[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 57 (Thursday, April 29, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4694-S4709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Graham of Florida, and Mr. 
        Dayton):
  S. 2360. A bill to provide higher education assistance for 
nontraditional students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will address a growing trend in higher education--the changing 
face of today's college student.
  Over the last decade, there has been a steady increase in the number 
of non-traditional students entering or returning to college. 
Nationwide, non-traditional students on college campuses are slowly 
becoming the norm--the percentage of non-traditional students on 
college campuses has increased to 47 percent in 2001 from 34 percent in 
1991.
  Non-traditional students come in many different forms. Some waited to 
go to college until their mid to late twenties or later--or were put in 
the position of having to go back to college late in life because they 
lost their job. Others are attending college part-time while they work 
full-time and/or are financially independent. Others have children, and 
may or may not have the support of a spouse. And still others never 
obtained a high school diploma.
  As you can imagine, these students face unique challenges that make 
it more difficult for them to graduate than their traditional peers. 
These challenges include affording their education, balancing work, 
school, and family responsibilities, and sometimes overcoming 
inadequate preparation.

[[Page S4695]]

  Unfortunately, many of our current higher education policies make it 
harder, not easier, for non-traditional students to complete their 
degrees. That is why today I am pleased to be introducing, along with 
my colleague from the state of Florida, Senator Graham, The Non-
Traditional Students Success Act.
  This legislation is a comprehensive solution to the barriers non-
traditional students face as they try to earn a college degree. It is 
timely, and our system is long overdue for improvement.
  When I travel throughout New York, I hear about the challenges faced 
by many of our citizens, particularly those who have found themselves 
unemployed after years of working in companies like Kodak, Xerox, 
Corning, and IBM. Many of these citizens are in need of retraining--
some are returning to school, while others are attending college for 
the first time.
  The goal of this legislation is to increase graduation rates for non-
traditional students by addressing the range of barriers they face--
financial, academic, and social.
  First, I will begin with the financial; this legislation includes 
several provisions to make it more affordable for non-traditional 
students to complete their postsecondary education.
  It increases the maximum Pell Grant to $11,600 by 2010. Pell Grants 
work and there is no reason why we should not continue to invest in 
this worthwhile solution.
  This bill also increases the income protection allowance so that 
working students can keep more of their income. Our bill sets the level 
at $18,000 per year as opposed to only $5,000 per year--which is 
current law for single independent students.
  It increases the amount of education expenses that students can claim 
under the Lifetime Learning credit from 20 percent to 50 percent. Under 
current law, students receive a credit of only $300 for education 
expenses towards the Lifetime Learning credit. Under this proposal, 
they could claim $750--money that would go a long way towards 
offsetting the cost of higher education today.
  I am also proposing an information campaign so that students will 
know more about the financial aid available to them. Research shows 
that one of the most significant challenges to making ``lifelong 
learning'' a reality is to overcome the perception held by many non-
traditional students, especially first-generation and adults with few 
work skills, that they are not ``student material.''
  A direct mailing campaign combined with outreach to employers about 
the financial resources available to non-traditional students could 
significantly boost attendance and retention of non-traditional 
students.
  Secondly, The Non-Traditional Students Success Act addresses the 
daily challenges of balancing work, family and school by creating a 
pilot program to provide financial aid to students who are attending 
school less than half-time while maintaining a full-time work schedule.
  This provision will provide resources to schools that create class 
schedules that accommodate the realities of non-traditional students' 
lives--classes that are taught in short, compressed modules, on 
weekends, in the evenings, and over the Internet.
  This bill also creates a pilot program that will make Pell Grants 
available year round so students are not forced to discontinue their 
studies for the three-month summer period. These students want to 
complete their studies as soon as possible, and the three-month delay 
only impedes their progress.
  We are also putting forward ideas to put reliable childcare within 
the reach of students who have children. During my husband's 
administration we created CCAMPIS--a program to provide quality 
childcare on college campuses. This is an excellent program that 
deserves to be expanded. It has never received more than $25 million in 
funding, even though the need for reliable childcare on campuses is 
overwhelming.
  The Non-Traditional Student Support Act will expand the CCAMPIS 
program and provide a supplemental grant to low-income parents 
attending school.
  This legislation also increases funding to TRIO and Gear-Up. These 
programs have been successful in helping many non-traditional students 
achieve the goal of a college degree, and we must continue to support 
and expand these programs.
  We have also included language that requires these programs to give 
special attention to first-year students, as research shows completion 
of the first year is a key indicator of retention through graduation.
  I am very pleased with this legislation; it shows that we are moving 
in the right direction, tweaking our higher education policies to 
better serve our changing student population. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to incorporate these provisions into the 
reauthorization of the higher education act.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the face of the American 
undergraduate is changing, and there is a growing need to reflect this 
transformation in our Federal education policy. In 2001, 47 percent of 
all undergraduates were considered non-traditional students. Despite 
this evolving landscape of higher education, many of our Nation's 
financial aid policies and student support services only address the 
financial needs and lifestyle demands of traditional students.
  Fewer and fewer of today's undergraduates come straight from high 
school, depend on parental financial support, and enroll as full-time 
students. Today's colleges and universities are filled with an 
unprecedented amount of non-traditional students. These students have a 
variety of responsibilities beyond their education that demand their 
time, attention, and income.
  Older scholars are in the unenviable position of having to balance 
school, work, family responsibilities, and the obligation of meeting 
the cost of higher education. Recent studies suggest that 39 percent of 
all undergraduates are 25 years or older and 27 percent have children. 
Further, 40 percent of undergraduates work full-time and 48 percent 
attend college part-time.
  Unfortunately, the needs of many devoted parents and hard working 
employees who attend college are not adequately supported by federal 
policy. For this reason, it is no surprise that non-traditional 
students are less likely than traditional students to complete a 
bachelors or associates degree.
  The consequences of our higher education policy failing to address 
the challenges faced by non-traditional students are great. In the 
global economy of the 21st century, a quality, accessible education 
remains the gatekeeper to achieving the American dream of economic 
self-sufficiency and meaningful employment.
  Indeed, never before has a college degree been so vital to so many. 
Today's marketplace demands a well-educated work force. According to 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, postsecondary education will be 
essential for 42 percent of the new jobs created in this decade. Higher 
education is not only the ticket to a good paying job, it is also an 
avenue to improved health care, child-care, housing, and nutrition.
  I am pleased to join Senator Clinton in introducing the Non-
Traditional Student Success Act, legislation designed to address the 
barriers that non-traditional students encounter while pursuing a 
college education.
  Escalating college costs are a central obstacle to all students, but 
can be especially devastating to non-traditional students who often 
have families to care for. Responding to the rising cost of obtaining a 
college degree and the declining purchasing power of federal financial 
assistance, this legislation will help ensure that college is 
affordable and accessible to non-traditional students.
  With this goal in mind, our bill will increase the maximum Pell Grant 
to $11,600 over the next five years and pilot a program that would make 
this aid available year-round. This provision will ease the financial 
burden non-traditional students endure and help them complete their 
degree programs more quickly.
  Our legislation also addresses a problem many non-traditional 
students experience, not being able to qualify for a sufficient amount 
of financial aid due to their less-than-full-time enrollment status. We 
propose establishing a pilot program to provide more financial aid to 
students enrolled in a degree program less-than-half-time, students

[[Page S4696]]

with compressed or alternative schedules, and/or students in distance 
learning. It is imperative that our financial aid system no longer 
exists at odds with the needs and course loads of non-traditional 
students. This measure takes a critical first step towards correcting 
this situation.
  Our bill also expands the list of education expenses for the Lifetime 
Learning tax credit to include not just the costs of tuition and fees 
but also books, supplies and equipment, childcare and living expenses. 
Non-traditional students often have more expenses than tuition and fees 
that must be considered if a college degree is going to be financially 
possible.
  A common sense way of making higher education more accessible is to 
increase the public's awareness of available financial aid, including 
education tax credits. In 2001, only 21 percent of respondents in a 
national survey had heard of the education tax credits. Our bill will 
promote what financial aid programs are available.
  It is not enough that we improve the affordability of college for 
non-traditional students without improving student support services 
that promote retention and academic success among these students. This 
legislation increases funding for on-campus child-care to help 
nontraditional students with children. Additionally, we propose an 
increase in funding for Student Support Service programs, GEAR UP and 
College Assistance Migrant Programs. These programs provide counseling, 
mentoring, tutoring and other services to help non-traditional students 
succeed.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Non-Traditional Student 
Success Act. This legislation contains a variety of common sense 
provisions that make college more affordable and success more probable 
for non-traditional students. By supporting the Non-Traditional Student 
Success Act, you help bring the American dream within reach for a large 
segment of our Nation's undergraduate population.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 2361. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance 
research, training, and health information dissemination with respect 
to urologic diseases, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Training and 
Research in Urology Act--or the TRU Act. During my career in the U.S. 
Senate, I have supported the successful effort to double NIH research 
funding and have provided a strong voice for our children. This bill 
complements my past and continued efforts. It helps provide urologic 
scientists with the tools they need to find new cures for the many 
debilitating urologic diseases impacting men, women, and children. This 
legislation is important to my home State of Ohio and would impact 
positively many families in Ohio and nationwide who are afflicted with 
urologic diseases.
  Ohio is a leader in urologic research. Researchers at the Children's 
Hospital of Cincinnati, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve, and 
Ohio State University have made great strides toward achieving 
treatments. The fact is that urologic conditions affect millions of 
children and adults. Urology is a physiological system distinct from 
other body systems. Urologic conditions include incontinence, 
infertility, and impotence--all of which are extremely common, yet 
serious and debilitating. As many as 10 million children--more than 
30,000 in Ohio--are affected by urinary tract problems, and some forms 
of these problems can be deadly. At least half of all diabetics have 
bladder dysfunctions, which can include urinary retention, changes in 
bladder compliance, and incontinence. Interstitial Cystitis (IC), a 
painful bladder syndrome, affects 200,000 people, mostly women. There 
are no known causes or cures, and few minimally effective treatments. 
Additionally, there are 7 million urinary tract infections in the U.S. 
each year.
  Incontenence costs the healthcare system $25 billion each year and is 
a leading reason people are forced to enter nursing homes, impacting 
Medicare and Medicaid costs. Urinary tract infection treatment costs 
total more than $1 billion each year. Many urologic diseases, 
incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and cancer, increase in aging 
populations. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men, 
and African-American men are at a greater risk for the disease. 
Medicare beneficiaries suffer from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), 
which results in bladder dysfunction and urinary frequency. Fifty 
percent of men at age 60 have BPH. Treatment and surgery cost $2 
billion per year.
  Research for urologic disorders has failed to keep pace. Further 
delay translates into increased costs--in dollars, in needless 
suffering, and in the loss of human dignity. Incontinence costs the 
healthcare system $23 billion each year, yet only 90 cents per patient 
is spent on research--little more than the cost of a single adult 
undergarment. In 2002, only $5 million of the $88 million in new 
initiatives from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and 
Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) was designated to urologic diseases and 
conditions. Of that $5 million, no new initiatives were announced for 
women's urologic health problems. In 2001, we spent less than five 
cents per child on research into pediatric urologic problems. The 
medications currently used are very expensive and have unknown, long-
term side effects.

  The TRU Act establishes a Division of Urology at the NIDDK--the home 
of the urology basic science program--and expands existing research 
mechanisms, like the successful George O'Brien Urology Research 
Centers. This will give NIH new opportunities for investment in efforts 
to combat and vanquish these diseases.
  This legislation is necessary to elevate leadership in urology 
research at the NIDDK. When the Institute was created in its current 
form nearly 20 years ago, Congress specifically provided for three 
separate Division Directors. Regrettably, the current statute fails to 
provide the NIDDK with the flexibility to create additional Division 
Directors when necessary to better respond to current scientific 
opportunities. This prescriptive statutory language is unique to the 
NIDDK. For example, the National Cancer Institute and the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute do not have any statutory language 
regarding Division Directors.
  The basic science breakthroughs of the last decade are literally 
passing urology by. A greater focus on urological diseases is needed at 
the NIDDK and will be best accomplished with senior leadership with 
expertise in urology as provided in the TRU Act. This legislation is 
supported by the Coalition for Urologic Research & Education (CURE)--a 
group representing tens of thousands of patients, researchers and 
healthcare providers. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of 
the TRU Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2361

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Training and Research in 
     Urology Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. RESEARCH, TRAINING, AND HEALTH INFORMATION 
                   DISSEMINATION WITH RESPECT TO UROLOGIC 
                   DISEASES.

       (a) Division Director of Urology.--Section 428 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c-2) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``and a Division 
     Director for Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases'' and 
     inserting ``a Division Director for Urologic Diseases, and a 
     Division Director for Kidney and Hematologic Diseases''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and the Division Director for Kidney, 
     Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases'' and inserting ``the 
     Division Director for Urologic Diseases, and the Division 
     Director for Kidney and Hematologic Diseases''; and
       (B) by striking ``(1) carry out programs'' and all that 
     follows through the end and inserting the following:
       ``(1) carry out programs of support for research and 
     training (other than training for which National Research 
     Service Awards may be made under section 487) in the 
     diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diabetes mellitus and 
     endocrine and metabolic diseases, digestive diseases and 
     nutritional disorders, and kidney, urologic, and hematologic 
     diseases, including support for training in medical schools, 
     graduate clinical training (with particular attention to 
     programs geared to the needs of urology residents and

[[Page S4697]]

     fellows), graduate training in epidemiology, epidemiology 
     studies, clinical trials, and interdisciplinary research 
     programs;
       ``(2) establish programs of evaluation, planning, and 
     dissemination of knowledge related to such research and 
     training;
       ``(3) in cooperation with the urologic scientific and 
     patient community, develop and submit to the Congress not 
     later than January 1, 2006, a national urologic research plan 
     that identifies research needs in the various areas of 
     urologic diseases, including pediatrics, interstitial 
     cystitis, incontinence, stone disease, urinary tract 
     infections, and benign prostatic diseases; and
       ``(4) in cooperation with the urologic scientific and 
     patient community, review the national urologic research plan 
     every 3 years beginning in 2009 and submit to the Congress 
     any revisions or additional recommendations.''; and
       (3) at the end of the section, by adding the following:
       ``(c) There are authorized to be appropriated $500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to carry out paragraphs 
     (3) and (4) of subsection (b), and such sums as may be 
     necessary thereafter.''.
       (b) Urologic Diseases Data System and Information 
     Clearinghouse.--Section 427 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 285c-1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking the terms ``and 
     Urologic'' and ``and urologic'' each place either such term 
     appears; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) The Director of the Institute shall--
       ``(1) establish the National Urologic Diseases Data System 
     for the collection, storage, analysis, retrieval, and 
     dissemination of data derived from patient populations with 
     urologic diseases, including, where possible, data involving 
     general populations for the purpose of detection of 
     individuals with a risk of developing urologic diseases; and
       ``(2) establish the National Urologic Diseases Information 
     Clearinghouse to facilitate and enhance knowledge and 
     understanding of urologic diseases on the part of health 
     professionals, patients, and the public through the effective 
     dissemination of information.''.
       (c) Strengthening the Urology Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee.--Section 429 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 285c-3) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and a Kidney, 
     Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases Coordinating Committee'' 
     and inserting ``a Urologic Diseases Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee, and a Kidney and Hematologic Diseases Interagency 
     Coordinating Committee'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``the Chief Medical 
     Director of the Veterans' Administration,'' and inserting 
     ``the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) The urology interagency coordinating committee may 
     encourage, conduct, or support intra- or interagency 
     activities in urology research, including joint training 
     programs, joint research projects, planning activities, and 
     clinical trials.
       ``(e) For the purpose of carrying out the activities of the 
     Urologic Diseases Interagency Coordinating Committee, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and such sums as may be 
     necessary thereafter.''.
       (d) National Urologic Diseases Advisory Board.--Section 430 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c-4) is 
     amended by striking ``and the National Kidney and Urologic 
     Diseases Advisory Board'' and inserting ``the National 
     Urologic Diseases Advisory Board, and the National Kidney 
     Diseases Advisory Board''.
       (e) Expansion of O'Brien Urologic Disease Research 
     Centers.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 431 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c-5(c)) is amended in 
     the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``There shall 
     be no fewer than 15 such centers focused exclusively on 
     research of various aspects of urologic diseases, including 
     pediatrics, interstitial cystitis, incontinence, stone 
     disease, urinary tract infections, and benign prostatic 
     diseases.'' before ``Each center developed''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 431 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c-5) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
     urologic disease research centers described in subsection (c) 
     $22,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and 
     such sums as are necessary thereafter.''.
       (3) Technical amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 431 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c-5(c)) is 
     amended at the beginning of the unnumbered paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``shall develop and conduct'' and inserting 
     ``(2) shall develop and conduct''; and
       (B) by aligning the indentation of such paragraph with the 
     indentation of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4).
       (f) Subcommittee on Urologic Diseases.--Section 432 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c-6) is amended by 
     striking ``and a subcommittee on kidney, urologic, and 
     hematologic diseases'' and inserting ``a subcommittee on 
     urologic diseases, and a subcommittee on kidney and 
     hematologic diseases''.
       (g) Loan Repayment to Encourage Urologists and Other 
     Scientists to Enter Research Careers.--Subpart 3 of part C of 
     title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 434A the 
     following:


             ``Loan Repayment Program for Urology Research

       ``Sec. 434B. (a) Establishment.--Subject to subsection (b), 
     the Secretary shall carry out a program of entering into 
     contracts with appropriately qualified health professionals 
     or other qualified scientists under which such health 
     professionals or scientists agree to conduct research in the 
     field of urology, as employees of the National Institutes of 
     Health or of an academic department, division, or section of 
     urology, in consideration of the Federal Government agreeing 
     to repay, for each year of such research, not more than 
     $35,000 of the principal and interest of the educational 
     loans of such health professionals or scientists.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not enter into an 
     agreement with a health professional or scientist pursuant to 
     subsection (a) unless the professional or scientist--
       ``(1) has a substantial amount of educational loans 
     relative to income; and
       ``(2) agrees to serve as an employee of the National 
     Institutes of Health or of an academic department, division, 
     or section of urology for purposes of the research 
     requirement of subsection (a) for a period of not less than 3 
     years.
       ``(c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--Except as 
     inconsistent with this section, the provisions of subpart 3 
     of part D of title III apply to the program established under 
     subsection (a) in the same manner and to the same extent as 
     such provisions apply to the National Health Service Corps 
     Loan Repayment Program established under such subpart.''.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations for Urology Research.--
     Subpart 3 of part C of title IV of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 285c et seq.) (as amended by subsection (g)) 
     is further amended by inserting after section 434B the 
     following:


         ``Authorization of appropriations for urology research

       ``Sec. 434C. There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Director of NIH for the purpose of carrying out intra- and 
     interagency activities in urology research (including 
     training programs, joint research projects, and joint 
     clinical trials) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008, and such sums as may be necessary thereafter. 
     Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section 
     shall be in addition to amounts otherwise available for such 
     purpose.''.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kohl, and 
        Mr. Biden):
  S. 2363. A bill to revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of 
America; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
reauthorization of the Boys and Girls Club of America, legislation that 
Senator Leahy and I introduced today. Congress first granted the Boys 
and Girls Club of America a charter in 1991, but the Club existed for 
over 90 years before that. There are currently 3,500 Clubs across 
America and around the world on our military bases serving over 3.6 
million children, ages 6-18.
  Over 70 percent of those children who benefit from the Boys and Girls 
Club of America live in America's inner cities. Almost half of the Club 
members come from single parent homes. The Club offers young people a 
positive alternative to roaming the streets as well as a positive adult 
influence. These children are able to find a safe place to learn and 
grow in the Boys and Girls Clubs. Most importantly, the Clubs offer 
hope and opportunity to millions of young people who would otherwise 
face disadvantaged circumstances.
  This reauthorization will allow the Boys and Girls Club of America to 
expand their clubs even more. The bill authorizes the Club to receive 
funds through 2010 and increases the number of clubs in existence. By 
2010, there will be 5,000 Clubs nationwide serving over 5 million young 
people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this small but important 
reauthorization.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today as a long-time supporter of 
the Boys & Girls Clubs of America to join Senators Hatch, DeWine, Kohl, 
and Biden in introducing this legislation, S. 2363, to revise and 
extend the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.
  Senator Hatch has been one of the best friends and supporters Boys 
and Girls Clubs could ever have and I have been privileged to work with 
him on issues that matter to the Boys & Girls Clubs. Too often the 
public sees Republicans and Democrats disagreeing. From time to time, 
even Senator Hatch and I disagree on important issues. But when it 
comes to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America there is no doubt that we 
see eye-to-eye: Today we

[[Page S4698]]

introduce this bill to show the unified support of Republicans and 
Democrats for Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide.
  Children are the future of our country, and we have a responsibility 
to make sure they are safe and secure. I know firthand how well Boys & 
Girls Clubs work and what topnotch organizations they are. When I was a 
prosecutor in Vermont, I was convinced of the great need for Boys & 
Girls Clubs because we rarely encountered children from these kinds of 
programs. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was 
such a big fan that he asked me to help fund a Boys & Girls Club in his 
district rather than helping him get a couple more police officers.
  In Vermont, Boys and Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime 
and supporting our children. The first Club was established in 
Burlington 62 years ago. Now we have 22 club sites operating throughout 
the State: seven clubs in Brattleboro, one in Springfield, two clubs in 
Burlington, one in Winooski, two clubs in Montpelier, five clubs in 
Randolph, one club in Rutland, two clubs in Vergennes and one in 
Bristol. There are 10 additional project sites that will be on board 
and serving kids by the end of 2005: one in Bennington, two in 
Burlington, one in Duxbury, one in St. Johnsbury, one in Hardwick, 
three in Randolph and one in Ludlow. These clubs will serve well over 
10,000 kids statewide.
  As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have 
pushed for more Federal funding for Boys and Girls Clubs. Since 1998, 
Congress has increased Federal support for Boys and Girls Clubs from 
$20 million to $80 million in this year. Due in large part to this 
increase in funding, there now exist 3,300 Boys & Girls Clubs in all 50 
States serving more than 3.6 million young people. Because of these 
successes, I was both surprised and disappointed to see that the 
President requested a reduction of $20 million for fiscal year 2005. 
That request will leave thousands of children and their Clubs behind 
and we cannot allow such a thing to happen.
  In the 107th Congress, Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass 
the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
Act, which included a provision to reauthorize Justice Department 
grants to establish new Boys and Girls Clubs nationwide. By authorizing 
$80 million in Justice grants for each of the fiscal years through 
2005, we sought to establish 1,200 additional Boys and Girls Clubs 
nationwide. This was to bring the number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 
4,000, serving no less than 5 million young people. The bill we 
introduce today will build upon this: We authorize Justice Department 
grants at $80 million for fiscal year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 
2007, $90 million for fiscal year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 
2009, and $100 million for fiscal year 2010 to Boys and Girls Clubs to 
help establish 1,500 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation 
with the goal of having 5,000 Boys and Girls Clubs in operation by 
December 31, 2010.
  If we have a Boys & Girls Club in every community, prosecutors in our 
country would have a lot less work to do because of the values that are 
being instilled in children from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. 
Each time I visit a club in Vermont, I am approached by parents, 
educators, teachers, grandparents, and law enforcement officers who 
tell me ``Keep doing this! These clubs give our children the chance to 
grow up free of drugs, gangs, and crime.''
  You cannot argue that these are just Democratic or Republican ideas, 
or Conservative or Liberal ideals--they are simply good sense ideas. We 
need safe havens where our youth--the future of our country--can learn 
and grow up free from the influence of drugs, gangs, and crime. That is 
why Boys & Girls Clubs are so important to our children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill to expand Federal support 
for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. We all know instinctively that 
our country's strength and ultimate success lies with our children. Our 
greatest responsibility is to help them inhabit this century the best 
way possible and we can help do that by supporting the Boys & Girls 
Clubs of America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 2364. A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to grant a 
Federal charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing a 
bill, along with Senator Collins and Senator Lautenberg, to grant a 
Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an 
organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the 
important contributions Irish-Americans have played throughout the 
history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American 
Cultural Institute has been to establish a museum of Irish American 
history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to introduce 
legislation that could represent a positive step towards achieving that 
goal.
  The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization 
founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States. The Institute has 
spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and interpret 
Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do 
this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties 
between the United States and Ireland: sending American high school 
students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftsmen, 
actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic 
research projects that provide insights into Irish-American history, 
and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a 
visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the 
Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, 
informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to 
the Irish and the Irish-American community in the United States.
  Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of 
the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation 
in countless ways. A Federal charter will help the Irish American 
Cultural Institute continue and expand activities that recognize and 
celebrate the heritage of Irish-Americans. I ask my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2364

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CHARTER FOR IRISH AMERICAN CULTURAL INSTITUTE.

       Part B of subtitle II of title 36, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating chapter 1001 as chapter 1003;
       (2) by redesignating sections 100101 through 100110, and 
     the items relating thereto in the table of sections, as 
     sections 100301 through 100310, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after chapter 901 the following new 
     chapter:

           ``CHAPTER 1001--IRISH AMERICAN CULTURAL INSTITUTE

``Sec.
``100101. Organization.
``100102. Purposes.
``100103. Membership.
``100104. Governing body.
``100105. Powers.
``100106. Exclusive right to name, seals, emblems, and badges.
``100107. Restrictions.
``100108. Duty to maintain tax-exempt status.
``100109. Principal office.
``100110. Records and inspection.
``100111. Service of process.
``100112. Liability for acts of officers and agents.
``100113. Annual report.

     ``Sec. 100101. Organization

       ``(a) Federal Charter.--The Irish American Cultural 
     Institute (in this chapter, the `corporation'), incorporated 
     in New Jersey, is a federally chartered corporation.
       ``(b) Expiration of Charter.--If the corporation does not 
     comply with any provision of this chapter, the charter 
     granted by this chapter expires.

     ``Sec. 100102. Purposes

       ``The purposes of the corporation are as provided in the 
     articles of incorporation and include--
       ``(1) establishing the Museum of Irish America in 
     Washington, D.C., as the center of Irish American thought, 
     dialogue, debate, and reflection;
       ``(2) recognizing and recording a living memorial to the 
     contributions of Irish-born and Irish Americans to the 
     development of the United States;
       ``(3) providing a focal point for all Irish Americans, who 
     make up 17 percent of the

[[Page S4699]]

     United States population, according to the 2000 census;
       ``(4) exploring past, current, and future events in Ireland 
     and the United States, as they relate to Irish Americans and 
     society as a whole;
       ``(5) documenting the tremendous contributions of Irish 
     immigrants to the United States in the areas of architecture, 
     military, politics, religion, labor, sports, literature, and 
     art;
       ``(6) providing ongoing studies to ensure that the 
     experiences of the past will benefit the future of both 
     Ireland and the United States; and
       ``(7) establishing an Irish American Studies Program for 
     students from both Ireland and the United States.

     ``Sec. 100103. Membership

       ``Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the 
     rights and privileges of membership are as provided in the 
     bylaws.

     ``Sec. 100104. Governing body

       ``(a) Board of Directors.--The board of directors and the 
     responsibilities of the board are as provided in the articles 
     of incorporation.
       ``(b) Officers.--The officers and the election of officers 
     are as provided in the articles of incorporation.

     ``Sec. 100105. Powers

       ``The corporation shall have only the powers provided in 
     its bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in each State 
     in which it is incorporated.

     ``Sec. 100106. Exclusive right to name, seals, emblems, and 
       badges

       ``The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name 
     `Irish American Cultural Institute' and any seals, emblems, 
     and badges relating thereto that the corporation adopts.

     ``Sec. 100107. Restrictions

       ``(a) Stock and Dividends.--The corporation may not issue 
     stock or declare or pay a dividend.
       ``(b) Political Activities.--The corporation or a director 
     or officer as such may not contribute to, support, or 
     participate in any political activity or in any manner 
     attempt to influence legislation.
       ``(c) Distribution of Income or Assets.--The income or 
     assets of the corporation may not inure to the benefit of, or 
     be distributed to, a director, officer, or member during the 
     life of the charter granted by this chapter. This subsection 
     does not prevent the payment of reasonable compensation to an 
     officer or member in an amount approved by the board of 
     directors.
       ``(d) Loans.--The corporation may not make any loan to a 
     director, officer, or employee.
       ``(e) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authorization.--The 
     corporation may not claim congressional approval or the 
     authority of the United States Government for any of its 
     activities.

     ``Sec. 100108. Duty to maintain tax-exempt status

       ``The corporation shall maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

     ``Sec. 100109. Principal office

       ``The principal office of the corporation shall be in 
     Morristown, New Jersey, or another place decided by the board 
     of directors.

     ``Sec. 100110. Records and inspection

       ``(a) Records.--The corporation shall keep--
       ``(1) correct and complete books and records of account;
       ``(2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of 
     directors, and committees having any of the authority of its 
     board of directors; and
       ``(3) at its principal office, a record of the names and 
     addresses of its members entitled to vote.
       ``(b) Inspection.--A member entitled to vote, or an agent 
     or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the 
     corporation for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

     ``Sec. 100111. Service of process

       ``The corporation shall comply with the law on service of 
     process of each State in which it is incorporated and each 
     State in which it carries on activities.

     ``Sec. 100112. Liability for acts of officers and agents

       ``The corporation is liable for the acts of its officers 
     and agents acting within the scope of their authority.

     ``Sec. 100113. Annual report

       ``The corporation shall submit an annual report to Congress 
     on the activities of the corporation during the prior fiscal 
     year. The report shall be submitted at the same time as the 
     report of the audit required by section 10101 of this title. 
     The report shall not be printed as a public document.''.

     SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle II of 
     title 36, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the item relating to chapter 1001, by striking 
     ``1001'' and inserting ``1003'' and by striking ``100101'' 
     and inserting ``100301''; and
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to chapter 901 the 
     following new item:

``1001. Irish American Cultural Institute.....................100101''.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bayh, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2370. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; read the first 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been seven long years since 
Congress last acted to raise the minimum wage. The cost of living keeps 
going up, and these workers keep falling farther and farther behind, 
because the minimum wage they're paid buys less and less.
  The current minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. You can't work hard, raise 
a family, and pay for food and rent and clothing, on $5.15 an hour--
$10,700 a year--$5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. 
The minimum wage is too low.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004, which I introduce today, will 
raise the minimum wage by $1.85 to $7.00 an hour. The raise to $7.00 
would be carried out in three moderate steps in just over two years. 
More than 7 million workers would directly benefit from this minimum 
wage increases.
  Let me be clear about who we're talking about here--the janitors who 
clean our great buildings late into the night; the school aides who 
support our kids and their teachers; home healthcare workers caring for 
our elderly parents in their home; the children whose parents can't 
afford to give them more than a single slim meal a day.
  There is one thing that stands in the way of a decent minimum wage--
one thing--and that's the Republican Party.
  If this President and the Republican Party really cared about working 
Americans--about minimum wage workers--why would they oppose a decent 
wage for a hard day's work? But for seven long years, they have blocked 
every effort in this Congress to raise the minimum wage.
  Why would they oppose unemployment benefits for the 8 million out-of-
work Americans? Why would they oppose overtime pay if you have to work 
more than 40 hours a week? Why would they support shipping your jobs 
overseas?
  A fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. We should all be 
able to agree on the principle that no one who works for a living 
should have to live in poverty. How can Congress keep saying no, when 
more and more workers can't make ends meet? I plan to be back on the 
Senate floor offering this bill as an amendment over and over again 
until Congress agrees to give low-wage workers the raise they have 
earned.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Harkin, Ms. Milkulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2371. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 to expand coverage under the Act, to increase protections for 
whistleblowers, to increase penalties for certain violators, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Protecting America's Workers Act.
  This week, on Workers' Memorial Day, we remember and honor those who 
have died or been injured on the job in the past year. We remember and 
honor their families. And we pledge to do more to end the unsafe and 
unhealthy conditions that still plague so many workplaces across 
America.
  We have made significant progress in protecting worker safety since 
1970, when we passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act. But there 
is still a tremendous amount to be done. Every year, over five thousand 
workers are killed and nearly five million others become ill or are 
injured on the job. That's an average of 15 deaths and 13,000 injuries 
or illnesses each and every day.
  Too many companies are doing too little to deal with this crisis. 
They blatantly ignore the law, but they never

[[Page S4700]]

go to jail--even when their actions or lack of action kill loyal 
employees who work for them. Criminal penalties are so low that 
prosecutors don't pursue these cases. Employers who violate safety laws 
again and again pay only minimal fines--which they treat as just 
another cost of doing business.
  We cannot let these shameful practices continue. We cannot allow 
employers to put millions of workers at risk in our factories, nursing 
homes, construction sites, and many other workplaces every day.
  We need to hold this Administration accountable--require them to act, 
instead of sweeping serious violations under the rug. We also need to 
protect workers with the courage to speak out against health and safety 
violations in the workplace.
  That is why we are today introducing the Protecting America's Workers 
Act.
  It will protect millions of workers not covered by current safety 
laws. By extending the Occupational Safety and Health Act, we will 
cover 8 million public employees and millions of transportation and 
other workers.
  The bill imposes jail time--up to ten years, instead of only six 
months under current law--on those whose blatant violation of safety 
laws leads to a worker's death. We also increase civil penalties, to 
provide additional deterrence for employers.
  We require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to 
investigate more cases, and we give workers and their families more 
rights in the investigation process.
  We provide stronger protections for workers who report health or 
safety violations.
  I know it will be an uphill battle to get this legislation through 
this Republican Congress. But I'm committed to the fight. I'm committed 
to fighting for people like Jeff Walters, whose son Patrick was killed 
when a trench collapsed on him two years ago. His employer was known to 
be violating critical safety rules. We will fight for people like Ron 
Hayes, whose son Patrick suffocated in a grain elevator. Ron is now 
helping families throughout the United States deal with the grief of 
having a family member killed at work.
  We intend to do everything we can to keep other working families from 
that grief. These deaths and injuries aren't accidents they're crimes, 
and it's time we started treating them like crimes.
  I urge my colleagues to join in this fight for a safe workplace for 
all of America's workers. We can take a major step forward by the 
Protecting America's Workers Act.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Protecting America's Workers Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. 
I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this important legislation.
  Yesterday, this country recognized Worker Memorial Day. Created in 
1989 to remember workers who have been killed or injured in the 
workplace over the past year, Worker Memorial Day has been designated 
April 28 as a tribute to the anniversary of the enactment of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. In my view, there is no better 
tribute to the lives that have been lost than to think about how we can 
prevent future losses of this kind.
  The facts tell a grim story: an eight-month examination of workplace 
deaths by The New York Times found that, over a span of two decades, 
from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 horrific instances in which 
the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their 
employer's ``willful'' safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those 
cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution.
  Employees have a fundamental right to a safe work environment, and 
more needs to be done to ensure that businesses that deliberately put 
the lives of their workers at risk are held accountable for their 
actions. This legislation would go a long way to strengthen our 
workplace safety system in a variety of ways.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes provisions 
to shore up a fundamental weakness in American workplace safety law: 
the shockingly inadequate penalties associated with crimes under the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. This legislation includes the 
provisions of the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act, S. 1272, 
legislation that I introduced to increase the maximum criminal penalty 
for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the 
death of an employee.
  It is unbelievable to me that, under existing law, that crime is a 
misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. 
These provisions would increase the penalty for this most egregious 
workplace crime to 10 years, making it a felony. They also increase the 
penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 
year, and increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of 
an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years.
  In recent times, Congress has focused on a shocking succession of 
corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These 
revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the 
American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than 
squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. 
Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives.
  The provisions are based on the simple premise that going to work 
should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans 
are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related 
illnesses. Many of those deaths are completely preventable.
  While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that 
exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an 
ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes 
associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but, over 
time, the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has 
eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence of 6 months, 
Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and 
resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent 
analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, 
only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were 
incarcerated.
  The logic behind increasing criminal penalties in these cases is 
simple. It will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade 
employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, 
thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely 
ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient 
teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and 
willfully place their employees at risk.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this landmark 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. 
        Lautenberg):
  S. 2372. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 regarding identifying 
trade expansion priorities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise along with several of my 
colleagues, the esteemed Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, the ranking 
member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and my colleague from 
New Jersey, Senator Lautengerg, to introduce legislation that will 
strengthen trade enforcement efforts, open foreign markets to U.S. 
exports, reduce the trade deficit, create export-based jobs, and 
provide a lift to America's economy.
  This legislation would restore the so-called ``Super 301'' process, a 
tool that has been used by Republican and Democratic administrations to 
expand access for U.S. exporters to foreign markets. Super 301 requires 
the Office of the United States Trade Representative to negotiate with 
foreign countries that have established burdensome trade barriers in 
order to open those markets to U.S. exports. The legislation also 
requires the USTR to identify, and eliminate, the illegal protectionist 
trade barriers that most adversely effect American businesses and 
workers.
  With more than 8 million Americans out of a job, we need to take 
strong action not only to get people back to work, but to get them into 
well-paying jobs. Unfortunately, in recent years, even when unemployed 
Americans have found new jobs, too often they've been forced to take a 
pay cut. That's one reason why so many middle class families are 
feeling the squeeze, and are having such a hard time making ends meet.

[[Page S4701]]

  One of the areas hardest hit by job loss under this administration is 
the manufacturing industry. 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been 
lost. In many ways, we are witnessing the slow decimation of the U.S. 
manufacturing industry. And the Bush administration has done little 
about it.
  One way to deal with the decline in manufacturing--and the problems 
in our economy, more generally--is to do a better job of enforcing our 
trade agreements. U.S. businesses generally are the best, most 
competitive in the world. But, too often, they're not playing on a 
level playing field. Instead, they're being forced to contend with a 
wide variety of trade barriers that make it difficult or impossible for 
American businesses to compete. The end result is lost opportunities, 
lost jobs, and lost income for American workers.
  Let's be clear. Trade is a good thing for America. And as a global 
leader we must be engaged in the global economy. Trade doesn't just 
help grow our own economy. It helps build the world economy, which, in 
turn, promotes democracy and greater security for everybody. I'm not 
arguing for building walls around the United States. To the contrary, I 
want to tear down protectionist walls that keep U.S. businesses out, 
and that destroy jobs here in our own country.
  The Bush administration likes to advocate for free trade agreements. 
But it's not enough to sign a trade agreement and trust our trade 
partners to honor their end of the deal. Those deals need to be 
complied with. And if they're not, we need to be aggressive in ensuring 
compliance.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to enforcing trade agreements, the Bush 
administration, as Senator Kerry said recently, has been ``asleep at 
the wheel.'' And there's no excuse for it.
  After all, we face a trade deficit of nearly $500 billion, and a 
deteriorating fiscal situation that has led to increasing reliance on 
foreign creditors. Under the circumstances, you would have thought that 
the administration would be doing all it could to address these 
problems. But it's not.
  There's a stark difference between the commitment of this 
administration to enforce trade compared to that of the Clinton 
administration. Between 1995 and 2000, the Clinton administration filed 
an average of 11 cases a year with the World Trade Organization to 
battle foreign protectionism. By contrast, the Bush administration has 
filed only 3 per year.
  The White House also has repeatedly refused to respond when the 
bipartisan International Trade Commission has recommended remedies for 
U.S. businesses facing floods of imports from China--even when the ITC 
rulings have been unanimous. The President's determination to overrule 
the ITC has had a dramatic impact on many small businesses, including 
some in my State of New Jersey.
  The administration also continues to sit idly by while China, and 
other Asian countries, manipulate their currency, to the detriment of 
U.S. exporters.
  The administration's refusal to enforce our trade agreements, and the 
passive approach they have taken to problems like Asian currency 
manipulation, helps explain why we're now facing such massive trade 
deficits. In fact, the Bush administration is the first since the 
Hoover administration to preside over a decline in real exports.
  Again, what we need is a commitment to let U.S. businesses compete on 
a level playing field. That is why we need to reestablish the Super 301 
process.
  Super 301 may sound like a technical legal mechanism. But it would 
help open up new markets, boost our economy, strengthen our export-
based manufacturing sector, help reduce our trade deficit, and create 
new, well-paying domestic export-based jobs here in America.
  Under the legislation, the USTR would, within 30 days of the release 
of the National Trade Estimate, submit a Super 301 report to Congress, 
listing the foreign trade barriers that most adversely affect U.S. 
exports.
  Within 21 days of submitting the report, the USTR would be required 
to seek consultations with each trading partner identified in the 
report in order to resolve the issue. If consultations do not succeed 
in eliminating the trade barriers within 90 days, USTR would be 
required to take action that could lead to sanctions either by the U.S. 
or, ultimately, by the WTO.
  As I said earlier, Super 301 is not new. It was signed into law by 
President Reagan, and renewed throughout the '90s by President Clinton. 
It was a tool that worked. The threat alone of being on the Super 301 
list has, and will, force countries who have erected barriers to U.S. 
exports come to the table.
  Some will argue that this is protectionism. Some will argue that it's 
unilateralism. In fact, it's the opposite. It's intended to protect 
U.S. businesses and workers from protectionist foreign trade barriers--
to knock down walls, not erect them. It's intended to encourage our 
trade representatives to engage in a constructive dialogue with those 
who have erected barriers to U.S. products. It equips the 
administration with a needed tool to fight for the rights of American 
workers and businesses against those countries who are unwilling to 
remove those barriers.
  In a word, Super 301 would make trade more fair. And when trade is 
more fair--when U.S. companies are playing on a level playing field--
Americans win. American workers win. And when America's workers win, 
America's economy wins.
  It is my ardent hope that we can get this much needed bill passed, 
and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the Super 301 Restoration Act be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2372

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF TRADE EXPANSION PRIORITIES.

       Section 310 of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 310. IDENTIFICATION OF TRADE EXPANSION PRIORITIES.

       ``(a) Identification.--
       ``(1) Identification and report.--Within 30 days after the 
     submission in each of calendar year 2005 through 2009 of the 
     report required by section 181(b), the Trade Representative 
     shall--
       ``(A) review United States trade expansion priorities;
       ``(B) identify priority foreign country practices, the 
     elimination of which is likely to have the most significant 
     potential to increase United States exports, either directly 
     or through the establishment of a beneficial precedent; and
       ``(C) submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and publish in the Federal Register a report 
     on the priority foreign country practices identified.
       ``(2) Factors.--In identifying priority foreign country 
     practices under paragraph (1), the Trade Representative shall 
     take into account all relevant factors, including--
       ``(A) the major barriers and trade distorting practices 
     described in the National Trade Estimate Report required 
     under section 181(b);
       ``(B) the trade agreements to which a foreign country is a 
     party and its compliance with those agreements;
       ``(C) the medium- and long-term implications of foreign 
     government procurement plans; and
       ``(D) the international competitive position and export 
     potential of United States products and services.
       ``(3) Contents of report.--The Trade Representative may 
     include in the report, if appropriate--
       ``(A) a description of foreign country practices that may 
     in the future warrant identification as priority foreign 
     country practices; and
       ``(B) a statement about other foreign country practices 
     that were not identified because they are already being 
     addressed by provisions of United States trade law, by 
     existing bilateral trade agreements, or as part of trade 
     negotiations with other countries and progress is being made 
     toward the elimination of such practices.
       ``(b) Initiation of Consultations.--By no later than the 
     date that is 21 days after the date on which a report is 
     submitted to the appropriate congressional committees under 
     subsection (a)(1), the Trade Representative shall seek 
     consultations with each foreign country identified in the 
     report as engaging in priority foreign country practices for 
     the purpose of reaching a satisfactory resolution of such 
     priority practices.
       ``(c) Initiation of Investigation.--If a satisfactory 
     resolution of priority foreign country practices has not been 
     reached under subsection (b) within 90 days after the date on 
     which a report is submitted to the appropriate congressional 
     committees under subsection (a)(1), the Trade Representative 
     shall

[[Page S4702]]

     initiate under section 302(b)(1) an investigation under this 
     chapter with respect to such priority foreign country 
     practices.
       ``(d) Agreements for the Elimination of Barriers.--In the 
     consultations with a foreign country that the Trade 
     Representative is required to request under section 303(a) 
     with respect to an investigation initiated by reason of 
     subsection (c), the Trade Representative shall seek to 
     negotiate an agreement that provides for the elimination of 
     the practices that are the subject of the investigation as 
     quickly as possible or, if elimination of the practices is 
     not feasible, an agreement that provides for compensatory 
     trade benefits.
       ``(e) Reports.--The Trade Representative shall include in 
     the semiannual report required by section 309 a report on the 
     status of any investigations initiated pursuant to subsection 
     (c) and, where appropriate, the extent to which such 
     investigations have led to increased opportunities for the 
     export of products and services of the United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allen, 
        Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Santorum, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 2373. A bill to modify the prohibition on recognition by United 
States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, 
or commercial names; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, legislation that 
will protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the 
effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government.
  My colleagues and I believe in the fundamental principle that 
property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments 
to take property from individuals and companies, whether nationals or 
foreigners, without payment of prompt, adequate and effective 
compensation. We uphold the firmly established principle of our law and 
public policy that foreign confiscatory measures must never be given 
effect on property situated in the United States.
  When the Castro regime took power in Cuba, it engaged in a program of 
wholesale confiscation of property in Cuba, including property owned by 
Cuban nationals as well as by U.S. and other non-Cuban nationals. The 
Cuban government also purported to extend the effects of the 
confiscation to property, such as trademarks, that the confiscation 
victims owned in other countries, and took other actions in an attempt 
to seize control of such assets.
  To protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the 
effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government, Congress 
enacted Section 211 of H.R. 4328 (PL 105-277) in 1998. This law, 
referred to as Section 211, prohibits enforcement of U.S. rights to 
trademarks confiscated by the Cuban government, except with the consent 
of the legitimate owner. Section 211 simply made it clear that the 
universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of 
U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks 
confiscated by Cuba.
  Section 211 was challenged in the World Trade Organization (WTO) by 
the European Union (EU). In January 2002, the WTO Appellate Body 
finally resolved that challenge by finding in favor of the United 
States on all points except one. The Appellate Body made a narrow 
finding that, because Section 211 on its face does not apply to U.S. 
nationals, it is inconsistent with the national-treatment and most-
favored-nation principles under the TRIPs Agreement. The Appellate Body 
fully supported the principle embodied in Section 211, that is, the 
non-recognition of uncompensated confiscations and the protection of 
intellectual property ownership rights. The revision required to 
broaden the application of Section 211 to include U.S. nationals 
amounts to no more than a minor, technical fix.
  The legislation that we introduce today makes it clear this well-
founded law applies to all parties claiming rights in confiscated Cuban 
trademarks, regardless of nationality. Such a technical correction will 
satisfy the WTO ruling and prevent the EU from applying trade sanctions 
against the United States at the end of this year. Moreover, this 
legislation does three things: it maintains protection for original 
owners of confiscated Cuban trademarks; it applies to all people, 
regardless of nationality; it clarifies that trademarks and trade names 
confiscated by the Cuban Government will not be recognized in the 
United States when the assertion is being made by someone who knew or 
had reason to know that the mark was confiscated.
  This bill does not in any way decide which party owns a Cuban 
trademark in the U.S. nor does Section 211 prevent the Cuban government 
or its various entities from having access to our courts or from 
registering legitimate trademarks in the U.S. As long as the trademark 
was not confiscated, the Cuban government can legally register any 
trademark it desires. Moreover, even if the Cuban government stole a 
trademark in the 1960s, it can still register the trademark in the U.S 
as long as the original owner has consented.
  Once revised, Section 211 is consistent with all of our international 
treaty obligations including the Inter-American Convention on 
Trademarks. The Inter-American Convention expressly in Article 3 allows 
non-recognition of a trademark when such recognition would be contrary 
to the public order or public policy of the state in which recognition 
is sought. There is no doubt whatsoever that allowing title to U.S. 
property to be determined by a foreign confiscation violates U.S. 
public policy. Section 211 simply makes it clear that the universal 
U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. 
property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks 
confiscated by Cuba. Nothing in any treaty or in international law is 
inconsistent with that rule of U.S. law.
  I believe this piece of legislation is a simple technical corrections 
bill which will ensure that a fairly simple, but important, U.S. law is 
WTO-compliant.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Burns, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Allen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Alexander, 
        Mr. Allard, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Frist, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lugar, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Smith, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S.J. Res. 36. A joint resolution approving the renewal of import 
restrictions contained in Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Feinstein, 
McCain, Leahy, Brownback, Daschle, Dole, Mikulski, Burns, Clinton, 
Allen, Edwards, Nickles, Corzine, Biden, Feingold and Santorum, am 
introducing today a joint resolution renewing import sanctions against 
Burma. My colleagues may recall that these sanctions--along with 
several other restrictions against the State Peace and Development 
Council (SPDC) in Rangoon--were included in the Burmese Freedom and 
Democracy Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on July 28, 
2003.
  The act received broad support in the Senate. Sixty-one members 
cosponsored the bill which passed in record time by a vote of 97-1. Our 
quick action last year sent an unequivocal message to the SPDC that its 
ambush and attack on the National League for Democracy (NLD) and 
freedom in Burma would not go unpunished.
  Today, we need to send the same strong message. America must continue 
to lead the world's democracies in supporting the struggle for freedom 
in Burma.
  My colleagues will be dismayed to learn that since last year's 
horrific SPDC-orchestrated massacre there has been no progress toward 
reconciliation and democracy in Burma. Thirteen-hundred prisoners of 
conscience continue to suffer in squalid Burmese prisons for advocating 
freedoms that most of us take for granted--including thought, speech 
and association.
  Burmese democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders 
continue to be under house arrest and surveillance by the SPDC, and the 
majority of NLD party offices remain

[[Page S4703]]

forcibly closed; United Nations and Thai efforts at engagement with the 
junta--through repeated visits to Rangoon and the so-called ``Bangkok 
Process''--have predictably failed; according to the White House, Burma 
``failed demonstrably'' in counternarcotics efforts, allowing drug 
gangs to freely operate inside Burma and amphetamine-type stimulants to 
proliferate throughout the region, posing a ``major threat to national 
security and public health''; and, finally, the repressive and 
abhorrent SPDC policies of murder, rape, forced labor, forced 
relocation and child soldiers continue unabated.

  Just yesterday, we learned from credible sources that 11 NLD 
supporters arrested in the wake of last year's premeditated attack were 
sentenced by the regime from 7 to 22 years in prison. This is in 
addition to the death sentences given to a Burmese sports writer who 
complained about soccer related corruption and to three Burmese men for 
having contact with the United Nations International Labor 
Organization.
  Should my colleagues need a second opinion, let me quote Secretary of 
State Colin Powell in a March 10 Congressional hearing: ``I see no 
improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu Kyi remains unable to 
participate in public, political life in Burma and we will not ignore 
that.'' When I asked Secretary Powell in an April 8 Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee hearing whether he supported the continuation of sanctions 
against Burma, his answer was straightforward and clear: ``Yes.''
  The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act denies Burma 13 percent of its 
export market (according to CIA figures), visas for SPDC officials and 
their families, and, above all, legitimacy. In addition, $13 million 
worth of financial transactions to Burma have been blocked by the 
Treasury Department. While palpable impacts, these sanctions alone will 
not push the SPDC in the direction of meaningful reconciliation with 
the NLD and ethnic minorities.
  South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu--no stranger to the struggle 
for freedom and justice--said earlier this year: ``To dismantle 
apartheid [in South Africa] took not only commitment, faith and hard 
work, but also intense international pressure and sanctions. In Burma, 
the regime has ravaged the country, and the people, to fund its illegal 
rule. Governments and international institutions must move past 
symbolic gestures and cut the lifelines to Burma's military regime 
through well-implemented sanctions.''
  Amerca already cut that lifeline; it is time for other democracies to 
do the same. For freedom's sake, our allies and the European Union must 
impose targeted sanction regimes on Burma. If they are unwilling to 
take such action in support of the courageous and determined people of 
Burma, they should act for the sake of the security and stability of 
the region. Burma's exports to its immediate neighbors include illicit 
narcotics, HIV/AIDS, refugees and trafficked women and children. 
Further, Rangoon's connections with Russia and North Korea, in 
particular, deserve closer scrutiny by foreign capitals and the United 
Nations.
  If my colleagues haven't done so already, they should read Monday's 
Washington Post op-ed entitled ``A Need to Act on Burma'' by our 
colleague from Arizona and former-Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright. I agree with their assertion that we should not be duped by 
SPDC window dressing in the weeks leading up to the May 17 
constitutional convention charade. Even if Suu Kyi is released before 
that date it is not sufficient, as there are no guarantees for her 
security, no assurances that she will be able to freely express her 
views to the nation or to meet with ethnic leaders, and no sure bet 
that the junta will grant visas to journalists to travel to Burma.
  The op-ed also raises the question of repercussions for the continued 
perpetuation of the status quo in Burma by China, Thailand, India, and 
other Asian nations. I look forward to exploring with my colleagues the 
most appropriate and effective ways that we can encourage those 
countries to support the legitimately elected leaders of Burma. If no 
change is in the offing, Burma's chairmanship of the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations in 2006 will be a tremendous loss of face to 
that organization and each individual member state.
  Let me close by saying that sanctions must remain in place until 
Burma embarks on an irreversible path toward reconciliation and 
democracy. I intend to work closely with my colleagues--particularly 
the chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee--to ensure that 
the Senate acts just as decisively and expeditiously as we did last 
year. To do anything less would be to betray Suu Kyi and all those 
struggling for freedom and justice in Burma.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following items be printed in the 
Record: A copy of the referenced Washington Post op-ed; a copy of a 
Boston Globe editorial entitled ``No Compromise on Burma'' dated March 
29, 2004; a copy of a Washington Post op-ed by the Chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee entitled ``Seeds of Trouble from 
Burma'' dated September 28, 2003; a copy of a tribute to Suu Kyi 
authored by rock star Bono in Time Magazine's recent special edition on 
the world's 100 most influential people; and a letter supporting the 
renewal of import sanctions by the President and CEO of the American 
Apparel and Footwear Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2003]

                      Seeds of Trouble From Burma

                         (By Richard G. Lugar)

       The military junta that rules Burma has long been known as 
     a group committed to retaining power at cost. The price has 
     been paid mainly by Burma's citizens, but the consequences 
     may now spread well beyond Burma's borders.
       The generals have killed thousands of democracy supporters 
     since the student protests in 1988 and waged war on ethnic 
     insurgents. To tighten their grip on the population, over the 
     past 15 years they have doubled the size of the military, 
     which now consumes 40 percent of the budget, at the expense 
     of spending on health and education.
       Consequently, hundreds of thousands of their citizens have 
     died as a result of the broken-down health care system. The 
     generals who run the country are notorious for their 
     widespread use of forced labor, which the International Labor 
     Organization calls ``a contemporary form of slavery.''
       The junta has maintained these abhorrent policies despite 
     sanctions, aid cutoffs and repeated denunciations by many 
     Western countries, including the United States.
       Yet it makes the headlines only when it commits an 
     especially acute outrage, such as that of last May 30, when 
     pro-government militia crashed a political rally near 
     Mandalay and murdered several bodyguards and supporters of 
     Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the fearless democracy 
     crusader who had been freed only last year from a lengthy 
     house arrest.
       The junta rearrested Suu Kyi, shut down offices of her 
     political party and detained her at a secret location. She 
     returned home Friday for a new stint of indefinite house 
     arrest.
       I am pleased that the Senate reacted quickly in June to put 
     pressure on the junta by voting for a ban on all Burmese 
     imports. Until now this record of bloody repression and 
     economic ruin has primarily victimized the long-suffering 
     Burmese people, and world attention has often drifted away 
     from what some consider an internal problem. But it is time 
     to take a closer look. Burma's generals are quietly moving in 
     new directions that could make that dismal country a source 
     of instability throughout South and Southeast Asia.
       Strategically situated between regional rivals India and 
     China, Burma is seeking to leverage the two powers' battle 
     for influence.
       China is the regime's major arms supplier and has assumed 
     significant economic power over the country, recently 
     extending debt relief and a $200 million loan to Burma, which 
     has been cut off from most other external funding. China, 
     reports indicate, has built a port and shipyard south of 
     Rangoon to help export products from China's landlocked 
     western provinces.
       India, concerned about China's rising dominance, has 
     stepped up its relations with Burma. Indian Prime Minister 
     Atal Bihari Vajpayee met with the Burmese foreign minister 
     earlier this year, the highest-level contact between the two 
     countries in more than a decade, and India is also reportedly 
     building a port on Burma's coast.
       Improving ties with regional powers is not necessarily a 
     bad thing, especially if they would push Burma toward more 
     civilized behavior.
       But neither Beijing nor New Delhi has shown any such 
     inclination. Instead the two huge neighbors are using Burma 
     as a pawn in their rivalry, making it a potential source of 
     friction, not a buffer. Japan is increasingly concerned about 
     China's penetration of Burma, and it was to counter China's 
     influence that the regional grouping of smaller

[[Page S4704]]

     countries, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 
     (ASEAN), decided to admit Burma as a member several years 
     ago. These countries see now that the junta was cynically 
     using them to try to gain legitimacy.
       More troubling is the news that Burma, one of the poorest 
     countries on earth, has contracted with Russia for a nuclear 
     reactor. Both sides insist it is for medical research 
     purposes, but even if that's true, it would add an 
     unnecessary proliferation risk to a world where terrorists 
     are on the prowl for nuclear material. Some 300 Burmese have 
     been in Russia receiving training to operate the facility, 
     and Burma has also bought 10 MiG-29 fighter jets from Russia.
       Most disturbing of all Burma is renewing ties with North 
     Korea that were cut off after North Korean agents in 1983 set 
     off a bomb in Rangoon that killed 21 people, including four 
     visiting South Korean cabinet members. Besides possibly 
     reestablishing formal diplomatic relations, the two have held 
     high-level discussions on military cooperation.
       The link-up of these two parish states can only spell 
     trouble. North Korea's main export is dangerous weapons 
     technology, and there have been reports that Burma is getting 
     missiles and other arms from Pyongyang.
       These developments have been largely overlooked as we 
     concentrated on the war in Iraq, challenges in the Middle 
     East and unpredictable developments on the Korean peninsula. 
     But they are the seeds of a major threat to Asian security 
     and stability. The world should take notice, and the United 
     States needs to make Burma a priority in its relations with 
     Russia, China, India and ASEAN so that we can forge a 
     multilateral plan to turn the generals from their dangerous 
     course.
                                  ____


                 [From the Boston Globe, Mar. 29, 2004]

                         No Compromise on Burma

       The brutal criminality of the military junta ruling Burma 
     has unified disparate elements along the American political 
     spectrum. In hearings on Burma held by subcommittees of the 
     House International Relations Committee last week, a rare 
     solidarity among both Democrats and Republicans was on 
     display.
       The current regime in Rangoon is complicit in narcotics 
     trafficking, ethnic cleansing, forced labor, gruesome abuse 
     of ethnic minorities, and the violent suppression of free 
     speech and political opposition.
       In response to a deliberate massacre of fellow democrats 
     traveling last May with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San 
     Suu Kyi, the Bush administration last July signed into law 
     tough sanctions that ban imports from Burma. The House 
     hearings were in preparation for renewal of those sanctions.
       Without mincing his words, Lorne Craner, the State 
     Department's assistant secretary for human rights, told the 
     lawmakers that notwithstanding hints about democratization 
     dropped by the junta's chairman, Than Shwe, and his 
     accomplices, the outlaw regime in Rangoon has not taken steps 
     that would justify the lifting of sanctions. ``For all the 
     hype about a `road map for democracy,' nothing has changed 
     for the better for democracy or human rights in Burma,'' 
     Craner said.
       The junta has intimated it might release Suu Kyi from house 
     arrest in April. This would be a gesture the people of Burma 
     would welcome, as would everyone around the world who 
     cherishes human rights and democracy. Suu Kyi narrowly 
     escaped being killed in the assault that the regime staged 
     last May. Over the years she has accepted painful personal 
     sacrifices for the sake of democracy in Burma--without ever 
     deviating from her devotion to the principles of nonviolence.
       As much as her compatriots long for the release of Suu Kyi, 
     however, that will not by itself be enough to justify the 
     lifting of U.S. sanctions on the junta. Her party, the 
     National League for Democracy, won 80 percent of the seats in 
     Parliament in a 1990 election--a popular verdict the military 
     regime still refuses to accept. Until Than Shwe and the other 
     uniformed thugs on the junta complete what assistant 
     secretary Craner called ``an irreversible transition to 
     democracy,'' sanctions should remain in place.
       Suu Kyi's fellow Nobel peace prize winner Desmond Tutu has 
     written: ``As in South Africa, the people and legitimate 
     leaders of Burma have called for sanctions . . . To dismantle 
     apartheid took not only commitment, faith and hard work, but 
     also intense international pressure and sanctions.''
       Tutu's wisdom should be heeded not only by Washington but 
     also by the European Union, which is currently considering 
     targeted sanctions on timber and gems, direct sources of 
     junta revenue.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, April 27, 2004]

                         A Need To Act on Burma

                (By John McCain and Madeleine Albright)

       ``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is 
     immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one 
     supports injustice and bondage.'' So said Archbishop Desmond 
     Tutu, the South African Nobel laureate and anti-apartheid 
     leader, who knows something about the struggle for human 
     freedom in the face of tyranny.
       The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to 
     promote justice and freedom. In few places is this obligation 
     more acute than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, 
     led by Gen. Than Shwe, controls the population through 
     violence and terror. The regime has a record of unchecked 
     repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child 
     soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of 
     war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched 
     an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung 
     San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the 
     regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists 
     imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It 
     recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for 
     contacting representatives of the International Labor 
     Organization.
       The Burmese junta, with the cynical support of neighboring 
     governments, has announced a ``road map to democracy,'' 
     beginning with a constitutional convention in May. The 
     convention is expected to be stage-managed by the junta, 
     which has offered no meaningful participation to Suu Kyi's 
     National League for Democracy, no timetable for progress 
     toward a political transition, no release of political 
     prisoners and no guarantee that the military will cede 
     control to democratically elected leaders. Instead, the 
     junta's proposals seem designed to institutionalize military 
     control by creating a veneer of civilian authority, while 
     meeting only the minimum expectations of Western democracies 
     in order to avoid further sanctions.
       The Burmese regime's recent actions demonstrate that years 
     of international engagement and patience have not made the 
     dictatorship more humane, reasonable or open to accommodation 
     with its political opponents. On the contrary, it is only in 
     response to international pressure that the regime has made 
     even the smallest moves toward a political settlement with 
     the democratic opposition. The lesson is clear: The world's 
     democracies and Burma's neighbors must press the junta until 
     it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to 
     democratic rule.
       The legitimacy, authority and commitment of Burma's 
     democratic leaders to govern their country is not in doubt. 
     But the international commitment to Burma's democratic 
     transformation remains uncertain. The Western democracies and 
     Burma's neighbors should immediately take three steps to 
     bolster Burma's legitimate democratic leaders.
       First, Congress should promptly renew, and the president 
     should sign into law, the ban on Burma's imports enacted into 
     law last July. These sanctions, which are set to expire 
     after a review period beginning Friday, are supported by 
     Burma's National League for Democracy. The restrictions 
     have made it more difficult for the Burmese military to 
     tap financial assets abroad, travel or accumulate revenue 
     through trade. The European Union, whose member 
     democracies care deeply about protecting human rights, and 
     whose trade and assistance programs give it critical 
     leverage in Southeast Asia, is set to announce a new 
     Common Position on Burma on Thursday. As part of this new 
     policy, the EU should also initiate targeted sanctions 
     against the regime.
       Second, the EU and the United States, with support from 
     Asian nations, should urge the junta to implement immediately 
     the provisions of the U.N. Commission for Human Rights and 
     the U.N. General Assembly resolutions--including democracy, 
     the rule of law and respect for human rights. The United 
     States and the EU should also formally place the issue on the 
     agenda of the U.N. Security Council, and work urgently toward 
     a resolution threatening credible sanctions against the 
     Burmese regime unless it initiates meaningful progress toward 
     democracy.
       Third, China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations 
     uncomfortable with a tougher response to the junta's crimes 
     must understand that diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction 
     on Burma will profoundly affect their broader bilateral 
     relationships with the Western democracies. Thailand in 
     particular should consider this point when it convenes its 
     planned international conference to discuss what it 
     optimistically calls ``Burma's progress toward democracy.''
       Beyond these steps, the United States, Europe and Asian 
     countries must demand the unconditional release of Aung San 
     Suu Kyi and her fellow political prisoners, but make clear 
     that the releases, while necessary, are insufficient. In 
     addition, they should continue calls for a political 
     settlement that reflects the results of the free and fair 
     elections held in 1990. This settlement must include a 
     central, determinative role for the National League for 
     Democracy.
       In another era, a dissident playwright named Vaclav Havel 
     wrote of the ``power of the powerless'' to overcome rule by 
     fear and force, at a time when such a revolution in human 
     freedom seemed impossible. The international community today 
     has the power to help the powerless inside Burma throw off 
     the shackles of tyranny. It is time to assume this moral 
     responsibility. It is time to act.
                                  ____


                  Aung San Suu Kyi--Unbearable Choices

                               (By Bono)

       It's hard not to become a monster when you are trying to 
     defeat one. Aung San Suu Kyi is the moral leader of Myanmar, 
     the country more correctly known as Burma. She has been, in 
     effect, under house arrest since 1989.
       Why? First, because of the military juntas who came to 
     power in a bloody coup in 1962, and have been running the 
     country with a truncheon ever since. Second, because of us.

[[Page S4705]]

     There has been no real roar against these human rights 
     abusers, just the odd bark. Yet even single-party democracies 
     check their mail. They're not just muscle; they're vain. Even 
     juntas measure just how many boos and hisses they can get 
     away with. Suu Kyi's peaceful bloody-mindedness is driven by 
     courage, but her captors' bloody bloody-mindedness is driven 
     by fear--fear of losing the business they are running for 
     themselves.
       Suu Kyi is a real hero in an age of phony phone-in 
     celebrity, which hands out that title freely to the most 
     spoiled and underqualified. Her quiet voice of reason makes 
     the world look noisy, mad; it is a low mantra of grace in an 
     age of terror, a reminder of everything we take for granted 
     and just what it can take to get it. Thinking of her, you 
     can't help but use anachronistic language of duty and 
     personal sacrifice.
       U2 wrote the song Walk On to honor this amazing woman who 
     put family second to country, who for her convictions made an 
     unbearable choice--not to see her sons grow and not to be 
     with her husband as he lost his life to a long and painful 
     cancer. Suu Kyi, with an idea too big for any jail and a 
     spirit too strong for any army, changes our view--as only 
     real heroes can--of what we believe to be possible. The jury 
     is still out on whether we deserve the faith she has put in 
     us.
       Walk On won record of the year at the Grammys, a very proud 
     moment. But in front of an audience of millions, I did what 
     I've begged others not to do. I forgot to say thank you to 
     the woman in front of the song. Thank you.
                                  ____

                                                American Apparel &


                                         Footwear Association,

                                                    April 5, 2004.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: Last year, you were instrumental in 
     an effort that led to the successful enactment of the Burmese 
     Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to send a clear and 
     unmistakable message that the United States is not interested 
     in doing business with regimes such as the one that brutally 
     enslaves the people of Burma. The American Apparel & Footwear 
     Association in proud to have supported this historic measure.
       This landmark legislation included a total ban on imports 
     from Burma. As you may recall, the import ban will expire 
     unless Congress passes, and the President signs into law, a 
     one-year renewal by the end of July.
       Since this law took effect, the ruling military junta in 
     Burma has shown no willingness to address the many problems 
     that made these sanctions necessary. Indeed, as the most 
     recent State Department Human Rights report (in what appears 
     to be an echo of more than a decade of similar reports) 
     states, ``The Government's extremely poor human rights record 
     worsened [in 2003], and it continued to commit numerous 
     serious abuses.'' Moreover, last week, State Department 
     officials told the House International Relations Committee, 
     ``Sanctions are a key component of our policy in bringing 
     democracy to Burma and have been a key source of support for 
     the morale of many democracy activists.''
       Now is the time to reinforce our sanctions tools against 
     this regime, and, more importantly, to actively seek similar 
     steps from other countries. Accordingly, we urge you to 
     introduce as soon as possible the legislation necessary to 
     renew this import ban, as articulated in Section (9)(b)(2) of 
     the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
       We look forward to working with you to see this renewal 
     swiftly considered and enacted.
       Please accept my best regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kevin M. Burke,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to provide my 
colleagues with insights into how serious and dedicated those who 
support the struggle for freedom in Burma remain.
  Since the enactment of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act in July 
2003, numerous colleagues and I have written to the administration and 
the United Nations in support of democracy in Burma. The following is a 
list of those letters that I have initiated or signed--but it is by no 
means an exhaustive list as it does not include any letters individual 
members may have sent themselves:
  August 1, 2003: a letter to President Bush signed by myself and 
Senators Feinstein, Brownback, and Leahy expressing concern with 
Thailand's lack of support for the struggle of freedom in Burma.
  September 12, 2003: a letter to Secretary Powell signed by myself 
encouraging him to bring up the plight of Suu Kyi and other Burmese 
democracy activists with the United Nations and all Security Council 
members, particularly China.
  September 30, 2003: a letter to President Bush signed by myself and 
Senators Feinstein, McCain, Hollings, Santorum, Graham, Allen, Dodd, 
Sessions, Mikulski, Campbell, Clinton, Smith, Murray, Collins, 
Feingold, Edwards, Bennett, Landrieu, Burns, Cantwell, Corzine, Wyden, 
Brownback, Lautenberg, Kohl, Murkowski, Bunning, Lieberman, Sarbanes, 
Harkins, Dayton, Voinovich, Leahy, and Durbin urging his support for 
Thailand to play a more constructive role within ASEAN to promote 
genuine national reconciliation in Burma.
  November 24, 2004: a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan 
signed by myself and Senators Feinstein, McCain, and Brownback calling 
on the U.N. to assume a leadership role to enforce the will of the 
international community in recognizing the results of the 1990 
elections.
  March 1, 2004: a letter to President Bush signed by myself and 
Senators Feinstein, McCain and Representatives Lantos, King and Pitts 
urging continued sanctions against Burma and increased engagement with 
the EU.
  March 29, 2004: a letter to Secretary Powell signed by myself urging 
him to use the Berlin donor conference on Afghanistan to work the Burma 
issue with the EU and Japan.
  I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support and leadership 
of Senators Feinstein and McCain. Both have stood steadfastly with the 
people of Burma. They are champions of freedom in that country, and I 
am pleased and proud to once again work with them on this issue.
  The partnership between Congress and senior members of the 
Administration on Burma has been productive and commendable. I look 
forward to working with President Bush, Secretary Powell and others on 
this important issue throughout this calendar year.
  This joint resolution will renew sanctions against Burma for an 
additional year.
  Roughly a year ago, Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein, and I came to 
the Senate floor to talk about the arrest and reincarceration of Aung 
San Suu Kyi, the hero of the Burma democracy.
  To refresh everyone's memory, she and her party won an overwhelming 
landslide election back in 1990 when the military thugs who run the 
country--mistakenly, from there point of view--allowed an election. The 
NLD and Suu Kyi won virtually 80 percent of the vote and were never 
allowed to take over. She was then essentially put under house arrest 
and has been mostly under house arrest all these years. Here we are 
some 14 years later.
  During that time, her husband passed away while living in England. 
She didn't get to visit him because she knew if she went to England, 
she would never be allowed back into the country. She is the symbol of 
Burmese freedom and democracy and has been under house arrest all these 
years.
  A little over roughly this month last year, she was allowed to go out 
and go around the country. Her motorcade was attacked and a number of 
people were killed. She was injured and was sent into confinement once 
again--raising the issue again in the public mind, which, 
unfortunately, has not been in the forefront as often as it should have 
been over the years. Burma for many people has been sort of out of 
sight and out of mind. It has not enjoyed the kind of international 
attention that repression deserves.
  What Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein, and I have been trying to do 
is lead the United States to have a more proactive interest in this. 
That is what the Burma sanctions bill is about. It passed last June and 
was signed by the President Last July. Secretary Powell was before the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee a few weeks ago, and he indicated that 
the administration supports renewal of these sanctions for an 
additional year. That is what the joint resolution I just introduced on 
behalf of Senator Feinstein, Senator McCain, and others will do.
  Sanctions have had some impact. We all know sanctions have mixed 
results in bringing down regimes. Frequently, they do not work, but 
there is one really classic example of a place where international 
sanctions made a difference, and that was changing the regime in South 
Africa. In that particular instance, the United States led and the rest 
of the world followed, and the sanctions became so widespread and the 
pressure so intense that it actually brought about a change in the 
regime in South Africa, and the majority there was allowed to take 
power.
  We have had a difficult time getting the kind of international 
cooperation

[[Page S4706]]

on sanctions on Burma we would like to see, but we have started down 
that path.
  This bill, which was signed last year, this Burma sanctions bill, 
spurred other nations to toughen their stance against Burma, denied the 
military regime 13 percent of its export market, and blocked $13 
million in financial transactions to Burma. That is not a huge amount 
of money but it is a start. If the other countries in that area of the 
world, the ASEAN countries, and the Europeans, would give the attention 
to this that it deserves, we could have meaningful international 
sanctions that really bite.
  The European Union and the U.N. will, frankly, have to be much more 
supportive of freedom in Burma. Both need to be much more proactive 
than they have been if this is going to work.
  Bishop Tutu, with whom we are all familiar, the South African bishop, 
believes if we had the kind of international pressure and cooperation 
on Burma sanctions that we had on South African sanctions, it could, 
indeed, bring about a change in the regime in Burma.
  My friend Senator McCain and I have had an opportunity to discuss 
this issue off and on over the years. He had a unique opportunity, 
which I have never experienced. I have gotten notes from Aung San Suu 
Kyi but never actually had a chance to meet her. I know Senator McCain 
had that opportunity. He and I both have been inspired by the example 
she has set. I believe, am I not correct, Senator McCain, you dealt 
with her in your most recent book as an example of the kind of courage 
that should be widely applauded?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Kentucky and I be allowed to engage in a 
dialog.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Senator McConnell, I thank you and Senator Feinstein for 
your leadership on this issue. What you have done last year is 
important. It is very important again this year.
  Senator McConnell, you put your finger on one of the real tough 
aspects of this. People all over Burma, including the members of the 
National League for Democracy, the party that was overwhelmingly 
elected to take power and run the country of Burma, are grateful to us. 
It is very tough for opposition within a country to support sanctions 
which hurt that country economically. Yet this organization, which she 
leads, supports sanctions because of the terrible things this group of 
gangsters have done to their country.
  Senator McConnell, you point out very importantly, apartheid was 
overthrown in South Africa because of a united front which the United 
States led, an issue in which you were heavily involved. Now the 
Europeans seem to be dragging their feet.
  We have quite often heard--sometimes justified, sometimes 
unjustified--criticism from our European friends about our lack of 
attention to human rights, too much attention to politics, et cetera. 
This is an opportunity for our European friends to join us and bring 
about the freedom of the Burmese people--I refuse to call it Myanmar--
the Burmese people, free this great Nobel Peace Prize winner and spread 
democracy and freedom through the world.

  I thank again Senator McConnell for his leadership. This legislation 
would not have been passed without the leadership of you and Senator 
Feinstein. I am very grateful.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you very much, I say to my friend from Arizona.
  He was mentioning the fact that we, this country, is frequently 
criticized because it does not take a multilateral approach to 
difficult issues. What we have been advocating as aggressively as we 
can is a widespread multilateral, multinational approach to dealing 
with this Myanmar regime, which no one defends but seems to be allowed 
to continue to operate because they are out of sight and out of mind. 
Here we are advocating a multilateral approach. As the Senator from 
Arizona points out, where are the Europeans?
  Mr. McCAIN. I think we need to make this a very high priority both in 
the United Nations and with the European Union and with others. I know 
Senator McConnell is very familiar with this brave woman and her 
followers. A lot of Americans, unfortunately, are not.
  Three Burmese citizens were recently sentenced to death for 
contacting representatives of the International Labor Organization. 
They were sentenced to death for contacting members of the 
International Labor Organization. This woman has been kept under house 
arrest. Her followers have been beaten and killed. The cruelties, the 
unspeakable cruelties that have been inflicted on the Burmese people by 
these thugs are incredible.
  Senator McConnell, recently we were talking about Iraq and freeing 
the people of Iraq. We celebrated the 10-year anniversary of Rwanda and 
we said never again. Eight hundred thousand people were killed in 
Rwanda and we said never again. After the Holocaust, we said never 
again. Are we going to look back on Burma and say never again after 
thousands of people have been tortured and murdered and imprisoned and 
mistreated?
  Security forces, according to national organizations, continue to 
commit extrajudicial killings, rape, forcibly relocate persons, and the 
use of forced labor. It is going on. Are we some years from now going 
to say never again? Are we internationally going to exert the pressures 
of which we are capable--by the way, including our friends in ASEAN who 
took Burma into ASEAN with the announced intention of reforming this 
gang of thugs?
  Mr. McCONNELL. And the ASEAN meeting is scheduled to be in Burma in a 
few years.
  Mr. McCAIN. Remarkable in itself. What kind of an organization can 
call itself an advocate of freedom and democracy and have a meeting in 
the center of a repressive outrageous gang of thugs?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It was a stunning decision to schedule the meeting 
there. And now, if they stick with the schedule, I wonder how ASEAN can 
explain their tolerance of this regime? Give this regime nuclear 
weapons and it would look very much like North Korea, would it not, I 
ask my friend?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is an excellent point. One of the reasons, perhaps, 
we do not pay as much attention to them is because they do not have 
weapons of mass destruction. The only difference between them and 
Pyongyang is that they do not and the North Koreans do. That is a heck 
of a comment on the attention of us.

  I don't want to take too much time, but I will relate a story with 
which Senator McConnell is familiar. Aung San Suu Kyi was married while 
in England to a wonderful man and has two sons. A few years ago, a very 
short time ago, her husband was dying in England. This gang of thugs 
said that she could, of course, go with her husband--he was not allowed 
to come to Burma--to be with her husband while he was dying but she 
could not come back. So these unspeakable characters would not allow 
her to go be with her husband as he died.
  This is a remarkable statement of her courage and dedication and also 
remarkable commentary on the kind of people with whom we are dealing. 
The next time the delegate from the U.N., the special delegate--they 
call it Myanmar--come to see us, our European friends come to see us 
and talk about powers of persuasion, remind them of that story. I think 
it would be very difficult to argue that these people are rational or 
willing to listen to reason.
  Again, I thank Senator McConnell for all of his hard work.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I could say to my friend from Arizona, staff 
reminds me, Burma takes the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2006. They 
actually take the chairmanship. That is a completely absurd and 
unacceptable result.
  Mr. McCAIN. Americans are great people. We are providing a service 
today with your and Senator Feinstein's legislation to bring attention 
to the plight of the people halfway around the world and their noble 
and courageous leader who has been a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
  Every once in a while we do something very worthwhile around here and 
I thank the Senator for his leadership.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and 
the Senator from Arizona for their words. I had hoped to join them on 
the floor earlier, but I was in the Judiciary

[[Page S4707]]

Committee. So I am very pleased to be able to be here now to say a few 
words in support of this effort.
  I first became involved in the Burmese, or Myanmar, dilemma back in 
1995-1996 with then-Senator William Cohen, and we offered some 
legislation at that time. So we have had the opportunity to follow this 
situation. I then worked with Senator McConnell a year ago on this 
legislation. And now I am very pleased to support the renewal of the 
sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
2003.
  Last year, in response to a brutal and vicious coordinated assault by 
progovernment paramilitary thugs on members of the National League for 
Democracy (NLD), and the arrest and detention of NLD's leader, the 
Nobel Peace Price winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, the U.S. Congress 
overwhelmingly passed this act. The purpose was to impose a complete 
import ban on products from Burma.
  Working together, the Congress and the administration demonstrated 
our determination to put pressure on the ruling State Peace and 
Development Council--that is the military junta formerly known as the 
SLORC--to release Suu Kyi, and also to respect the 1990 elections 
decisively won by the National League for Democracy party in Burma and 
put Burma on an irreversible path of national reconciliation and 
democracy. One year later, it is clear that the SPDC has failed to make 
substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic 
government to have those sanctions lifted.
  The junta has failed. The world has condemned the arrest of Aung San 
Suu Kyi. They have called for her unconditional release. She still 
remains under house arrest. NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo also remains in 
custody.
  Last August, the junta proposed a seven-point ``roadmap'' to 
democracy. That included a national convention to take place the 
following month to draft a new constitution. Yet there is no timetable 
for restoration of democracy, no assurance that the junta will give up 
power, and no meaningful participation for Suu Kyi and her party.
  Numerous human rights abuses, including torture, forced labor, rape, 
and sex trafficking continue unabated.
  The most recent State Department report indicates that:

       The Government's extremely poor human rights record 
     worsened [in 2003] and it continued to commit numerous 
     abuses.

  Recently, the junta sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for one 
thing: for meeting with representatives of the ILO, the International 
Labor Organization. That is how repressive this regime is. If you meet 
with an organization not favored by the government, you could be 
sentenced to death.
  Mr. President, 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail, many of 
them elected parliamentarians. According to the State Department, three 
political prisoners died in custody last year.
  The government engages in the production and distribution of opium 
and methamphetamine.
  The Thai-sponsored ``Bangkok Process''--designed to mediate a 
solution to the political situation in Burma--collapsed after one 
meeting with the SPDC's refusal to attend further sessions with ``like-
minded'' countries. The regime said it was ``too busy'' to attend this 
week's session.
  For years, we have been working with ASEAN nations to put pressure on 
the military junta to make changes. But these nations were reluctant to 
do so. The Thailand-sponsored Bangkok Process aimed to do the same 
thing. However, what is clear is that the military junta has ignored 
those efforts.
  So over the past several months, the regime has gone to great lengths 
to rehabilitate its standing with neighbors and the international 
community. Some thought this was evidence that the junta was committed 
to national reconciliation, that engagement works, and that the 
sanctions and other pressures on Rangoon should be eased to facilitate 
the implementation of this new roadmap.

  But I think they are mistaken because I think we have learned 
something now about this regime's intentions. So what we need is 
substantive and meaningful action, not more promises and empty 
statements and failure to deliver on commitments.
  For over 15 years, this junta has engaged in a systematic campaign to 
wipe out the democratic movement in Burma and the NLD's 1990 election 
victory.
  For over 15 years, we have listened to assurances that the junta was 
committed to national reconciliation and a dialog with all parties on 
restoring democracy, and still nothing has happened.
  I was actually cautiously optimistic when Suu Kyi was first released 
from house arrest 2 years ago. Yet sure enough, 1 year later, she was 
back in custody. The regime showed its true colors in orchestrating and 
carrying out a brutal attack. After her release, Aung San Suu Kyi had 
gone on the road. She was greeted with enormous popularity. The junta's 
forces attacked her caravan. Many of her people were killed; many were 
arrested; and she was shoved back into house arrest for doing nothing 
more than what she was elected originally to do.
  So whatever the regime might say about ``roadmaps'' and ``national 
conventions,'' their actions have clearly demonstrated they are 
uninterested in restoring democracy to the Burmese people and, more 
importantly, they are going to take any steps they can to hold on to 
power.
  Even if, as we all hope, Aung San Suu Kyi is released and is invited 
to take part in a national convention, I think we should maintain the 
pressure on this junta and keep the sanctions in place.
  Now, earlier this week, the junta allowed members of the NLD, the 
democratic party, to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi to discuss their 
participation at the convention. But this is hardly progress.
  ``Substantial and measurable'' progress is just that, and we should 
not settle for lofty pronouncements when they have a record of breaking 
their word on virtually every statement they have made.
  So I am very pleased that Secretary of State Colin Powell has 
testified that the administration supports reauthorizing the sanctions. 
He recently stated:

       I have seen no improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu 
     Kyi remains unable to participate in public political life in 
     Burma, and we will not ignore that. We will not shrink from 
     the strong position we have taken.

  So now is not the time to reduce our support for this brave leader. 
Now is the time to stand with her side by side, to buttress her, to 
reinforce her, to point out, over and over again that she is the 
elected democratic leader of that country; now is the time to show the 
SPDC that America is not going to stand by and see members of the 
parliament jailed, not going to stand by and see her people continually 
attacked, and not going to stand by and see every promise the junta 
made violated.
  So I feel very strongly and am very pleased to join with the 
distinguished Senators from Kentucky and Arizona in supporting this 
extension legislation.

                              S.J. Res. 36

       Whereas the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has 
     failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward 
     implementing a democratic government in Burma;
       Whereas the courage and determination of the people of 
     Burma in their struggle for freedom and justice remains 
     steadfast and strong;
       Whereas import sanctions and other restrictions against the 
     SPDC and its affiliated entities should remain in force until 
     Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that 
     includes the full and unfettered participation of the 
     National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the 
     country; and
       Whereas the Department of State supports the continuation 
     of sanctions against the SPDC: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in 
     section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 
     2003.
                                  ____

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators McConnell 
and Feinstein for introducing legislation that will renew sanctions 
contained in last year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud 
to be an original cosponsor of this resolution.
  The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to promote 
human rights. In few places is the lack of freedom and justice more 
appalling than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, led by 
General Than Shwe, controls the population through

[[Page S4708]]

violence and terror. The Burmese regime has a record of unchecked 
repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers 
and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Nearly one year 
ago the Burmese military junta launched an orchestrated, violent attack 
against democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her 
supporters. Since then the regime has kept more than 1,000 political 
activists imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It also 
recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for contacting 
representatives of the International Labor Organization.
  And Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Because she stands for 
democracy, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, 
and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. The junta fears Aung 
San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice 
for all Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle 
her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her 
leadership and example shines brightly for the millions of Burmese who 
hunger for freedom, and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice 
for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the 
National League for Democracy must be the world's work.
  In recognition of this, last year the Congress overwhelmingly passed 
the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active 
steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the 
Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people 
care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their 
country.
  The State Department released just this week a new report on U.S. 
trade sanctions against Burma. This report notes that the Freedom and 
Democracy Act encouraged ASEAN nations to take a critical stance on 
Burma, and that these pressures were likely a factor behind the junta's 
August announcement of a ``roadmap'' toward democratic transition. 
While this roadmap is sorely lacking, it does point to the tangible 
effect that our efforts are having inside the country.
  Yet since we passed our bill last year, the ruling State Peace and 
Development Council has failed to make substantial progress toward 
implementing a democratic government in Burma. The new State Department 
report indicates that Burma's ``extremely poor human rights record has 
worsened over the past year, and it continued to commit serious 
abuses.'' Pro-democracy activists remain in detention, the National 
League for Democracy offices remain closed, and citizens do not have 
the right to change their government. Security forces continue to 
commit extrajudicial killings and rape, forcibly relocate persons, and 
use forced labor. The military junta refuses to tolerate any form of 
political opposition. On top of this, the dismal economic polices 
implemented by Burma's rulers have led to widespread poverty and the 
flight of most foreign investors.

  Sadly, the picture is clear. So long as this band of thugs rules 
Burma, its people will be never be free. They will remain mired in 
poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their 
indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward.
  For this reason I stand in support of the joint resolution that will 
renew the import restrictions contained in last year's legislation--
sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. 
These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of 
reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic 
minorities. I note, however, that while the American people have spoken 
with one voice in support of freedom in Burma, it is past time that the 
leaders of other nations do the same. No other country has yet 
implemented U.S.-style economic sanctions. The Europeans should reject 
half measures and join the United States in targeted sanctions against 
the military regime. China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations 
uncomfortable with a tougher response to the junta's crimes must 
understand that diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will 
profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with the 
Western democracies.
  Mr. President, this week I co-authored with former Secretary of State 
Madeleine Albright an editorial on Burma for the Washington Post. This 
article enumerates several of the points that I have made here, and 
illustrates the bipartisan consensus that we must act to promote 
democracy and human rights in Burma. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of our editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection; it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCAIN. In this article, we quote Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man 
who knows quite a bit about life under tyranny and oppression. The 
Archbishop said that ``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights 
abuses is immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one 
supports injustice and bondage.'' Mr. President, today we support 
justice and freedom.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, April 27, 2004]

                         A Need To Act on Burma

       ``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is 
     immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one 
     supports injustice and bondage.'' So said Archbishop Desmond 
     Tutu, the South African Nobel laureate and anti-apartheid 
     leader, who knows something about the struggle for human 
     freedom in the face of tyranny.
       The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to 
     promote justice and freedom. In few places is this obligation 
     more acute than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, 
     led by Gen. Than Shwe, controls the population through 
     violence and terror. The regime has a record of unchecked 
     repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child 
     soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of 
     war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched 
     an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung 
     San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the 
     regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists 
     imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It 
     recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for 
     contacting representatives of the International Labor 
     Organization.
       The Burmese junta, with the cynical support of neighboring 
     governments, has announced a ``road map to democracy,'' 
     beginning with a constitutional convention in May. The 
     convention is expected to be stage-managed by the junta, 
     which has offered no meaningful participation to Suu Kyi's 
     National League for Democracy, no timetable for progress 
     toward a political transition, no release of political 
     prisoners and no guarantee that the military will cede 
     control to democratically elected leaders. Instead, the 
     junta's proposals seem designed to institutionalize military 
     control by creating a veneer of civilian authority, while 
     meeting only the minimum expectations of Western democracies 
     in order to avoid further sanctions.
       The Burmese regime's recent actions demonstrate that years 
     of international engagement and patience have not made the 
     dictatorship more humane, reasonable or open to accommodation 
     with its political opponents. On the contrary, it is only in 
     response to international pressure that the regime has made 
     even the smallest moves toward a political settlement with 
     the democratic opposition. The lesson is clear: The world's 
     democracies and Burma's neighbors must press the junta until 
     it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to 
     democratic rule.
       The legitimacy, authority and commitment of Burma's 
     democratic leaders to govern their country is not in doubt. 
     But the international commitment to Burma's democratic 
     transformation remains uncertain. The Western democracies and 
     Burma's neighbors should immediately take three steps to 
     bolster Burma's legitimate democratic leaders.
       First, Congress should promptly renew, and the president 
     sign into law, the ban on Burma's imports enacted into law 
     last July. These sanctions, which are set to expire after a 
     review period beginning Friday, are supported by Burma's 
     National League for Democracy. The restrictions have made it 
     more difficult for the Burmese military to tap financial 
     assets abroad, travel or accumulate revenue through trade. 
     The European Union, whose member democracies care deeply 
     about protecting human rights, and whose trade and 
     assistance programs give it critical leverage in Southeast 
     Asia, are set to announce a new Common Position on Burma 
     on Thursday. As part of this new policy, the EU should 
     also initiate target sanctions against the regime.
       Second, the EU and the United States, with support from 
     Asian nations, should urge the junta to implement immediately 
     the provisions of the U.N. Commission for Human Rights and 
     the U.N. General Assembly resolutions--including democracy, 
     the rule of law and respect for human rights. The United 
     States and the EU should also formally place the issue on the 
     agenda of the U.N. Security Council, and work urgently toward 
     a resolution threatening credible sanctions against the 
     Burmese regime unless it initiates meaningful progress toward 
     democracy.
       Third, China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations 
     uncomfortable with a tougher

[[Page S4709]]

     response to the junta's crimes must understand that 
     diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will 
     profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with 
     the Western democracies. Thailand in particular should 
     consider this point when it convenes its planned 
     international conference to discuss what it optimistically 
     calls ``Burma's progress toward democracy.''
       Beyond these steps, the United States, Europe and Asian 
     countries must demand the unconditional release of Aung San 
     Suu Kyi and her fellow political prisoners, but make clear 
     that the releases, while necessary, are insufficient. In 
     addition, they should continue calls for a political 
     settlement that reflects the results of the free and fair 
     elections held in 1990. This settlement must include a 
     central, determinative role for the National League for 
     Democracy.
       In another era, a dissident playwright named Vaclav Havel 
     wrote of the ``power of the powerless'' to overcome rule by 
     fear and force, at a time when such a revolution in human 
     freedom seemed impossible. The international community today 
     has the power to help the powerless inside Burma throw off 
     the shackles of tyranny. It is time to assume this moral 
     responsibility. It is time to act.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it saddens me to rise today to speak about 
the situation in Burma. Burma is a beautiful country with a rich 
history. Regrettably, this great nation, with so much potential, is 
being destroyed by the despotic junta, the State Peace and Development 
Council, SPDC.
  Natural resources are pillaged, ethnic minorities are brutally 
repressed, and most notably, Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, is under 
house arrest--denying her the right to help lead her nation.
  For more than a decade, the brutal and autocratic regime, the SPDC 
has played an outrageous ``game'' with Aung San Suu Kyi. It goes 
something like this: pretend to allow Aung San Suu Kyi freedom to move 
around the country; when her movements become too threatening, put her 
under house arrest; keep her there until international pressure becomes 
too intense; eventually let her out, starting it all over again. In 
other words, isolate Aung San Suu Kyi and stall for time, while looting 
the country of its resources.
  Once again, we find ourselves in this situation. About a year ago, 
the SPDC launched a vicious, pre-meditated attack against Aung San Suu 
Kyi and other members of the NLDF. The SPDC then placed Aung San Suu 
Kyi under house arrest, using the absurd justification that it is for 
her own safety. Virtually nothing has changed since that time. Aung San 
Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and the outrageous activities of the 
SPDC continue unabated.
  It is for this reason that I join Senators McConnell and Feinstein 
today in introducing the joint resolution to extend the sanctions 
provided for in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. The senior 
Senators from Kentucky and California have already discussed the 
situation in Burma and made the case why this legislation is so 
important. I want to associate myself with their remarks and will be 
brief here today.
  The message that we are sending to the ruling junta in Burma is 
clear: its behavior is outrageous. Aung San Suu Kyi is the rightful 
leader of the democratic opposition in Burma. She and other opposition 
leaders must be immediately released.
  But, as important as U.S. leadership is on this issue, we all know it 
is not enough. Burma's neighbors--India, Thailand, and China--must also 
act. For too long, the silence of these key nations has been deafening. 
To obtain real change in Burma, these and other nations in the region 
must change course, speak out and disavow the failed policies of 
engagement.
  I know that the sponsors of the legislation recognize this. I have 
heard Senator McConnell speak frequently of the need for a ``full court 
press'' by the international community on this issue. While I am not so 
naive as to believe that this legislation will instantly cause a change 
of heart among the SPDC, I am hopeful that constant pressure U.S. 
pressure and others will, one day, lead to a breakthrough.
  Everyone in the Senate would like to see the SPDC tossed on the ash 
heap of history, but there is widespread recognition that this regime 
is well entrenched and will not go away overnight. The immediate goal 
should be to get Aung San Suu Kyi out of house arrest and give her and 
the NLDF an equal seat at the table. Considering that the NLDF was 
democratically elected to lead Burma, this is a modest goal indeed.
  Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters have been denied for too long. It 
is time for a change in Burma. I hope that this is the beginning of the 
end for the SPDC and the start of a new era in Burma, allowing that 
country and its people to achieve the democracy and progress they 
deserve.

                          ____________________