Senators may reasonably ask why are we moving this sanctions bill again if Burma has made such dramatically positive steps. Well, there are several reasons. Let me lay them out.

First, the Burmese Government still has not met all the necessary conditions to justify a complete--a complete--repeal of all existing sanctions. Despite the unmistakable progress made by the Burmese Government, now is not the time to end our ability either to encourage further government reform or to revisit sanctions if that became necessary. As Suu Kyi herself has cautioned, the situation in Burma is ``not irreversible.'' Serious challenges need to be addressed.

Violence in Kachin State remains a serious problem. Numerous political prisoners remain behind bars. The constitution is still completely undemocratic. And the regime's relationship with North Korea, especially when it comes to arms sales with Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern.

As I noted, renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would leave intact the import ban against Burmese goods, thus maintaining leverage the executive branch can utilize to help prompt further reform. Reauthorizing this measure would permit the executive branch, in consultation with Congress, to calibrate sanctions as necessary, thus preserving its flexibility.

Second, the renewal of this sanctions bill will not affect--will not affect--the administration's current efforts to ease sanctions as announced on May 17. Let me repeat that renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act will leave undisturbed the process for suspending sanctions announced 3 weeks ago. In part for this reason, the State Department supports renewal of this measure. In fact, a vote for reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be seen as a vote in support of the administration's easing of sanctions and a vote to support reform efforts in Burma.

As a practical matter, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would entail, No. 1, extending for another year the ban against Burmese imports; No. 2, continuing authority for financial services sanctions but leaving in place the authority the administration needs to proceed with the easing--the easing--of such restrictions; and No. 3, leaving untouched the administration's ability to ease the investment ban, which is part of a separate bill.

Finally, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act has continued bipartisan support in Congress and the support of Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.

There are, unfortunately, too few issues where the administration has sought to work with Congress in a bipartisan manner--mighty few, in fact--but on the issue of sanctions reauthorization, the State Department and I are in full agreement. I also know that my longstanding partner on Burma on the other side of the aisle, Senator Feinstein, shares my sentiments about reauthorizing this measure. As for Burma's democratic opposition, I spoke with Suu Kyi just a few days ago. She told me she believes the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be renewed.

If Burma stays on the path it seems to be on to reform, it will require significant help in reforming its economy and in developing business practices that encourage enduring foreign direct investment and corporate responsibility. A great deal of work must be done as Burma looks ahead to hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2014. For the first time in a half a century, Burma seems--seems--to be on the right path to reform, and reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act places the United States squarely on the side of reform and of reformers.

For the reasons I have laid out, I believe a renewal of this measure is the right step to take. Burma has made great strides over the past 18 months, and Congress should recognize those strides. At the same time, Congress should not be fully satisfied with recent reforms, as much more work remains to be done.

In closing, I am introducing the renewal of the Freedom and Democracy Act, originally passed in 2003, for myself; Senator Feinstein, with whom I have worked on this over the years and referred to in my remarks; Senator John McCain, who has been very active in this area and met with Suu Kyi this past year; Senator Durbin; and Senator Collins, who had the opportunity to meet with Suu Kyi just the week before last--all of whom are active and interested in this issue.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss events in the country of Burma. Every year since 2003, I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, and every year introduction of this bill has been accompanied by a somber message to the Senate: that reform in Burma is nowhere in sight. That is what I have said every year going back to 2003.

This year, I am pleased to say that though the bill's language is the same, the message is far different, as is the legal effect of the legislation. In a remarkable turnabout of events over the past 18 months, Burma has made dramatic changes for the better. In response to these developments, the administration recently decided it will ease many of the economic sanctions against Burma through exercise of its waiver authority. As a result, this year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would effectively renew only a handful of the sanctions against the regime and would preserve the administration's flexibility to use its waiver authority.

In 2008, the Burmese junta put in place a new Constitution--a very flawed document. It does not ensure civilian control of the military. In fact, the charter may only be amended if over 75 percent of the Parliament vote in favor of such changes and one-fourth of the seats in Parliament are reserved for the military.

In November 2010, Burma held an election under this new charter, which was universally derided as being neither free nor fair. The party of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi--the National League for Democracy--refused to participate due to the unfairness of the electoral process.

Restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly were manifest, and there was a prohibition against political prisoners, such as Suu Kyi, running for office. Not surprisingly, the junta-supported party won over three-quarters of the nonappointed parliamentary seats. The new government took office on April 1, 2011.

Shortly after this seemingly unpromising election, some signs of change began to appear. Suu Kyi was freed after years under house arrest. By July 2011 she was permitted to leave Rangoon for the first time since her release. In August she visited the new capital, Naypyitaw, and met with the new President, Thein Sein.

In September 2011 the government lifted its prohibition against major news Web sites and dropped anti-Western slogans from state publications. That same month the regime announced it would suspend action on a controversial dam to be constructed by China in Kachin State. The project was strongly opposed by democracy advocates and ethnic leaders.

As part of its reforms, the legislature enacted a bill that permitted Suu Kyi to participate in the April 1, 2012, by-election and made it possible for her party to reregister, after having technically lost its party status for boycotting the November 2010 balloting.

In January of 2012 a score of political prisoners were released and a preliminary cease-fire agreement was reached with the Karen, appearing to end one of the longest running ethnic disputes in the world.

In April 2012 Burma held a by-election to replace lawmakers who had assumed Cabinet roles. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the election. Of the 45 seats that were open, the NLD contested 44 and won 43.

Suu Kyi herself won a seat in what was clearly a dramatic victory for the opposition. This spring, for the first time in a quarter of a century, Suu Kyi was granted a passport and traveled outside Burma. Thus, in a mere 18 months, Suu Kyi has gone from political prisoner to Member of Parliament. That in and of itself is a remarkable change, and it reflects more broadly the wide-ranging reforms that have occurred in the country.

In response to the Burmese Government's efforts, on May 17 the State Department announced that it would undertake a number of administrative steps to ease sanctions against Burma. These include removing both the investment ban and the financial services ban against Burma, except in transactions involving bad actors. In addition to suspending certain economic sanctions, the administration announced that it would exchange full Ambassadors with Naypyitaw.

Mr. President, I support each of these steps taken by the State Department.

What caused the Burmese Government to initiate these democratic reforms? It is hard to know for certain, but sanctions seem to have played an important part in bringing the government around. No country likes being

viewed as a pariah, and the Burmese regime seems no different.

When I visited Burma back in January, the one thing I heard from all the government officials with whom I met--the President, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of the Lower House--they all said: We want the sanctions removed.

Suu Kyi herself publicly stated a few months ago that ``to those who ask whether or not sanctions have been effective, I would say yes, very, very confidently, because this government is always asking for sanctions to be removed. . . . So, sanctions have been effective. If sanctions had not been effective this would not be such an important issue for them.'' All of that is from Suu Kyi herself.

So some Senators may reasonably ask why are we moving this sanctions bill again if Burma has made such dramatically positive steps. Well, there are several reasons. Let me lay them out.

First, the Burmese Government still has not met all the necessary conditions to justify a complete--a complete--repeal of all existing sanctions. Despite the unmistakable progress made by the Burmese Government, now is not the time to end our ability either to encourage further government reform or to revisit sanctions if that became necessary. As Suu Kyi herself has cautioned, the situation in Burma is ``not irreversible.'' Serious challenges need to be addressed.

Violence in Kachin State remains a serious problem. Numerous political prisoners remain behind bars. The constitution is still completely undemocratic. And the regime's relationship with North Korea, especially when it comes to arms sales with Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern.

As I noted, renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would leave intact the import ban against Burmese goods, thus maintaining leverage the executive branch can utilize to help prompt further reform. Reauthorizing this measure would permit the executive branch, in consultation with Congress, to calibrate sanctions as necessary, thus preserving its flexibility.

Second, the renewal of this sanctions bill will not affect--will not affect--the administration's current efforts to ease sanctions as announced on May 17. Let me repeat that renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act will leave undisturbed the process for suspending sanctions announced 3 weeks ago. In part for this reason, the State Department supports renewal of this measure. In fact, a vote for reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be seen as a vote in support of the administration's easing of sanctions and a vote to support reform efforts in Burma.

As a practical matter, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would entail, No. 1, extending for another year the ban against Burmese imports; No. 2, continuing authority for financial services sanctions but leaving in place the authority the administration needs to proceed with the easing--the easing--of such restrictions; and No. 3, leaving untouched the administration's ability to ease the investment ban, which is part of a separate bill.

Finally, renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act has continued bipartisan support in Congress and the support of Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.

There are, unfortunately, too few issues where the administration has sought to work with Congress in a bipartisan manner--mighty few, in fact--but on the issue of sanctions reauthorization, the State Department and I are in full agreement. I also know that my longstanding partner on Burma on the other side of the aisle, Senator Feinstein, shares my sentiments about reauthorizing this measure. As for Burma's democratic opposition, I spoke with Suu Kyi just a few days ago. She told me she believes the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act should be renewed.

If Burma stays on the path it seems to be on to reform, it will require significant help in reforming its economy and in developing business practices that encourage enduring foreign direct investment and corporate responsibility. A great deal of work must be done as Burma looks ahead to hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2014. For the first time in a half a century, Burma seems--seems--to be on the right path to reform, and reauthorization of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act places the United States squarely on the side of reform and of reformers.

For the reasons I have laid out, I believe a renewal of this measure is the right step to take. Burma has made great strides over the past 18 months, and Congress should recognize those strides. At the same time, Congress should not be fully satisfied with recent reforms, as much more work remains to be done.

In closing, I am introducing the renewal of the Freedom and Democracy Act, originally passed in 2003, for myself; Senator Feinstein, with whom I have worked on this over the years and referred to in my remarks; Senator John McCain, who has been very active in this area and met with Suu Kyi this past year; Senator Durbin; and Senator Collins, who had the opportunity to meet with Suu Kyi just the week before last--all of whom are active and interested in this issue.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada.

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

Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to introduce a joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year. We are proud to be joined by Senators McCain and Durbin in this important effort.

Congressman Joe Crowley and Congressman Peter King have introduced this resolution in the House and I thank them for their leadership and support.

Over the past year, we have seen some remarkable changes in Burma after years of violence and repression.

But the government of Burma still has a lot of work to do to demonstrate to us, the international community, and, above all, the people of Burma that it is truly committed to reform, democratization, and national reconciliation.

We should renew this ban for another year as an incentive to the government of Burma to continue on the path it has undertaken and take additional actions.

I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma for 15 years.

In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the government of Burma had physically harmed, re- arrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition.

President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive Order.

In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time.

It was signed into law and has been renewed annually since then. It is set to expire on July 26, which is why a renewal of that ban is now before us today.

But unlike past years, we have some good news to report.

Burma has begun to take some significant steps towards embracing democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

This is welcome news after so many years of inaction coupled with despotic military rule.

How did we get to this point?

Recall that in 1990 Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy overwhelmingly won the last free parliamentary elections in Burma, but those results were annulled by the military junta, then named the State Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC.

These events marked the beginning of more than two decades of violence, oppression, and human rights abuses.

In 2008, the ruling military junta, renamed the State Peace and Development Council, pushed through the ratification of a new constitution, which was drafted without the input of the democratic opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

Elections for the new parliament were held in November 2010, but Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy were prohibited from participating.

The Union Solidarity and Development Party, comprised of ex-military officials, won approximately 80 percent of the seats. The new parliament elected former General and Prime Minister, Thein Sein, as President.

Following the elections, Suu Kyi was finally released from house arrest, after being in prison or house arrest for the better part of 20 years.

While I was pleased that Suu Kyi was free, I was deeply concerned that nothing had really changed for the people of Burma.

Suu Kyi and her party were blocked from participating in the political process. The military maintained its grip on the government and the economy. Democracy advocates and human rights activists remained in prison. Violence against ethnic minority groups continued unabated.

Yet, in the past year we have seen more positive change than we had in the past 20 years.

Indeed, Burma's new government has taken a number of significant actions in an effort to rejoin the international community.

Hundreds of political prisoners were released.

New legislation broadening the rights of political and civic associations has been enacted; and negotiations with ethnic minority groups have begun and some cease-fires have taken effect.

In addition, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, NLD, were allowed to compete in by-elections for 45 open seats in parliament in April 2012.

Suu Kyi and the NLD won 43 of the 44 seats they contested.

For those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy, it was a thrilling and deeply moving event. Years of sacrifice and hard work had shown results the people of Burma had spoken with a clear voice in support of freedom and democracy.

The U.S. has responded to this reform process in a number of ways.

Secretary Clinton traveled to Burma last December and announced the two countries would resume full diplomatic relations.

Following the April parliamentary elections, the administration announced that it would nominate Derek Mitchell to be the first U.S. ambassador to Burma in 22 years and suspend sanctions on investment and financial services.

I supported these actions. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge the steps Burma has already taken and encourage additional reforms.

Some may ask then: why stop there? Given the reforms, why not let the ban on imports simply expire?

The fact of the matter is, the reforms are not irreversible and the government of Burma still needs to do more to respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Burma and the international community.

First, it must address the dominant role of the military in Burma under the new constitution.

The military is guaranteed 25 percent of the seats without elections and remains independent of any civilian oversight.

In addition, the Commander-in-Chief of the military has the authority to dismiss the government and rule the country under Martial Law.

It goes without saying that such powers are incompatible with a truly democratic government.

Second, Burma must stop all violence against ethnic minorities. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Burmese military is continuing attacks in Kachin State, displacing thousands of civilians and killing others.

Third, the government must release all political prisoners.

I applaud the decision of the Government of Burma to release hundreds of political prisoners, including a number of high-profile democracy and human rights activists.

Yet, according to the State Department, hundreds more remain in detention.

Unfortunately, the government of Burma maintains there are no more political prisoners. We must keep the pressure on Burma until all democracy and human rights activists are free and able to resume their lives and careers.

As we debate renewing the import ban, it is important to consider the advice and counsel of Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition.

For her part, Suu Kyi has said that while she does not oppose suspending sanctions, the international community must be cautious. Speaking via Skype to an event in Washington D.C. last month she said:

I sometimes feel that people are too optimistic about the

scene in Burma. You have to remember that the democratization

process in Burma is not irreversible. I have said openly that

we can never look upon it as irreversible until such time

that the military commits itself to democratization solidly

and efficiently.

I understand that Suu Kyi has spoken to Senator McConnell directly about this matter and she supports renewing the import ban for another year.

I believe that renewing this ban will help keep Burma on the path to full democratization and national reconciliation and support the work of Suu Kyi, the democratic opposition, and the reformists in the ruling government.

It will give the administration additional leverage to convince the Burma to stay on the right path.

The administration will still have the authority to waive or suspend the import ban as it has suspended sanctions on investment and financial services if the Government of Burma took the appropriate actions.

If we let the import ban expire, however, and Burma backslides on reform and democratization, we would have to pass a new law to re- impose the ban.

By passing this joint resolution, we ensure that the administration has the flexibility it needs to respond to events in Burma has it as done so with financial services and investment.

Suu Kyi herself has argued that ``sanctions have been effective in persuading the government to go for change.'' I think renewing the import ban will push it to go further.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to introduce a joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year. We are proud to be joined by Senators McCain and Durbin in this important effort.

Congressman Joe Crowley and Congressman Peter King have introduced this resolution in the House and I thank them for their leadership and support.

Over the past year, we have seen some remarkable changes in Burma after years of violence and repression.

But the government of Burma still has a lot of work to do to demonstrate to us, the international community, and, above all, the people of Burma that it is truly committed to reform, democratization, and national reconciliation.

We should renew this ban for another year as an incentive to the government of Burma to continue on the path it has undertaken and take additional actions.

I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma for 15 years.

In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the government of Burma had physically harmed, re- arrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition.

President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive Order.

In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time.

It was signed into law and has been renewed annually since then. It is set to expire on July 26, which is why a renewal of that ban is now before us today.

But unlike past years, we have some good news to report.

Burma has begun to take some significant steps towards embracing democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

This is welcome news after so many years of inaction coupled with despotic military rule.

How did we get to this point?

Recall that in 1990 Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy overwhelmingly won the last free parliamentary elections in Burma, but those results were annulled by the military junta, then named the State Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC.

These events marked the beginning of more than two decades of violence, oppression, and human rights abuses.

In 2008, the ruling military junta, renamed the State Peace and Development Council, pushed through the ratification of a new constitution, which was drafted without the input of the democratic opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

Elections for the new parliament were held in November 2010, but Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy were prohibited from participating.

The Union Solidarity and Development Party, comprised of ex-military officials, won approximately 80 percent of the seats. The new parliament elected former General and Prime Minister, Thein Sein, as President.

Following the elections, Suu Kyi was finally released from house arrest, after being in prison or house arrest for the better part of 20 years.

While I was pleased that Suu Kyi was free, I was deeply concerned that nothing had really changed for the people of Burma.

Suu Kyi and her party were blocked from participating in the political process. The military maintained its grip on the government and the economy. Democracy advocates and human rights activists remained in prison. Violence against ethnic minority groups continued unabated.

Yet, in the past year we have seen more positive change than we had in the past 20 years.

Indeed, Burma's new government has taken a number of significant actions in an effort to rejoin the international community.

Hundreds of political prisoners were released.

New legislation broadening the rights of political and civic associations has been enacted; and negotiations with ethnic minority groups have begun and some cease-fires have taken effect.

In addition, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, NLD, were allowed to compete in by-elections for 45 open seats in parliament in April 2012.

Suu Kyi and the NLD won 43 of the 44 seats they contested.

For those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy, it was a thrilling and deeply moving event. Years of sacrifice and hard work had shown results the people of Burma had spoken with a clear voice in support of freedom and democracy.

The U.S. has responded to this reform process in a number of ways.

Secretary Clinton traveled to Burma last December and announced the two countries would resume full diplomatic relations.

Following the April parliamentary elections, the administration announced that it would nominate Derek Mitchell to be the first U.S. ambassador to Burma in 22 years and suspend sanctions on investment and financial services.

I supported these actions. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge the steps Burma has already taken and encourage additional reforms.

Some may ask then: why stop there? Given the reforms, why not let the ban on imports simply expire?

The fact of the matter is, the reforms are not irreversible and the government of Burma still needs to do more to respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Burma and the international community.

First, it must address the dominant role of the military in Burma under the new constitution.

The military is guaranteed 25 percent of the seats without elections and remains independent of any civilian oversight.

In addition, the Commander-in-Chief of the military has the authority to dismiss the government and rule the country under Martial Law.

It goes without saying that such powers are incompatible with a truly democratic government.

Second, Burma must stop all violence against ethnic minorities. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Burmese military is continuing attacks in Kachin State, displacing thousands of civilians and killing others.

Third, the government must release all political prisoners.

I applaud the decision of the Government of Burma to release hundreds of political prisoners, including a number of high-profile democracy and human rights activists.

Yet, according to the State Department, hundreds more remain in detention.

Unfortunately, the government of Burma maintains there are no more political prisoners. We must keep the pressure on Burma until all democracy and human rights activists are free and able to resume their lives and careers.

As we debate renewing the import ban, it is important to consider the advice and counsel of Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition.

For her part, Suu Kyi has said that while she does not oppose suspending sanctions, the international community must be cautious. Speaking via Skype to an event in Washington D.C. last month she said:

I sometimes feel that people are too optimistic about the

scene in Burma. You have to remember that the democratization

process in Burma is not irreversible. I have said openly that

we can never look upon it as irreversible until such time

that the military commits itself to democratization solidly

and efficiently.

I understand that Suu Kyi has spoken to Senator McConnell directly about this matter and she supports renewing the import ban for another year.

I believe that renewing this ban will help keep Burma on the path to full democratization and national reconciliation and support the work of Suu Kyi, the democratic opposition, and the reformists in the ruling government.

It will give the administration additional leverage to convince the Burma to stay on the right path.

The administration will still have the authority to waive or suspend the import ban as it has suspended sanctions on investment and financial services if the Government of Burma took the appropriate actions.

If we let the import ban expire, however, and Burma backslides on reform and democratization, we would have to pass a new law to re- impose the ban.

By passing this joint resolution, we ensure that the administration has the flexibility it needs to respond to events in Burma has it as done so with financial services and investment.

Suu Kyi herself has argued that ``sanctions have been effective in persuading the government to go for change.'' I think renewing the import ban will push it to go further.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mr. President, last week the President said the private sector is ``doing fine.'' Well, the fact is the private sector isn't doing fine and the President's comments make me wonder what private sector he may be talking about.

Since he took office, we have had 40 straight months of unemployment of over 8 percent and more than 23 million Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for a job altogether. Last month's job report said the economy added only 69,000 jobs--far below what forecasters had predicted. That is the Obama economy, and it is not doing fine.

With the debt the size of our GDP, the President's recent push for even more government spending is equally out of touch. Taking more money out of the private sector, out of the hands of businesses and job creators or borrowing it to pay for yet another stimulus has consequences. We need to reduce the size and scope of government,

not expand it. We need to put in place a progrowth policy to allow the private sector to flourish.

That is why Republicans have been calling for years for comprehensive tax reform and for both parties to sit down and begin the process of reforming entitlements. That is how we will get our fiscal house in order and help the economy grow as well. But without Presidential leadership, it simply can't happen.

Controlling only one Chamber, Republicans in Congress can only do so much. The Republican-led House has passed budgets while, for 3\1/2\ years, the Democratic-led Senate has refused to do so. And they have passed 28 job-related bills over in the House that our Democratic friends here in the Senate refuse to take up. For our part, Senate Republicans will continue to pursue a pro-jobs agenda, and I encourage our Democratic friends to join us before the administration's spending and debt spree forces us into the sort of economic spiral we currently see facing folks over across the Atlantic. They can start by working with Republicans on our commonsense amendments to the farm bill.

The President may think the private sector is doing fine or that the government isn't big enough, but those in rural America are definitely not doing fine. The biggest threat to farmers in Kentucky and across America is this administration's job-killing regulations. That is why Republicans are calling for votes on commonsense amendments that would either eliminate or prevent future job-killing regulations from going into effect which would provide the necessary relief for American farmers and give a boost to rural America in these challenging economic times.

Last year, while visiting Atkinson, IL, the President blew off one farmer when he asked about policy regulations. The President said, ``Don't always believe what you hear.'' Either the President doesn't know what his administration is doing or he doesn't want the American people to know it is his policies that are hurting farmers all across the country. It is either one or the other.

Here are a few examples of this administration's policies that are suffocating the American agricultural industry and the Republican amendments we want the Senate to take up.

Last fall, the Department of Labor attempted to regulate the relationship, believe it or not, shared between parents and their kids on family farms. The proposed rule would have prohibited those under age 16 from manual labor such as stall cleaning, using a shovel, and using a battery-operated screwdriver. Many people in my State consider this the type of manual labor that is widely referred to as Saturday morning chores. Senator Thune is offering an amendment that would require the Department of Labor to consult with Congress before implementing such regulations.

The EPA wants to lift the ban that prevents Washington, DC, bureaucrats from regulating nonnavigable waters. The expanded Federal jurisdiction would bring the EPA and their redtape and taxes into the backyards of millions--literally millions--of Americans. The economic impact would be disastrous.

Congress passed a navigable ban to protect families, small businesses, and farmers from Washington bureaucrats trying to seize control of their water or their land. The U.S. Supreme Court twice affirmed the limits of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. But, apparently, the EPA believes they are above the other two branches of government, and Senators Paul and Barrasso are offering two amendments that would stop the EPA in its tracks.

The EPA is considering a regulation that would require farm and ranch families to take as yet undefined measures to lower the amount of dust that occurs naturally--I am not kidding--lower the amount of dust that occurs naturally and is transmitted into the air due to agricultural production activities. It is hard to go through this and maintain one's composure. These activities include such things as combining, haying, moving cattle, tilling a field, or even driving down a gravel road. Failure to do so would result in a substantial fine. Senator Johanns is offering an amendment that would prevent the EPA from issuing any new rule that regulates agricultural dust. I kid you not, they want to regulate agricultural dust.

Finally, Senator Crapo and Senator Johanns are offering an amendment that would help farmers across the country continue to manage their unique business risks associated with their day-to-day operations. The amendment would prevent unnecessarily diverting capital away from job creation and investing in their businesses in a way that was never intended by the sponsors of the Dodd-Frank Act. Preventing this unnecessary burden would promote economic growth, protect farmers and businesses, and ultimately help save American jobs.

In these extremely difficult economic times, rural America is already struggling to get by and it simply can't be bothered by an overreaching Federal Government that has literally no idea of the unintended consequences of its policies.

These five commonsense Republican amendments I have outlined, along with several others, put an end to numerous job-killing regulations, and each of these amendments deserves a vote.

I now wish to address another matter.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell and Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 43 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')