```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5932-S5934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
S. 3326, a trade package that includes legislation sponsored by myself 
and Senator McConnell to renew the import ban on Burma for another 
year.
  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, 
rearrested 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 expired on July 26 which is why this legislation is before us 
today.
  In past years, the debate on renewing the import ban on Burma has 
focused

[[Page S5933]]

on more than two decades of violence, oppression, and human rights 
abuses by the ruling Burmese military.
  They annulled the last free parliamentary elections won by Aung San 
Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy.
  They kept Suu Kyi in prison or under house arrest, detained hundreds 
of political prisoners, and ignored democracy, human rights, and the 
rule of law.
  They drafted a new constitution that maintained the military's grip 
on power and prevented Suu Kyi and her party from participating in the 
political process.
  But, I am pleased to report that this year is different. We have seen 
some remarkable changes in Burma over the past year which appear to 
have put Burma on the path of reform and rejoining the international 
community.
  Hundreds of political prisoners have been 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 the new 
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 United States has responded to this reform process in a number of 
ways.
  Secretary Clinton traveled to Burma last December and met with Suu 
Kyi and President Thein Sein.
  The United States and Burma resumed full diplomatic relations, with 
Ambassador Derek Mitchell becoming the first U.S. ambassador to Burma 
in 22 years.
  Earlier this month, the administration announced that it was 
suspending U.S. sanctions on providing financial services to Burma and 
investing in Burma.
  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 renew the 
import ban?
  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.
  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 Burma 
to stay on the right path.
  And 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 do not renew the import ban, however, and Burma backslides on 
reform and democratization, we would have to pass a new law to reimpose 
the ban.
  By passing this legislation, we ensure that the administration has 
the flexibility it needs to respond to events in Burma as 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 bill.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be dispensed with.
  Mr. President, the bill we are considering this morning--the AGOA-
CAFTA-Burma sanctions package--has several parts, but I want to focus 
on the very real impact that one provision will have on jobs in my home 
State of North Carolina.
  This provision would make non-controversial technical fixes to the 
Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  When the DR-CAFTA was first negotiated nearly a decade ago, the 
intention of all the parties was to preserve the benefits of tariff 
reductions on yarn for the countries at the negotiating table.
  That is how the United States has traditionally negotiated the 
textile chapter of its free-trade agreements.
  But when the DR-CAFTA was agreed to in 2005 an out-of-date definition 
for sewing thread was used that inadvertently allowed non-CAFTA nations 
to export a certain kind of yarn into the CAFTA region duty free.
  Textile manufacturers in countries like China began exploiting this 
loophole to substitute their yarn for U.S.-produced yarn, and this 
action severely damaged textile manufacturers in North Carolina and the 
rest of the United States.
  Let me give you one example.
  Unifi is a textile manufacturing company headquartered in Greensboro, 
NC, with plants throughout the State. Half of their employees tied to 
the thread business have lost their jobs since 2006 when CAFTA took 
effect and the yarn loophole was exposed.
  Unifi is not alone.
  There are nearly 2,000 jobs in the United States that are directly 
affected by the exploitation of this loophole.
  Creating jobs in North Carolina is my No. 1 priority.
  Now I am proud of North Carolina's historic textile industry. It 
continues to innovate its way through advanced manufacturing and 
investments in research and development.
  But times are tough enough as it is for the American textile 
industry.
  We simply cannot afford to lose good-paying manufacturing jobs in 
North Carolina's textile industry because foreign countries are 
exploiting drafting errors and Congress delays fixing them.
  We should be looking for ways to allow our textile companies to 
compete with their foreign counterparts on a level playing field. This 
bill is a step in that direction.
  The corrections in this bill were brought to the attention of other 
CAFTA countries by the United States, were agreed to in February 2011 
and have since been enacted by all the other CAFTA countries.
  I am glad that we overcame this hurdle to ally ensure the integrity 
of the textile provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  This fix is long overdue.
  I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Baucus for his 
leadership in moving this bill forward.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud Senate passage 
of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. The measure extends for 
another year the import ban with regard to Burma.
  I would like to clarify two issues that have prompted some confusion 
regarding this legislation.

[[Page S5934]]

  First, the measure we are passing renews import sanctions for 1 year 
and 1 year only. I emphasize this point because it has been misreported 
that this bill renews sanctions for 3 years. That is not accurate; the 
bill renews them only for 1.
  Second, enactment of this bill does not overturn the easing of 
investment and financial sanctions that the administration unveiled 
earlier this year. In fact, this year's bill, as in years past, 
provides authority for the administration to waive the import sanctions 
should it determine that certain conditions have been met. Before 
deciding whether to waive import sanctions, I would strongly urge the 
administration not only to consider the changes occurring within Burma 
but also to consult closely with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung 
San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy.
  This year's legislation comes at a time of historic changes on the 
ground in Burma. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, long a political prisoner in the 
country, is now a member of Parliament. The National League for 
Democracy, once a banned organization, now actively participates in the 
political life of Burma.
  For these reasons, the administration has taken a number of actions 
to acknowledge the impressive reforms that President Thein Sein and his 
government have instituted. The United States has responded by sending 
an ambassador to Burma for the first time in two decades. The 
administration also largely waived the investment ban and financial 
restrictions, permitting U.S. businesses to begin investing again in 
Burma.
  For my part, I want to see investment in the ``new'' Burma. I want to 
see Burmese reformers empowered accordingly, and I want to see greater 
economic development come to this underdeveloped country. And, frankly, 
during challenging economic times here at home, I want American 
businesses to be able to compete in Burma now that sanctions have been 
removed by other Western governments.
  That said, high standards for accountability in American business 
operations in Burma are important going forward. This seems 
particularly acute with regard to transactions involving Myanmar Oil 
and Gas Enterprise. I would urge U.S. businesses to show the Burmese 
people and the world the positive effects that American investment 
prompts. I am confident that, as they do elsewhere around the world, 
U.S. enterprises in Burma will set the standard for ethical and 
transparent business practices and lead the way for others to follow.
  I would be remiss if I did not note the significant challenges in 
Burma that lie ahead. Ongoing violence in Kachin State and sectarian 
tensions in Arakan State reflect the long-term challenge of national 
reconciliation. Hundreds of political prisoners remain behind bars. The 
constitution still has a number of undemocratic elements. And the 
regime's relationship with North Korea, especially when it comes to 
arms sales with Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern.
  Even with these challenges, however, I am greatly encouraged by the 
progress that has been made over the past year and a half in Burma. My 
colleagues and I in the Senate will continue to monitor developments in 
the country with great interest and with hope for the future.

                          ____________________
```