John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask what the pending Senate business is?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are ready to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment and I think we ought to understand this amendment does more than tie FAA's hands with respect to air traffic control management. It would prevent a host of broader measures as well. Certain FAA responsibilities are best fulfilled by contract, using a combination of Government and private services, as is the case today. Congress gave the FAA unique procurement authority for exactly this reason and the amendment would compromise that authority. For example, the FAA's air traffic control systems are increasingly composed of commercial components and software that build upon privately developed computer programs. If this amendment passes, the FAA's costs to maintain and install its systems would most likely increase significantly as the FAA tries to acquire needed data rights to maintain the equipment or forgoes the advantages of using commercial products. Furthermore, the FAA would pay ever-escalating training costs to provide its workforce with the changing skills needed to maintain multiple systems. The amendment prevents the FAA's ability to reduce its operating costs by contracting out certain operations--such as providing weather information to pilots. Congress has been very critical of the FAA's continually increasing operating costs. This amendment would take a very important tool for controlling costs away from the FAA. The FAA is currently conducting a competition to evaluate the performance of its 61 flight service stations, which provide needed services, such as weather briefings, to general aviation pilots. The FAA expects that the competition will identify innovations and lead to greater value for America's pilots at a lower cost to the taxpayer. The bottom line is that the legislation would stop this study--a study that encourages the FAA. Finally, this amendment prevents the FAA from expanding the existing contract tower program. This program allows smaller airports to continue to have air traffic control where an FAA tower might not be fully justified. The Transportation Department's Inspector General has examined this program. He found that contract towers are just as safe and effective as FAA towers and on average cost $800 thousand a year less. This amendment would prohibit any other existing towers from becoming contract towers. FAA continues to operate about 71 towers that are similar in traffic and complexity to towers currently in the contract program. For example, in Virginia, the tower at Manassas Regional Airport, which has general aviation only, is FAA-operated but the tower at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, which has frequent commercial service, is a contract tower. Converting these towers could save the FAA about $57 million dollars per year in operating costs and free up 900 controllers that could be used in more complex facilities and help meeting the pending wave of controller retirements. The Administration is adamantly opposed to this amendment or any other provisions that would reduce the FAA's flexibility and ability to control costs. In a letter to the House, Secretary Mineta indicated that he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained provisions similar to this amendment. We will hear today a lot of discussion about how admirably the air traffic controllers performed on September 11, and it is true. It is absolutely true. They did a magnificent job. It is also true that the air traffic controllers in Canada worked extremely well with their partners, the counterparts in the U.S., and they are not government employees. They are privatized air control providers. All of us appreciate the enormous contributions and terrific jobs that our air traffic controllers did, and do. The question is, Will the administration be able to have the flexibility necessary to do such things as contract towers that operate without the complexities and difficulties that are associated with major air traffic control centers? I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated June 12 from the Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to highlight some changes that Senator Stevens made to this amendment in response to concerns expressed by the Department of Transportation. Senator Stevens changed the term ``effective control'' in his amendment to ``actual control'' to more accurately represent the test that DOT uses in these types of reviews. In addition, Senator Stevens removed the limitation of ``at all times'' regarding the actual control test it conform with current DOT practices. DOT has represented to me that these changes accurately reflect the current state of law regarding citizenship and assures me that this amendment will not in any way affect their determination of what constitutes a citizen of the United States. I would not have agreed to this amendment without these changes and an understanding that this is simply a reflection of current law. The terms that I have agreed to will not be altered in conference.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I did have the opportunity to meet with a group of his fellow citizens from Lancaster. They made a very compelling case on the burden they bear. I think this is a fair and equitable solution. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thomas for his sponsorship of this amendment. One of the greatest problems we have today in America is aircraft noise over national parks. We have been fighting it in the Grand Canyon, trying to balance the needs of commercial aircraft--not only those taking off and arriving but air tours--and that of preserving the incredible park experience. I thank Senator Thomas for his effort to try to bring about the restoration of that marvelous experience in one of our Nation's crown jewels. I support the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. I support the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Isn't it the case the Senator has added language that indicates that nonlethal weapons-- --

Mr. McCAIN. Forty years ago. The demographics have changed, and everything else has changed. It argues for at least allowing pilots to fly longer. By the way, I might say, also--again, maybe I have a little senior's bias here--more experienced pilots are better pilots. And if they are in good health, and there are two of them in almost every commercial airliner, why in the world are we opposed to allowing them to fly longer? Southwest Airlines supports the efforts. SWAPA and other organizations and individuals allow pilots to fly commercial jet aircraft beyond age 60. JetBlue supports it. The low-cost airlines all support it. The most expensive airlines, the more established ones-- most of them are rotating in and out of bankruptcy because of their outstanding management practices--are opposed to it. So this is really a no-brainer, Mr. President. We should allow these pilots to serve longer and fly longer and be able to realize an income that comes from serving these airlines and the American public for a long time. Having said that, we will probably lose because right now, ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, and the executives and lobbyists for the major airlines are on the phone saying: Don't do this. This could be really dangerous. It is hard for me to believe that someone 61 years old, who passed a physical, who is flying with another qualified pilot, plus, in many cases, a flight engineer, is in any way a danger. Not only that, in case there is some kind of emergency, that pilot is probably better qualified to handle that emergency by virtue of that pilot's experience than a much younger individual would be. So I will clearly be supporting the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I appreciate his courage in bringing up this issue. Maybe someday we will be able to allow these young men and women to serve past age 60 if they are physically and mentally qualified to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been on the Commerce Committee for quite a few years, not nearly as long as my friend from South Carolina, but long enough to know that this issue has been around for a long time. When it was first presented to me, it was presented to my office by a group of pilots who were nearing the age of 60. And they said: Gee, we are in great shape. We fly planes that have two pilots in the cockpit. We would be willing to take three or four physicals every year if necessary. We all know people are living longer. We know that fewer and fewer people smoke. We have rigorous physicals. I said: Gee, it makes good sense to me. And as I grow older, it makes even more sense to me, I might add to my friend from Oklahoma. But here is the problem. The airlines do not want it because they do not want to pay senior pilots the amount of money they have to pay them, and so they want to get rid of them at age 60 and bring in lower salaried pilots. And, of course, then, incredibly, the younger members of ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, want the old geezers gone so they can move up more rapidly. It is really kind of an incredible scenario, when you think about it. We all know that people live longer and are healthier longer. And the Senator from Oklahoma probably knows when this rule went into effect. I am not sure.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for his leadership, and I thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. I thank Senator McConnell for his longstanding support of this brave and heroic person and the movement she leads. Several years ago, I happened to visit Myanmar, which I will refer to from now on as Burma. I had the great honor--one of the great honors of my life--to meet this incredible hero, this incredible leader, this incredible person who has spent her life under duress, under punishment, under pressure, under house arrest, even to the point of physical mistreatment at the hands of this gang of thugs that runs and has ruined this country. I will never forget the day I met her. I will never forget the grace, the dignity, and the heroism that was clearly radiating from every part of this incredible person who very appropriately has been recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize. I remind my colleagues that she has been kept under house arrest for many years. She was released in 1995 finally, and then she was again confined to house arrest in 2000. Just a few days ago, as a motorcade of about 250 people drove through, about 500 armed soldiers, members of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Association, and an unknown number of convicts recruited from Mandalay prison with the promise of reward and freedom rushed and attacked it. In the ensuing melee, which lasted about an hour, the attackers beat up NLD members, shot them with catapults, soldiers opening and firing, killing and wounding a large number of NLD members. Aung San Suu Kyi was taken into custody in an unknown place. Apparently, thank God, according to the U.N. envoy, Mr. Ishmael, she is in good physical condition. This junta has ruined the country. It has deprived the people of their fundamental freedoms. This gang of thugs has mistreated this great person in the most disgraceful fashion. She should be free. She should be free to lead her country as was already endorsed by one free and fair election overwhelmingly. Why did they do that this time? Because everyplace Aung San Suu Kyi went, the people welcomed her by the thousands, and the junta could not stand it. So they had to kill her people, her supporters, and they had to throw her back into prison. What did one of the leaders who is supposed to be a moderate, whom I also met when I was in Burma, GEN Khin Nyunt--remember that name--say? He said: Everyone needs to abide by the rules and regulations to be observed everywhere. Adding: It is to be noted that the basic human rights would not protect those who violate an existing law. What existing law? What existing law that would ever be judged a legitimate law in any court in the world was Aung San Suu Kyi in violation of when they killed her supporters, mistreated her, and put her back into prison? I do not know why the Japanese, the Thais, the Chinese, and the ASEAN nations, that ostensibly are supposed to be standing up for freedom and democracy, are not doing everything possible to punish this regime, free this incredible person, and let the people of Burma have a free and fair election. I thank, again, Senator McConnell. I point out that we should be taking every single measure possible, and I do not believe the Secretary of State should attend the ASEAN gathering in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, unless Aung San Suu Kyi and the situation in Burma are No. 1 on the agenda of ASEAN. Are we going to sit by and watch the brutalization of a people, the imprisonment of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the repression and devastation of a nation be carried out by a gang of thugs that call themselves generals? I hope not. I hope the message today in the legislation we are considering, thanks to the Senator from Kentucky, is a message that this is the beginning--this is the beginning--of our efforts to free this person and to free the people of Burma. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Hollings, the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee; and Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, in introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Federal Maritime Commission, FMC. The Federal Maritime Commission is an independent agency comprised of five commissioners. Its primary responsibility is administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. The work carried out by the FMC is critical to protecting shippers and carriers from restrictive or unfair practices by foreign-flag carriers. This legislation would authorize funding for the Commission to continue its important work through fiscal year 2005. Specifically, the bill would authorize $18.5 million for fiscal year 2004, which is the level requested by the Administration, and $19.5 million for fiscal year 2005. The bill also would amend Section 102(b) of the Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961 to require that the Commission's chairman be subject to Senate confirmation. Additionally, the bill would require the Commission to report to Congress on the status of any agreements or discussions with other Federal, State, or local governmental agencies concerning issues dealing with the sharing of ocean shipping information for the purpose of assisting law enforcement or anti-terrorism efforts. The Commission also would be directed to make recommendations on how the Commission's ocean shipping information could be better utilized to improve port security efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Hollings, the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee; and Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, in introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Federal Maritime Commission, FMC. The Federal Maritime Commission is an independent agency comprised of five commissioners. Its primary responsibility is administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. The work carried out by the FMC is critical to protecting shippers and carriers from restrictive or unfair practices by foreign-flag carriers. This legislation would authorize funding for the Commission to continue its important work through fiscal year 2005. Specifically, the bill would authorize $18.5 million for fiscal year 2004, which is the level requested by the Administration, and $19.5 million for fiscal year 2005. The bill also would amend Section 102(b) of the Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961 to require that the Commission's chairman be subject to Senate confirmation. Additionally, the bill would require the Commission to report to Congress on the status of any agreements or discussions with other Federal, State, or local governmental agencies concerning issues dealing with the sharing of ocean shipping information for the purpose of assisting law enforcement or anti-terrorism efforts. The Commission also would be directed to make recommendations on how the Commission's ocean shipping information could be better utilized to improve port security efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure Subcommittee, Senator Smith, in introducing the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Federal Trade Commission, FTC or Commission, in furtherance of its mission to enhance the efficient operation of the marketplace by both eliminating acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive and preventing anti-competitive conduct. This vital consumer protection agency has not been reauthorized since 1996. Title I of the bill is nearly identical to legislation that was reported by the Commerce Committee last year. It would authorize funding for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006. In addition, this portion of the bill would authorize the FTC to provide investigative and other services to a requesting law enforcement agency and receive from that agency, if offered, reimbursement for the FTC's involvement. This part of the bill also would grant the Commission the authority it has requested to receive gifts or items that would be useful to the Commission as long as a conflict of interest is not created by such receipt. The second title of the bill is designed to mitigate the challenges that the FTC currently faces in combating cross-border fraud. The FTC's responsibility to protect consumers is essential, particularly in today's global climate of high-speed information and marketing, which knows no international borders. This title would improve the Commission's ability to: share information involving cross-border fraud with foreign consumer protection agencies; secure confidential information from those foreign agencies; take legal action in foreign jurisdictions; seek redress on behalf of foreign consumers victimized by U.S.-based wrongdoers; make criminal referrals for cross-border criminal activity; and strengthen its relationship with foreign consumer protection agencies. The Competition Subcommittee will hold a hearing later today on the FTC's reauthorization and will consider a number of issues including the Commission's cross-border fraud proposal. Not included in the bill is language that was reported by the Commerce Committee last Fall that would repeal the ``common carrier'' exemption in the FTC's organizing statute that currently precludes the Commission from exercising authority over certain activities of telecommunications common carriers. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, currently has jurisdiction over these common carriers. While I fully support any effort to combat entities that perpetrate fraud on consumers, and I respect the expertise and ability of the FTC and FCC to seek redress for victims of such fraud, I made it clear during the Commerce Committee's executive session last Fall that a discussion was necessary between the two agencies to resolve any overlap in jurisdiction that may exist. It is our understanding that the FTC and FCC are in the process of negotiating an agreement that would satisfy the objectives of both agencies to further their respective consumer protection missions. Thus, for now, we will reserve judgment as to whether such a repeal is necessary. Meanwhile, I look forward to working on this important consumer protection legislation and I hope that my colleagues will agree to join us in expeditiously moving this reauthorization through the legislative process. Reauthorizing the FTC is important if the agency is to continue to successfully carry out its many responsibilities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure Subcommittee, Senator Smith, in introducing the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Federal Trade Commission, FTC or Commission, in furtherance of its mission to enhance the efficient operation of the marketplace by both eliminating acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive and preventing anti-competitive conduct. This vital consumer protection agency has not been reauthorized since 1996. Title I of the bill is nearly identical to legislation that was reported by the Commerce Committee last year. It would authorize funding for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006. In addition, this portion of the bill would authorize the FTC to provide investigative and other services to a requesting law enforcement agency and receive from that agency, if offered, reimbursement for the FTC's involvement. This part of the bill also would grant the Commission the authority it has requested to receive gifts or items that would be useful to the Commission as long as a conflict of interest is not created by such receipt. The second title of the bill is designed to mitigate the challenges that the FTC currently faces in combating cross-border fraud. The FTC's responsibility to protect consumers is essential, particularly in today's global climate of high-speed information and marketing, which knows no international borders. This title would improve the Commission's ability to: share information involving cross-border fraud with foreign consumer protection agencies; secure confidential information from those foreign agencies; take legal action in foreign jurisdictions; seek redress on behalf of foreign consumers victimized by U.S.-based wrongdoers; make criminal referrals for cross-border criminal activity; and strengthen its relationship with foreign consumer protection agencies. The Competition Subcommittee will hold a hearing later today on the FTC's reauthorization and will consider a number of issues including the Commission's cross-border fraud proposal. Not included in the bill is language that was reported by the Commerce Committee last Fall that would repeal the ``common carrier'' exemption in the FTC's organizing statute that currently precludes the Commission from exercising authority over certain activities of telecommunications common carriers. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, currently has jurisdiction over these common carriers. While I fully support any effort to combat entities that perpetrate fraud on consumers, and I respect the expertise and ability of the FTC and FCC to seek redress for victims of such fraud, I made it clear during the Commerce Committee's executive session last Fall that a discussion was necessary between the two agencies to resolve any overlap in jurisdiction that may exist. It is our understanding that the FTC and FCC are in the process of negotiating an agreement that would satisfy the objectives of both agencies to further their respective consumer protection missions. Thus, for now, we will reserve judgment as to whether such a repeal is necessary. Meanwhile, I look forward to working on this important consumer protection legislation and I hope that my colleagues will agree to join us in expeditiously moving this reauthorization through the legislative process. Reauthorizing the FTC is important if the agency is to continue to successfully carry out its many responsibilities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, where is Aung San Suu Kyi? Burma's political crisis grows, and much of the world is outraged. Burma's democratically elected leader, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and world-renowned icon of freedom, remains imprisoned. Burma's ruling generals so far have prevented both the U.N. special envoy, who has been in Rangoon for 3 days, and the International Committee for the Red Cross, to visit her. The generals seem unmoved by the world's condemnation, and their peoples' suffering. It is time for all respectable members of the international community to put weight behind their words and take active measures to secure the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people. Most of the world sees the Burma crisis in staggeringly different terms than do its military rulers. Despite the regime's denials, the May 30 assault on Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters was a well- organized, premeditated attack by members of the Union Solidarity Development Association, a militia of the ruling, and misnamed, State Peace and Development Council. Given Aung San Suu Kyi's stature within Burma and around the globe, we know Burma's top generals, led by General Than Shwe, would have had to personally approve a physical attack on her and her delegation. We know that Than Shwe would never let his conscience interfere with any calculation of what is in the best interests of the junta's continued ability to repress the democratic aspirations of its people. Aung San Suu Kyi's associates, including several who witnessed the May 30 attacks, say that at least 70 and perhaps 100 members of her National for Democracy were slaughtered by the regime's militia in the most violent crackdown since the junta crushed the August 1988 popular uprising against the regime--and we know the junta's claim that only four people died on May 30 in what they call a spontaneous clash with the opposition is false. We know that Suu Kyi is not in ``protective custody,'' as the junta insists, but that she is being held because her national popularity and clear democratic mandate ultimately make rule by generals impossible to sustain. We know the generals are holding her incommunicado because, if she were free to speak, she would speak the truth about their brutality, and about the ruin they have brought to their country. What's so dangerous about these obvious sentiments is that the generals themselves know they are true, and that it is they who are to blame for this devastation, exposed as they are before their people and the world. The irony is that by crushing the democratic opposition, the generals have once again demonstrated to their people and the world the fragility of their rule, which no amount of repression will legitimize. That one woman, unarmed and leading only an army of citizens who believe in her, can so rattle a group of uniformed officers who control every instrument of national power is testimony to what Vaclav Havel called the power of the powerlessness. As Havel and many other brave dissidents behind the Iron Curtain knew, no amount of repression can provide a regime the democratic legitimacy that is the only basis for regime survival. No leader or leaders can systematically repress their people and loot their country and get away with it forever. The Burmese military has been doing it for 40 years, and their time is running out. Another sad truth the current crisis has exposed is how little the leaders of Burma's neighbors, including the democracies, seem to care for the most basic rights of the Burmese people. The Prime Minister of Thailand arrives in Washington today: I hope he is prepared for a barrage of questioning--and criticism--of Thailand's warm embrace of the dictatorship next door since he assumed office in 2001. Under Prime Minister Thaksin, Thailand has moved aggressively to deepen Thai business ties with Burma, provide substantial economic assistance to the junta, collaborate with the Burmese military against Burmese ethnic groups who oppose rule by the generals, arrest and repatriate exiled Burmese democrats across the Thai-Burma border, and pursue a policy of cooperation and conciliation with a regime that is opposed by the vast majority of its people and known to much of the world as an outlaw. Bangkok's coddling of Rangoon has gone well beyond passive acceptance of the regime next door to something approaching active sponsorship of the junta. Thailand has made no effort to reach out to the Burmese opposition, which is especially unfortunate since some of its most fearless leaders reside in the Thai-Burma border region. Under Prime Minister Thaksin, Thailand has supported and sustained its historic enemy, at the very time when it could use its influence to help bring about the negotiated transition to democracy in Burma. India's government also appears to have made a strategic decision to ``constructively engage'' Rangoon out of fear of growing Chinese influence in Burma. India has legitimate concerns about China's interest in using Burma as an outlet for Chinese commerce and military forces in the Andaman Sea. But given China's pervasive influence in Burma, India cannot hope to compete with Beijing for the junta's affection. A more effective strategy would be to support the Burmese opposition's campaign for a free Burma. I don't know what policies a Burma led by Aung San Suu Kyi would pursue towards China, but I'm quite confident she wouldn't choose to pursue a strategic partnership with an Asian dictatorship. Democratic India would be a natural ally of a free Burma, and I believe Delhi would be wise to help move Burma in that direction, rather than curry favor with the generals. China's unreconstructed policy towards Burma following the attack of May 30 was best expressed by China's ambassador to Rangoon, who told U.N. envoy Razali Ismail that China considers the crisis to be Burma's ``internal political affair.'' Interestingly, China has been helpful in dealing with the North Korean nuclear crisis, I hope because Beijing understands the costs of tying itself too closely to a regime that is actively alienating the rest of the world. Perhaps it is wishful thinking to hope that China's rulers will reach a similar conclusion about their support for the Burmese junta: that in their increasing repression and devastation of their country, the generals are fighting a battle they can't win, and that undermines the stability and prosperity China seeks in Southeast Asia. Perhaps Beijing would take a more resolution line with the generals if Southeast Asia were united in condemnation of their assault on the Burmese people. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations will hold its annual ministerial summit and security meetings next week in Phnom Penh. Secretary of State Powell is scheduled to attend the meetings of the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conferences from June 18-20. I urge Secretary Powell to reconsider his plans to travel to Southeast Asis unless the ASEAN nations, excluding Burma, agree to address the crisis in Burma as their central agenda item; agree to forcefully condemn the crackdown on democracy in Burma; agree to require the release of Burma's detained democracy leaders in order for Burma to participate in the ASEAN ministerial meetings; and agree to issue a concrete action plan to move Burma towards a negotiated settlement with Aung San Suu Kyi that grants her a leading and irreversible political role culminating in free and fair national elections. I understand the importance of Secretary Powell's visit to Southeast Asia. I agree that the region is too important for the United States to neglect. But as long as Burma's neighbors neglect the political crisis in their backyard, it is hard to imagine what coherent role ASEAN can play in the region and the world. All Southeast Asian leaders have a vested interest in building ASEAN into a strong regional bloc that can help expand prosperity and improve security in Southeast Asia. As long as Burma, an ASEAN member since 1997, is held captive by the generals, destabilizing the region and attracting precisely the kind of international sanction Southeast Asian leaders would like to avoid--and as long as those leaders do little or nothing about it--Southeast Asia will remain little more than the sum of its parts, and ASEAN will have little enduring relevance. Secretary Powell should condition his visit to Phnom Penh on an ASEAN agenda that addresses the rot at the heart of the organization--the decaying dictatorship in Rangoon--and that helps move ASEAN towards a more constructive role in Southeast Asia than that of ``constructively engaging'', and abetting, tyranny in Burma. The United States has moved to restrict visas for officials of Burma's Union Solidarity Development Association and freeze Burmese leaders' assets. Tomorrow, the Senate will take up a measure banning imports from Burma. Europe is moving to tighten existing sanctions against the junta. These efforts to bring to bear pressure for democratization will have additional force if Burma's neighbors end business as usual and take concrete steps to help liberate the Burmese people. It is hard to believe that Americans and Europeans care more about the rights of the Burmese people than do people in Bangkok, Beijing, Delhi, Manila, Jakarta, and other Asian capitals. These nations will always have Burma as a neighbor. Burma will not always be ruled by the generals. When they are gone, free Burma's leaders will speak the truth about ASEAN and its support for Asian autocrats, unless that organization and its member states make a strategic decision to stand with the Burmese people in their struggle for freedom today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for one further question, has the Senator heard about a statement of the Japanese Foreign Minister that basically is saying that everything was pretty well--the status quo was pretty well satisfactory in Burma? And before I ask the Senator to answer the question, I want to say again, I thank him for his advocacy of many years, for the democratic movement in Burma, sometimes known as Myanmar. I thank him and look forward to working with him. I think the Congress can act, and I hope we can work in concert with the administration.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his advocacy for, not only one of the world's great, courageous figures, but also on behalf of democracy and freedom in a small country far away. Is the Senator from Kentucky aware of any action, or even any statements being made by our friends in Asia, including ASEAN, and how does he feel about that?