Part. 4 - Burma Discussion on the U

[freeburma@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Part. 4 - Burma Discussion on the U.S. Senate floor (July 25, 1996)

The Discussion on Burma Sanction Amendment on the Senate Floor (Part. 4)
                   (July 25, 1996)
                --------------------


AMENDMENT NO. 5019

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senate faces a moment of profound moral choice. We are 
dealing here with the proposal of the Senator from Kentucky, joined by others, to place 
the United States emphatically on the side of the freely elected democratic regime of 
Burma , which was elected with 82 percent of the vote and then instantly overwhelmed by 
a military coup. 

The restoration of a military regime, which had earlier, in 1962, crushed the nascent 
democratic society of Burma . Before that Burma had succeeded through a succession of 
elections beginning with one for a constituent assembly prior to independence, and then 
three free elections thereafter.

As I say, this all ended in 1962 and was followed by 25 years of atrocious government 
and oppression under General Ne Win. The country never submitted to this. The resistance 
was always widespread, emphatic, admirable to a degree that Americans can only imagine, 
given our long and stable history. Now, the issue has become an international issue. Our 
Senate was the first to raise this issue in 1988, and we have persisted in the matter. 
The proposition is to isolate the military regime, to deny it the recognition of the 
free world and to make clear that such denial has consequences in the economic 
development of that potentially rich and prosperous and happy society. 

I speak with some knowledge of Burma , not enough, but enough to know how important this 
is to the whole movement toward democracy in Asia. 

We have just seen Russia conduct two democratic presidential elections, the first in 
their history. We have just seen Mongolia conduct a free election and choose a 
democratic government. The Senator from Virginia and former Secretary of State Baker 
were both in Mongolia as election monitors. There are many such nations in the early 
stages of a democratic transition. We must associate with them and stand by
them. And when democracy is threatened we must make our objections known. Just this 
June, the European Parliament has risen up and stated that the time has come for the 
whole of the European Union to boycott this regime. Most American firms have already 
done so. Most American observers have urged us to act. 

The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial of May 30 this year, put it this way: 

Throughout the world, foolishness and greed are sometimes draped with a veil of 
respectable sounding phrases like `constructive engagement,' based on the promise that 
by doing business in a country like Burma you expect to change it. The problem is that 
once companies and governments climb into the boat with dictators, they are very 
reluctant to rock it, lest their deals go overboard. 

The request for this embargo, the proposition, has been endorsed by Secretary of 
Commerce Kantor who stated last month with regard to Serbia, South Africa, Libya, and 
Iran, `There are times when economic restrictions done in an appropriate fashion can be 
very helpful. With regard to Burma , I'm in favor of taking effective action with regard 
to the actions of this regime.' 

Witnesses from South Africa, who benefited to a degree no one could imagine from 
American leadership in just this mode, Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu, have told us to 
have faith in our own  experience. Burma will yield if the democracies stay together and 
the United States leads. 

Most emphatically and importantly, the elected Prime Minister, an extraordinary person, 
a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Aung San Suu Kyi, asks us to do this. She has sent 
videotaped to the European Parliament last week with a statement supporting sanctions. 
She said, `What we want are the kind of sanctions that will make it quite clear that 
economic change in Burma is not possible without political change.' 

That is the record of the past three decades. A country that could be prospering today 
is all but prostrate because of the military regimes that have succeeded, one after the 
other. She went on to say, `We think this is the time for concerted international 
efforts with regard to the democratic process in Burma .' 

That, I respectfully suggest, is what is at issue in the vote we are soon to have. I 
hope chairman McConnell will prevail. I hope democracy will prevail. I cannot doubt it 
will if we but keep to a firm line of principle and conviction. I thank the Senator for 
his time, and I yield the floor. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from New 
York for his inspirational remarks. He has been a very knowledgeable observer of the 
Burmese scene for many years. I thank him for his leadership on this most important 
issue. 

I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from New York. 

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me first say that I want to commend the manager of this 
bill, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, for his leadership and his courage in 
saying clearly that the United States does stand up for those who are oppressed, that we 
have the courage to look at facts as they are, as discomforting as they may be, and 
sometimes painful for people to recognize. 

We have become a world so interested in commercial advantage that we look aside. We make 
believe things are not happening. Sometimes it is not pleasant to acknowledge that there 
is evil, that there are people that we know, governments that we do business with that 
are involved in perpetuating evil. The killing of innocent human beings, killing them, 
imprisoning people, terrorizing them, depriving them of their most basic fundamental 
freedoms that are important. And if we just continue business as usual with them, as if 
all is well, because we may be commercially advantaged, then I suggest to you that we 
are betraying the greatness and the heritage of this country. We betray the principles 
on which so many have laid down their lives for our freedom and the freedom of others. 
That principle, when we have adhered to it, has always inured to the benefit of mankind 
and, more particularly, the benefit of our citizens here, not just the people who we 
have stood up for abroad. 

Our history is replete with the times in which we have stood nobly and fought for 
freedom, and the times we have stepped aside and looked and allowed a petty dictator to 
terrorize his people on the altar of political expedience. We have contributed to many 
of the nations who fall under totalitarian domination, because we did business as if 
nothing was wrong with petty dictators. We condoned, in essence, their actions. 

This is an opportunity for us to do what is right and to stand for people who are 
oppressed. No one has brought this to the table in a more eloquent way than the senior 
Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, who has pointed out very clearly that those 
people who are fighting for freedom, who are there and being oppressed, say, `Don't 
believe this nonsense that if you cut off doing business, you are going to be hurting 
the average citizen, because you are not because the government that is in control
now, the junta, the dictatorship, will use those funds for their own purposes, and no 
real economic benefit will come to the people.' 

So I hope that we will continue to maintain the beacon of freedom and that we will 
support the chairman's mark. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Idaho. 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have but a few comments. I find it important to make them in 
support of the Cohen amendment. Mr. President, this debate, in my opinion, is not about 
being soft on a bunch of thugs.  

At the core of this debate is the effectiveness of mandatory unilateral sanctions as a 
tool of foreign policy to encourage change in Burma . It is about the best policy to 
pursue that will bring about the changes that we all want to see in the nation of Burma. 

As we address this situation, it is important that the United States engage other 
nations. A multilateral effort to evaluate the situation in Burma and develop ways we 
can work both independently and collectively will encourage the improvement in human 
rights and will move Burma toward a free and democratic society. 

Mr. President, I support the Cohen amendment and all that it addresses. We all can 
encourage humanitarian relief, drug interdiction efforts, and the promotion of 
democracy. I believe that these activities, in addition to denying multilateral 
assistance through international financial institutions, and the establishment of a 
multilateral strategy will provide the best roadmap to reach the goals we seek in Burma. 

I congratulate Senator Cohen for his effort in offering this amendment.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, are there other speakers? 

Mr. COHEN. I believe there is one other. 

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cohen amendment. I think we 
would all like to truly believe that, in an area of the world remote to the United 
States, this country can unilaterally impose a sanction which is going to have an 
effect. But it is not supported by anyone else in the area. I know of no other country 
in the area that will support this sanction. 

Additionally, the administration--the State Department and the White House--is in 
support of the Cohen-Feinstein amendment. In essence, what this amendment does is, as 
Senator Craig just stated, seek to develop a multilateral alliance of the ASEAN 
countries, and others, to be able to deal with the problems that the SLORC regime 
presents to the people of Burma , or Myanmar, as some people might say. I think
it is a well thought out amendment. It is an important amendment. 

There is one U.S. economic venture in that country, and let us speak about it and speak 
about it candidly. It is a joint venture between Unocal and the French to build a 
pipeline. They will build schools, they will build hospitals, they will put to the 
community an opportunity for economic upward mobility. Let us say the unilateral 
sanction passes, and let us say Unocal cannot go ahead, do you know who will take 
Unocal's share in this? Mitsui, a Japanese company, or South Korea. They will do it 
without building hospitals, and they will do it without the schools. I wonder what is 
gained by it. 

I hear many people say, `Shut down an economy and that will change a regime.' I really 
believe that when you have an economy and you participate in it, and you bring Western 
values to a country, and you help with schools and you immunize kids, all of which is 
happening, it can be particularly effective. 

Now, I very much respect Aung San Suu Kyi. I wish her well, and I think the SLORC regime 
would be well advised to work with her to improve the standard of living. And, at the 
same time, I believe it is extraordinarily important that the administration, and 
whatever administration, and the State Department, and whatever State Department, begin 
to develop the kind of multilateral alliance with the ASEAN countries that can be 
effective in meeting the human rights needs in this region. 

So I believe that the Cohen-Feinstein amendment, which provides that there be no 
bilateral assistance, other than humanitarian and counternarcotics until the Government 
of Burma is fully cooperative with the United States on counternarcotic efforts, and the 
program is fully consistent with the United States human rights concerns in Burma . It 
promotes multilateral assistance by asking the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the 
United States executive director of each international financial institution to vote 
against any loan or other utilization of funds of the respective bank to and for Burma . 

I think it makes a great deal of sense. I urge an `aye' vote on the 
Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee amendment. 

Mr. FORD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments. I have been asked to advise my 
colleagues that the administration supports the Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee amendment. 

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record from the Assistant 
Secretary of the Department of State so advising my colleagues that the administration 
supports the Cohen amendment. 

Mr. NICKLES. The definition of `new investment' in Burma in Section 569 of the amendment 
includes the entry into certain types of contracts. Does it also cover performance of 
contracts, or commitments entered into or made prior to the date of sanctions? 

Mr. COHEN. It is not the intention of this legislation to compel U.S. persons to breach 
or repudiate pre-sanctions contracts or commitments. 

Mr. BREAVY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment I have cosponsored 
with my distinguished colleagues Senator Cohen, Senator Johnston, Senator, McCain, 
Senator Feinstein, and Senator Chafee. I believe this amendment makes sense because it 
strikes a balance between unilateral sanctions against Burma and unfettered United 
States investment in that country. 

Mr. President, the supporters of this amendment share the same objective as the 
supporters of unilateral sanctions. We all want to see an end to the brutal, oppressive 
Burmese dictatorship and a return to a democratic government. No one will argue that the 
current regime in Burma is anything less than brutal, illegitimate and deplorable in 
almost every respect and recent events suggest that the government is escalating its 
oppression of the democratic opposition, even in the face of international condemnation. 
We all want to see the quick demise of this regime but we differ with opponents of this 
amendment on the way to bring this change about. In an effort to promote democratic 
change in Burma , this amendment prohibits new U.S. investment if the government 
rearrests or otherwise harms Aung San Suu Kyi, the most eloquent voice for democracy in 
that country. 

Although the United States accounts for only ten percent of all foreign investment in 
Burma , allowing U.S. businesses to operate there will enable us to continue raising our 
concerns over human rights. I believe a U.S. voice in this process is critical if we are 
ever going to see real change in Burma . This amendment by the distinguished Senator 
from Maine also requires the President to work with our ASEAN allies and other trading 
partners to develop a comprehensive strategy to bring democratic change to Burma and 
improve human rights. 

Mr. President, if our goal is to affect change in a foreign country, I don't believe 
unilateral sanctions are necessarily the right approach. We have seen what happens when 
the U.S. imposes unilateral sanctions. Our European and Asian allies are hesitant to 
follow suit and in this case, a U.S.  withdrawal would just mean that foreign companies 
would fill the void when we leave. Abandoning our commercial interests in Burma will do 
nothing to advance human rights and democracy in that country which is the objective we 
all share. The U.S. already exerts pressure on the military regime in Burma by
prohibiting U.S. economic aid, withholding GSP trade preferences, and decertifying Burma 
as a narcotics cooperating country, which requires us by law to vote against assistance 
to Burma by international financial institutions. This amendment takes the additional 
step of prohibiting new investment in Burma if the government commits large scale 
oppression against the democratic opposition. Our goal is to prevent repression of the 
democratically elected government and to promote a dialogue between their voices of
democracy and the military regime. 

This amendment has the support of Democrats and Republicans as well as the 
Administration. It is a reasonable compromise on a very difficult issue. I thank my 
colleagues who have worked on this amendment and I urge it adoption. 


Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cohen amendment on United States 
policy toward Burma . The current language within the foreign operations appropriations 
bill mandates immediate unilateral sanctions against Burma . The purpose of these 
sanctions is to punish Burma's ruling junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council 
or SLORC, for failing to accede to the desire of the Burmese people for democracy and 
freedom and for its many past violations of basic human and civil rights. 

I agree with the goals of Senator McConnell and Senator Moynihan. Not one person in this 
distinguished chamber will disagree that the United States has a clear national interest 
in seeing a democratically elected government in charge of a free society in Burma . The 
question is whether the immediate imposition of unilateral investment sanctions is the 
best policy to achieve that goal. I do not believe that they are. 

First, Burma is not a throw-away issue. The wrong U.S. policy could substantially damage 
our relations with our close friends and our regional influence. The United States has a 
clear national security interest in balancing the rising influence of China in Asia. Our 
full engagement in southeast Asia is an integral part of that balance. Unfortunately, 
the administration has long been unable to articulate and clearly demonstrate the 
reliability of our long-term commitment to the region. In the face of this uncertainty, 
ASEAN is taking steps to ensure Burma and Vietnam become members to counterbalance 
Chinese influence. The U.S. willingness to work with them on Burma is seen as a key test 
case of the U.S. commitment. 

Second, our allies do not support sanctions now and said as much to Presidential envoys 
Ambassador Brown and Mr. Roth. Bringing Burma into ASEAN and the ARF force the SLORC to 
accept and live up to the values and responsibilities that membership entails in much 
the same way as NATO membership will require of the countries of central Europe. This 
approach establishes a forum for pressuring the SLORC to negotiate with Aung San Suu Kyi 
and other democracy movement leaders. Unfortunately, U.S. moral suasion on behalf of 
sanctions will have little impact unless the situation in Burma deteriorates 
dramatically. Expecting others to follow our lead even if it goes against their own cold 
calculation of national interests only ensures that we are falling on our own sword. 

I want to make it clear that the SLORC and Burma are not the 1990's equivalent of 
apartheid in South Africa. South Africa relied on access to the outside world. Isolating 
them cut off the very roots of their export-oriented economy. For most of the past 30 
years, Burma isolated itself from the world. Only now is Burma establishing ties with 
the outside world. Isolating them now would be about as effective as prunning a tree. In 
particular, United States investment in Burma --save for oil interests--is minimal and
even its loss would have little impact because others will take our place. With South 
Africa, sub-saharan Africa was also united in support of sanctions. There is no similar 
regional mandate for action with Burma. 

When sanctions were imposed against South Africa they were accompanied by extensive 
contact and assistance to the black community in South Africa and the NGOs working with 
them. The current language on Burma has none of that and would cut off our access and 
ability to support the democracy movement. 

There are no potential incentives for the SLORC to work with Suu Kyi as none of 

the sanctions will be lifted until a fully democratically-elected government comes to 
power. But, as we saw in South Africa and before that in Poland, the movement to 
democracy is often a slow, tentative process and include transitional governments. If 
events unfold in a similar fashion in Burma , the current language has no means for 
easing or eliminating sanctions to cultivate the growth of democracy. 

The current language would also give SLORC the wrong signal that it can do whatever it 
wants because we have already used up all our bullets. 

OUR POLICY AND THE CURRENT AMENDMENT

Instead of the current draconian sanctions proposed in the legislation before us, we 
should adopt an approach that effectively secures our national interests. The Cohen 
amendment does just that. 

One, it establishes a framework for United States policy towards Burma that stimulates 
intimate cooperation with our allies in the region, especially ASEAN, that is clearly in 
the national interest. 

Two, it draws a clear line in the sand that should the situation in Burma deteriorate 
the United States and our allies would impose multilateral sanctions on Burma or the 
United States would go it alone if necessary. SLORC will be on notice and have to be on 
their best behavior. 

Three, it provides incentives for SLORC and Suu Kyi and the other democratic leaders and 
ethnic minorities to start talking and move towards democracy and freedom. It would 
permit assistance to the democracy movement, support efforts to curb the flow of heroin, 
and ensure that Americans can visit, talk with, and influence the people in Burma as 
they have everywhere from the Albania to South Africa. 

Four, it allows the President to remove sanctions and other restrictions should there be 
progress towards the establishment of a full democratic government or if we are merely 
punishing U.S. investors. 

Finally, it requires the administration to work closely with the Congress developing a 
multilateral strategy to bring democracy to Burma and in implementing the sanctions. 

Mr. President. This is a solid strategy and bipartisan view of what the United States' 
policy towards Burma should be. It is a far better one than that currently envisioned in 
the legislation before us. I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to support this 
amendment. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes fifteen seconds. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say that if my colleagues are looking for some 
ideological touchpoint on this issue, they will not find any. It is going to be an odd 
collection of players on both sides of the aisle. 

As my senior colleague from Kentucky just indicated, the Clinton administration supports 
the Cohen amendment, and I oppose the Cohen amendment, along with Senator Moynihan, from 
whom you have heard, Senator Leahy who spoke earlier on the issue, and then Senator 
Helms and Senator Faircloth also will be opposing the Cohen amendment. 

So if you are looking for some ideological guidelines, you will not find any on this 
issue. So this would be a good vote upon which to just sort of set aside party label or 
ideological leaning and look at the facts and think about what America stands for. 

The facts are these: In 1990, in Burma they had a Western-style, internationally 
supervised election. Eighty percent of the vote went to the National League for 
Democracy, a party organized around a dynamic leader that is becoming increasingly 
well-known in the world, Aung San Suu Kyi. As soon as the election was completed and it 
was clear who had won, the ruling military junta, supported by a 400,000-person army, 
used entirely internally to control the people of Burma , locked up most of the
leadership and put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. She was essentially 
incommunicado until July 1995, 2 days before a bill that I crafted and introduced was 
introduced here in the Senate last July. 

They claim she was released. Well, it is some kind of release. She is allowed to 
address, from home, friends and supporters who come around sometimes on a weekly basis. 
But they do that at some risk. She does not feel comfortable communicating with the 
outside world. Yet, she smuggled out a tape a week ago for use at the European Union in 
their Parliament debate in which they call upon their members to institute unilateral 
sanctions. 

So, clearly she does not feel comfortable to just sort of pick up the phone and call 
some reporter and say, `This is how I feel.' But she has been getting her views out. She 
and the legitimate Government of Burma, much of it now in this country, support the 
provisions in the underlying bill and oppose the Cohen amendment. I have already put 
that letter, received today, in the Record.  

I do not want to be too hard on the Clinton administration because, obviously, this is 
not a very partisan issue. We have people all over the lot on this question. But they 
are basically not interested in doing anything about this problem. But that does not 
distinguish them from the Bush administration, which had no interest either. 

So there has been bipartisan neglect to address this problem. Neither administration has 
distinguished itself by ignoring a problem which I guarantee you, if there were a bunch 
of Burmese American citizens, we would have been bouncing off the walls 6 years ago over 
this. But there are not any Burmese American citizens. We have a lot of Jewish Americans 
who are interested in Israel, a lot of Armenia Americans who are interested in Armenia, 
and a lot of Ukraine Americans who are 

interested in Ukraine. Boy, when we hear from them, we get real interested. But you take 
some isolated country that did not have the immigration pattern to this country and 
somehow we act like it does not exist. 

But with the Burmese regime, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC--you can 
hardly say it without laughing, but it is not funny--runs a terrorist regime in Burma . 
Some people may say, `Well, it is none of our affair.' Sixty percent of the heroin in 
our country comes from Burma --60 percent of it. Heroin from Burma is tainting the lives 
of thousands of Americans. This regime cooperates with the people who send it here. So 
it does have a direct effect on Americans living here in this country as well as
offending every standard that we have come to believe in and to promote around the 
world. 

It is safe to say that the Burmese Government can be in a rather unique category with 
North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Iraq. It is just a small, little family here of truly 
outrageous regimes, and all the rest of them we have a great interest in and we have 
sanctions against or we are working to try to diminish the influence of in one way or 
another. But this country we seem to have no interest in. 

The amendment of the Senator from Maine actually makes the situation worse, in my 
opinion. It will allow aid to this pariah regime to increase. In other words, in the 
opinion of the Senator from Kentucky, it is worse than current law because last year we 
voted to cut off a narcotics program in that country because we did not have any 
confidence in dealing with this outlaw regime. This would make those dealings
possible again should the administration decide to engage in it. 

The second condition in the Cohen amendment which seems to me to be troublesome is it 
makes Aung San Suu Kyi's personal security the issue rather than the restoration of 
democracy. In other words, if you see that Aung San Suu Kyi is in trouble or there is 
large-scale trouble or violence, then you can take certain actions if you want to, but 
you do not have to because all of it can be waived. 

In short, with all due respect to my good friend from Maine, it seems to me that this 
amendment basically gives the administration total flexibility to do whatever they want 
to do, which every administration would love to have. I can understand why they support 
this amendment. But looking at the track record of this administration and the previous 
one, given the discretion to do nothing, nothing is what you get. Nothing is what we can 
anticipate from this administration, and that is what we got from the last one. 

Let me say this is not a radical step. Some people think that we should never have 
unilateral economic sanctions against anybody, but a lot of those people make exceptions 
for Cuba, for example. `Well, that is different,' or they make an exception for a 
renegade regime like Libya. 

The truth of the matter is we have occasionally used unilateral sanctions, and they have 
not always failed. I mean, it is very common to say they always fail. They do not always 
fail. In fact, we have a conspicuous success story in South Africa, a place where 
America led. When we passed the South Africa sanctions bill in 1986, which my good 
friend from Maine supported, and when we overrode President Reagan's veto, which both of 
us voted to override, we were not sure it was going to work. All of these arguments 
about unilateral sanctions were made then. Everybody said, `Well, nobody else will 
follow.' In fact, everybody followed. America led and everybody else followed, and South 
Africa has been a great success story. 

I think those followers are right around the corner. The European Union and the European 
Parliament took this issue up in July of this year--this month. Why did they get 
interested? Aung San Suu Kyi's best friend, a man named Nichols, a European who had been 
a consulate official in Rangoon for a number of different European countries, as the 
distinguished senior Senator from New York pointed out a minute ago, was arrested 
earlier this year. His crime was possessing a fax machine, and they killed him. He is 
dead; murdered. 

So the Europeans all of a sudden have gotten interested in this because one of their own 
has been treated by the Burmese military like it has been treating the Burmese people 
for years. Carlsberg and Heineken, two European companies, are pulling out. American 
companies and one oil company decided not to go forward, and all of the retailers who 
were either in there or on the way in are coming out--Eddie Bauer, Liz Claiborne, 
Pepsico are coming out. 

If America leads, others will follow. 

Finally, let me say that this is what Aung San Suu Kyi would like, and she won the 
election. She is familiar with all the arguments that are made by those who do not want 
unilateral sanctions, that only the people of Burma will be hurt. She is familiar with 
those arguments. She does not buy it. She does not agree to it. This is what she has to 
say. She said: 

Foreign investment currently benefits only Burma 's military rulers and some local 
interests but would not help improve the lot of the Burmese in general. 

She said in May this year, quoted in Asia Week: 

Burma is not developing in any way. Some people are getting very rich. That is not 
economic development. 

On Australia Radio in May of this year, she was quoted as saying, a direct quote: 
Investment made now is very much against the interests of the people of Burma . 

So, Mr. President, that sums up the argument. If America does not lead, no one will. If 
given total discretion, all indications are that this administration will have no more 
interest than the last one. The duly elected Government of Burma is in jail or under 
surveillance, and we do nothing. This is the opportunity, this is the time for America 
to be consistent with its principles. 

So, Mr. President, I hope that the Cohen amendment will not be approved. I have great 
respect for my friend from Maine. But I think on this particular issue he is wrong, and 
I hope his amendment will not be approved. 

Mr. President, last week, when she learned the European Parliament and European Union 
were debating a response to the death of their Honorary Consul, Leo Nichols, Aung San 
Suu Kyi was able to smuggle out a videotape appealing for sanctions against the military 
regime in Rangoon. This is the most recent of many courageous calls by the elected 
leader of Burma for the international community to directly and immediately support the 
restoration of democracy and respect for the rule of law in her country. She has
repeatedly summoned us to take concrete steps to implement the results of the 1990 
elections in which the Burmese people spoke with a strong, resolute voice, and the NLD 
carried the day.

                     -  More on Part. 5  -