[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.
____________________