A bill to revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senator Hatch the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007. I thank Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his hard work and support of this legislation.

In the 107th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice, (DOJ or the Department,) for the first time since 1979. Congress extended that authorization in 1980 and 1981. Until 2002 Congress had not passed nor had the President signed an authorization bill for the Department. In fact, there were a number of years where Congress failed to consider any Department authorization bill. This 23-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department forced the appropriations committees in both houses to reauthorize and appropriate money.

We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long, but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers to create and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees taking active new roles in setting the priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in the past 3 years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more important than ever before.

Already this Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers have authored and shepherded through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, H.R. 3036. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal years 2005 through 2007 is a comprehensive authorization of the Department based on H.R. 3036 as passed by the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004. Our bipartisan legislation authorizes appropriations for the Department for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, provide permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The bill also establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, our bill incorporates numerous other pieces of legislation--on such issues as preventing and recovering missing children, cigarette trafficking, intellectual property, going after terrorists who commit violent acts against American citizens overseas, among others--currently pending before Congress that enjoy strong bipartisan support.

I will now highlight a number of the provisions that make up this authorization bill.

Title I of our bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. With minor exceptions, these authorizations generally reflect the President's budget request.

Title II makes numerous improvements and upgrades to the Department's grant programs that assist law enforcement and criminal justice agencies; build community capacity to prevent, reduce and control crime; assist victims of crime; and prevent crime.

We decided to combine the current Byrne formula grant, Byrne discretionary grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG, programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program with an authorization of $1.075 billion and a list of 35 uses-- a combination of the traditional Byrne and LLEBG grants regulations-- for which these grants may be used.

I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG, both of which have been continuously targeted for elimination by the Bush administration. LLEBG, which received $225 million this year, provide local governments with the means to underwrite projects that reduce crime and improve public safety, and allow communities to craft their own responses to local crime and drug problems. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which Congress funded at $659,117,000 in FY 2004, makes grants to States to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crimes and serious offenders, and to enforce State and local drug laws. As a senator from a rural State that relies on LLEBG and Byrne grants to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's proposals for funding and program eliminations of these well-established grant programs. Our legislation makes it clear that the same authorized funding levels and uses will be available under the new consolidated grant program as under the previous two grant programs.

I am pleased that Title II also extends the authorization of appropriations for the Regional Information Sharing System, RISS, at $100 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. RISS serves as an invaluable tool to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies by providing much-needed criminal intelligence and investigative support services. It has built a reputation as one of the most effective and efficient means developed to combat multi- jurisdictional criminal activity, such as narcotics trafficking and gang activity. Without RISS, most law enforcement officers would not have access to newly developed crime-fighting technologies and would be hindered in their intelligence-gathering efforts.

By providing State and local law enforcement agencies with rapid access to its secure, state-of-the-art, nationwide information sharing system, RISS gives law enforcement officers the resources they need to identify and apprehend potential terrorists before they strike. With this in mind, I authored Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, to increase information sharing for critical infrastructure protection. The law expanded RISS to facilitate information sharing among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities, and increased authorized funding to $100 million.

Proper funding provides RISS with the means to maintain six regionally-based information sharing centers that allow for information and intelligence services to be disseminated nationwide addressing major, multijurisdictional crimes. In addition, as the September 11 terrorist attacks and calls for increased vigilance against future attacks demonstrated, RISS requires additional support to intensify antiterrorism measures.

Each RISS center has up to 1,600 member agencies, the vast majority of which are at the municipal and county levels. Over 400 State agencies and over 850 Federal agencies, however, are also members. The Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, Customs, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are among the Federal agencies that participate in the RISS Program.

Unfortunately, the Consolidated Appropriations law for FY 2004 did not provide full funding for RISS, instead including $30 million for the program. For the coming fiscal year, the President has proposed $45 million. We must ensure that RISS can continue current services, meet increased membership support needs for terrorism investigations and prosecutions, increase intelligence analysis capabilities and add staff to support the increasing numbers of RISS members.

This title also contains a reauthorization of the Crime Free Rural States program that we created in the DOJ Authorization bill in the last Congress. This program authorizes $10 million annually for rural States to address specific crime problems plaguing their areas. In Vermont, for example, this funding could be used to battle heroin abuse and its consequences.

This authorization bill contains a number of provisions of great interest to victim service organizations and those who administer Federal grants for victim assistance and compensation. In particular, I am pleased that we have responded to repeated requests from the field to increase the amount that State assistance and compensation programs may retain for administrative purposes. I have been proposing such an increase for many years, without success.

Under current law, not more than 5 percent of victim assistance and compensation grants may be used for the administration of the State program receiving the grant. The House bill effectively decreases this already-low apportionment by combining administrative costs with training costs--currently 1 percent under guidelines promulgated by the Office for Victims of Crime, OVC. By contrast, we propose raising the amount that can be used for both worthwhile purposes to 7.5 percent of the grants. While this is still less than 10 percent retention permitted, for example, by the Violence Against Women Act, it will help States to accommodate the addition of training purposes in their costs.

Our bill will also amend the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, to clarify the provisions establishing the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve in various ways. The original H.R. 3036 permits replenishments of the emergency reserve based upon amounts obligated rather than amounts actually expended in any given fiscal year. Our bill includes two additional clarifications that I proposed. First, it makes explicit that the emergency reserve may be replenished only once each fiscal year, and may not be continually replenished as amounts are obligated or expended. Allowing continual replenishments could result in the obligations or expenditures exceeding the $50 million emergency reserve maximum. Second, we have ensured that all emergency reserve funds-- whether carried over, used to replenish the reserve, obligated or expended--fall above the cap on spending from the Crime Victim Fund as set by appropriations legislation.

Section 242 of the House-passed bill authorized the Assistant Attorney General for the Office for Justice Programs, OJP, to impose special conditions and determine priorities for formula grants. It was unclear to me why the authority to determine formula grant priorities was necessary and what its real impact would be on local victim services. Could it be read to authorize OJP to infringe on the discretion of each State to meet its own needs, as for example by mandating that State VOCA programs give priority to public agencies over nonprofit community organizations, or fund faith-based programs before secular programs? Priorities are already set out by Congress in the authorizing statutes, as is the requirement that programs coordinate public and private victim services in their communities, and the Justice Department should not be allowed to override those congressional directives. Moreover, VOCA already has extensive reporting requirements that enable the Department to monitor how States are distributing these funds. We have therefore deleted the authority to determine formula grant priorities, while retaining the special conditions provision.

Subtitle D of Title II deals with approaches to prevent crime. I am especially pleased that we included provisions that will specifically aid in preventing rural crime because rural States and communities face a number of unique law enforcement challenges. We added these provisions from Senator Daschle's Rural Safety Act, S. 1907, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I commend our Democratic leader for his commitment to providing real and meaningful investments to address the unique set of challenges facing rural law enforcement agencies.

Rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, operate under tighter budgets and with smaller staffs than their urban and suburban counterparts. This legislation creates programs specifically designed to meet the many complex needs of rural law enforcement agencies and officers. Methamphetamine production and use, for example, is a growing concern for Vermonters. Because the ingredients and the equipment used to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive and readily available, the drug can be manufactured or ``cooked'' in homemade labs. This has become one of the major problems facing law enforcement agencies nationwide. Last month, the Vermont State Police busted the first known methamphetamine lab in the state. We must help our law enforcement agencies as they struggle to keep up with its troubling growth.

To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and other challenges, we authorize in this bill $20 million in grants for FY 2005 to provide for the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; and the improvement of contract-related response time for cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of local established methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot programs in rural areas, and provide additional financial support to local law enforcement.

We also establish a rural 9-1-1 service program to provide access to, and improve a communications infrastructure that will ensure a reliable and seamless communication between, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service providers in units of local government and tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and in States. Grants--authorized at $25 million for fiscal year 2005--under this program will be used to establish or improve 9-1-1 service in rural communities. Priority in making grants under this program will be given to communities that do not have 9-1-1 service.

I am pleased that our bill includes the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. This bill was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent a year ago this month and it awaits consideration by the House of Representatives.

This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on this legislation. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost.

Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff,

he knows the dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors.

Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by providing more help to State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in 1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly 350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 148 municipalities have been fortunate to receive to receive funding for the purchase of almost 1200 vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay that there would be close to that number of police officers without vests in Vermont today.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50 million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body armor.

We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

We also included in this authorization bill the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act, as passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on December 9, 2003, but which has yet to be taken up and passed by the House. I commend Senators Hatch and Kohl for their leadership on this measure and thank them for working with me, among others, to craft the compromise language that we include in this bill to crack down on the growing problem of cigarette smuggling, both interstate and international, as well as to address the connection between cigarette smuggling activities and terrorist funding. I am proud to join Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl and 10 others as a cosponsor of the standalone bill.

I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for working with us and contributing to this language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with cigarette smuggling that States are facing and his support for this compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for their support for this measure.

The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of state taxes. These sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for cigarette and other tobacco product sales.

We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing smuggling, we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to track sales from State to State. These lapses point to a need for uniform rules governing group sales to individuals.

The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax burdens.

Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This legislation enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and verify the deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet sales. In addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with additional resources to enforce state tobacco excise tax laws.

Finally, at the request of the National Association of Attorneys General and many State Attorneys General, we have added a new section to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations.

We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals and we must close the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue.

The United States has from its inception recognized the importance of intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts. I am pleased that we can today include, as part of the Department of Justice Authorization Act, the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004, the CREATE Act, legislation that I cosponsored along with Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Cochran. This bill will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our Nation's patent laws. On June 25, 2004, the CREATE Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs.

However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally, runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in certain cases be considered ``prior art''--a standard which generally prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations.

However, the Federal circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the legislation. The CREATE Act does exactly that by ensuring that nonpublic information is not considered prior art when the information is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The bill also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the

legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent of the Bayh-Dole Act.

I am pleased that the PIRATE Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Hatch, will be included as part of this bipartisan bill. Like the overall bill, the PIRATE Act is a consensus bill that will give the Justice Department new and needed tools--in this case, these tools are specific to the fight against piracy. This bill was unanimously passed by the Senate on June 25, 2004. By including this measure in the Department of Justice Authorization Bill, we hope to muster more forces to combat the growing problem of digital piracy.

For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof. In the world of copyright, a criminal charge is unusually difficult to prove because the defendant must have known that his conduct was illegal and he must have willfully engaged in the conduct anyway. For this reason prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament.

The PIRATE Act will give the Attorney General civil enforcement authority for copyright infringement. It also calls on the Justice Department to initiate training and pilot programs to ensure that Federal prosecutors across the country are aware of the many difficult technical and strategic problems posed by enforcing copyright law in the digital age.

This new authority does not supplant either the criminal provisions of the Copyright Act, or the remedies available to the copyright owner in a private suit. Rather, it allows the Government to bring its resources to bear on this immense problem and to ensure that more creative works are made available online, that those works are more affordable, and that the people who work to bring them to us are paid for their efforts.

I am pleased that the Koby Mandell Act of 2003 was included in this legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of the stand-alone bill. The act would establish an office within the Department of Justice with a mandate to ensure equal treatment of all victims of terrorist acts committed overseas. Its primary role would be to guarantee that vigorous efforts are made to pursue, prosecute, and punish each and every terrorist who harms Americans overseas, no matter where attacks occur. It would also take steps to inform victims of important developments in international cases, such as status reports on efforts to capture terrorists and monitoring the incarceration of those terrorists who are imprisoned overseas. This is important legislation that would send a strong message of resolve that we are committed to finding and punishing every terrorist who harms Americans overseas.

I am pleased that we have included part of S. 1286, the Seniors Safety Act, which I introduced last year. This bill would create an enhanced sentencing penalty for those who commit crimes against the elderly, create new civil and criminal penalties for pension fraud, and create a centralized service to log complaints of telemarketing fraud.

We would also provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial tool to prevent telemarketing fraud--the power to block or terminate service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized.

We have agreed to incorporate the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit Equity Act of 2004, which was originally introduced as a stand- alone bill with my good friends Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and Senator Durbin. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less favorable retirement benefits than other nearly all other people involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would increase the retirement benefits given to Assistant United States Attorneys by including them as ``law enforcement officers,'' LEOs, under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to designate other attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who act primarily as criminal prosecutors as LEOs for purposes of receiving these retirement benefits.

The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other Federal prosecutors are not eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) & 8401(17). AUSAs and other Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations, interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting, debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought into the criminal justice system, the person with whom they have the most face-to-face contact, and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal prosecutor.

Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants, cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made against Federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant disruption of their personal and family lives.

I am pleased that S. 710, the Leahy-Hatch Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act, was included in this legislation. This measure would expand the grounds for removing alien human rights violators from the United States, or for denying them entry in the first place. We have heard many accounts of abusers who have taken advantage of America's freedoms after committing horrifying violations of their fellow citizens in their native lands. We need to stop that from happening again.

This bill passed the Judiciary Committee last November but has been subject to an anonymous hold on the floor. A similar version of it passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 106th Congress. It is long past time to make it law.

I would note that on May 12, a Rwandan man wanted on international charges of genocide and crimes against humanity was arrested at his suburban Chicago home by agents from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. Before I and others began to raise the issue of the war criminals among us, it was my impression that the former INS paid little attention to rooting out these thugs. I am pleased that the issue has taken on greater importance at ICE and urge the Senate to pass this bill so that we can expand the grounds of inadmissibility and removability for human rights violators.

I am pleased that the DREAM Act has been included in this bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill, which Senators Hatch and Durbin introduced last year and was passed last fall by the Judiciary Committee. It would benefit undocumented alien children who were brought to the United States by their parents as young children, by restoring States' ability to offer them in-State

tuition and offering them a path to legal residency. It has been distressing that a bill with committee approval and 48 sponsors has been unable to get a vote on the floor of the Senate, and I hope that including the DREAM Act in this legislation will give it added momentum.

I am proud that we include Schumer-Specter legislation to honor the sacrifice of the September 11, 2001 terrorist victims by creating congressional medals that would be awarded to their families and loved ones by the President. I am proud to have joined my friends as a cosponsor of this legislation, as have 18 other Senators.

The tragedy of September 11, 2001 demanded unprecedented sacrifices of everyday American civilians and rescue workers 3,000 of whom lost their lives in the attacks. In recognition of their heroic actions on that day, the bipartisan Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act would create a medal to be awarded posthumously to the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The medal would be designed by the Department of Treasury and awarded to representatives of the deceased by the President. The production of the medals would be paid for by the sale of duplicate medals to the public. Those of us who lost loved ones almost 3 years ago can never have them back, but a medal of honor could recognizes the sacrifices and heroic efforts of our fallen citizens.

I am pleased that our Department of Justice authorization bill includes legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced together to reauthorize and expand the Department of Justice grant program for Boys & Girls Clubs. The original version of this legislation, S. 2363, currently enjoys 44 cosponsors and passed the Senate by unanimous consent last month. It was considered and reported out of the House Judiciary Committee by voice vote earlier this month but still awaits floor consideration.

Children are the future of our country, and we have a responsibility to make sure they are safe and secure. I know firsthand 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 & 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 & Girls Clubs. Since 1998, Congress has increased Federal support for Boys & 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 FY 2005. That request will leave thousands of children and their Clubs behind and we cannot allow such a thing to happen.

In the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass in the 107th Congress, we included a provision to reauthorize Justice Department grants to establish new Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. By authorizing $80 million in DOJ grants for each of the fiscal years through 2005, we sought to establish 1,200 additional Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. This was to bring the number of Boys & 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 & Girls Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional Boys & Girls Clubs across the Nation with the goal of having 5,000 Boys & Girls Clubs in operation by December 31, 2010.

If we had 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 ideas. 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 influences of drugs, gangs and crime. That is why Boys & Girls Clubs are so important to our children.

We also incorporated language similar to the Leahy-Grassley-Lincoln Missing Child Cold Case Review Act of 2004, S. 2435, which will allow an inspector general to authorize his or her staff to provide assistance on and conduct reviews of the inactive case files, or ``cold cases,'' involving children stored at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, NCMEC, and to develop recommendations for further investigations. The only alteration we made to the original bill was to include language to also allow the Inspector General of the Government Printing Office to authorize his or her staff to work on cold cases.

Speed is everything in homicide investigations. As a former prosecutor in Vermont, I know firsthand that speed is of the essence when trying to solve a homicide. This focus on speed, however, has led the law enforcement community to generally believe that any case not solved within the first 72 hours or lacking significant leads and witness participation has little likelihood of being solved, regardless of the expertise and resources deployed. With time, such unsolved cases become ``cold,'' and these are among the most difficult and frustrating cases detectives face because they are, in effect, cases that other investigators, for whatever reason, failed to solve.

Our Nation's law enforcement agencies, regardless of size, are not immune to rising crime rates, staff shortages and budget restrictions. Such obstacles have strained the investigative and administrative resources of all agencies. More crime often means that fewer cases are vigorously pursued, fewer opportunities arise for followup and individual caseloads increase for already overworked detectives.

All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early phases contribute to cold cases. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children our Nation's top resource center for child protection presently retains a backlog of cold cases involving children that law enforcement departments nationwide have stopped investigating primarily due to all these obstacles. NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse for all cold cases in which a child has not been found and/or the suspect has not been identified.

This provision will allow an inspector general to provide staff support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigation and similar activities. The inspector general community has one of the most diverse and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law enforcement agencies, and are highly-trained and extremely capable of dealing with complex, criminal cases.

Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. This measure would allow an inspector general to permit criminal investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, so long as doing so would not interfere

with normal duties. An inspector general would not conduct actual investigations, and any inspector general would only commit staff when the office's mission-related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an inspector general.

From time to time a criminal investigator employed by an inspector general may be between investigations or otherwise available for brief periods of time. This act would also allow those resources to be provided to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Commitment of resources would be at a minimum and would not materially affect the budget of any office.

We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and House. It is supported by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. I applaud the ongoing work of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and hope that we can soon provide NCMEC with the resources it requires to solve cold cases involving missing children.

This authorization bill includes a provision that would help colleges and universities in Vermont and across the nation. It would allow foreigners who are pursuing ``distance learning'' opportunities at American schools to enter the country for up to 30 days to fulfill academic requirements. Under current law, these students do not fall under any visa category, and many are being denied entry and are thus unable to complete their educations. This is a loophole that harms both those students and the institutions that serve them.

In recent months, serious questions have been raised in the media and in several congressional hearings about deficiencies within the translation program at the FBI. Nearly, 2 years ago I began asking questions in Judiciary Committee hearings about the FBI's translation program. Most of these remain unanswered. As a result, members of our committee are no closer to determining the scope of the issue, including the pervasiveness and seriousness of FBI shortcomings in this area, or what the FBI intends to do to rectify personnel shortages, security issues, translation inaccuracies and other problems that have plagued the translator program for years.

Section 205 of the USA PATRIOT Act included an important reporting requirement by the Attorney General to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about (1) the number of translators employed by the FBI, (2) legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared basis, and (3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs. To date, the Attorney General has not made the report required by Section 205 most likely because there is no date certain written in the law by which the report must be made. This provision fills that gap by requiring the report ``not later than 30 days after the date of enactment and annually thereafter .with respect to the preceding 12 month period.'' It also expands the reporting requirement to include translators ``contracted'' by the government in addition to those ``employed.''

I have worked my entire professional life to protect children from those who would prey on them. Preventing child exploitation through the use of the Internet is one concrete and important way to help this important cause. In this regard, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Public Law No. 105-314, remote computing and electronic communication service providers are mandated to report all instances of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I respect and applaud the work of NCMEC and its tireless efforts in this important national priority.

In March 1998, Congress mandated that NCMEC initiate the CyberTipline for citizens to report online sexual crimes against children. In December 1999, Congress passed Public Law No. 106-113 to modify 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13032(b)(1) to set forth a ``duty to report'' by ISPs. According to NCMEC, many U.S. electronic communications service providers are not complying with the requirement that they register and use the CyberTipline to report child porn found on their services because supporting regulations required to be promulgated by the Department of Justice on matters such as the contents of the report were never done so.

In this authorization bill we propose language that amends the ``duty to report'' language by providing specific guidance on what information is required to be included in the ISP reports. The information required includes the content and images of the apparent violation, the Internet Protocol Address, the date and time associated with the violation, and specific contact information for the sender.

America's film heritage is an important part of the American experience, an inheritance from previous generations that helps tell us who we are and who we were as a society. They offer insight into our history, our dreams, and our aspirations. Yet sadly, this part of American heritage is literally disintegrating faster than can be saved. Today, I am delighted that with the help of Senator Hatch, the National Film Preservation Act can be included in our Department of Justice reauthorization bill.

I introduced the National Film Preservation Act last November, a bill that will reauthorize and extend the National Film Preservation Act of 1996. We first acted in 1988 in order to recognize the educational, cultural, and historical importance of our film heritage, and its inherently fragile nature. In doing so, Congress created the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation both of which operate under the auspices of the Library of Congress in order to help save America's film heritage.

The National Film Preservation Act will allow the Library of Congress to continue its important work in preserving America's fading treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries, museums, and archives preserve films and make those works available for study and research. These continued efforts are more critical today than ever before. While a wide range of works have been saved, with every passing day we lose the opportunity to save more. Fewer than 20 percent of the features of the 1920s exist in complete form and less than 10 percent of the features of the 1910s have survived into the new millennium.

The films saved by the National Film Preservation Board are precisely those types of works that would be unlikely to survive without public support. At-risk documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works, ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies frequently provide more insight into the American experience than the Hollywood sound features kept and preserved by major studios. What is more, in many cases only one copy of these ``orphaned'' works exists. As the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has noted, ``Our film heritage is America's living past.''

I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for working with me to include the ``National Film Preservation Act'' in the bill we are introducing today.

The House-passed bill included an important reporting requirement authored by Rep. Adam Schiff and adopted by the House Judiciary Committee. Specifically, this provision required the Department of Justice to submit an annual report to Congress specifying the number of U.S. persons or residents detained on suspicion of terrorism, and describing Department standards for recommending or determining that a person should be tried as a criminal defendant or designated as an enemy combatant. A Washington Post editorial dated April 3, 2004, praised this provision, while noting that ``If more members of the House took their duty to legislate in this critical area seriously, Congress would craft a bill that actually imposed standards rather than simply inquired what they were.'' I agree, and regret that was unable to persuade Chairman Hatch to retain this modest oversight tool.

I am disappointed that we will not be including the privacy officer provision referred to us by the House. It is critical that the Department have a designated leader who is consistently mindful of the impact of the Department's activities on privacy rights. While there has been some history of a

privacy official at the Department, these positions have been nonstatutory, and thus there has been no guarantee of consistent vigor and accountability on these issues. Given that the Department's mission increasingly involves gathering and assessing personal information, we simply can't afford to have a lapse in accountability on privacy. Moreover, this is not an untested idea. Congress created a privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and it has been recognized as a successful example of how this role can be helpful in assessing and addressing privacy concerns. We need to follow this lead, and the privacy officer provision would have been a good opportunity to do so.

I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to continue the important business of reauthorizing the Department of Justice. Clearly, regular reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities. Swift passage into law of the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 will be a significant step toward enhancing our oversight role.

I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky and I be allowed to engage in a dialog.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. 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

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.

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

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?

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?

And the ASEAN meeting is scheduled to be in Burma in a few years.

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?

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.