A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 regarding identifying trade expansion priorities.

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.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona for their words. I had hoped to join them on the floor earlier, but I was in the Judiciary

Committee. So I am very pleased to be able to be here now to say a few words in support of this effort.

I first became involved in the Burmese, or Myanmar, dilemma back in 1995-1996 with then-Senator William Cohen, and we offered some legislation at that time. So we have had the opportunity to follow this situation. I then worked with Senator McConnell a year ago on this legislation. And now I am very pleased to support the renewal of the sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Last year, in response to a brutal and vicious coordinated assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and the arrest and detention of NLD's leader, the Nobel Peace Price winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed this act. The purpose was to impose a complete import ban on products from Burma.

Working together, the Congress and the administration demonstrated our determination to put pressure on the ruling State Peace and Development Council--that is the military junta formerly known as the SLORC--to release Suu Kyi, and also to respect the 1990 elections decisively won by the National League for Democracy party in Burma and put Burma on an irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy. One year later, it is clear that the SPDC has failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic government to have those sanctions lifted.

The junta has failed. The world has condemned the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. They have called for her unconditional release. She still remains under house arrest. NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo also remains in custody.

Last August, the junta proposed a seven-point ``roadmap'' to democracy. That included a national convention to take place the following month to draft a new constitution. Yet there is no timetable for restoration of democracy, no assurance that the junta will give up power, and no meaningful participation for Suu Kyi and her party.

Numerous human rights abuses, including torture, forced labor, rape, and sex trafficking continue unabated.

The most recent State Department report indicates that:

The Government's extremely poor human rights record

worsened [in 2003] and it continued to commit numerous

abuses.

Recently, the junta sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for one thing: for meeting with representatives of the ILO, the International Labor Organization. That is how repressive this regime is. If you meet with an organization not favored by the government, you could be sentenced to death.

Mr. President, 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail, many of them elected parliamentarians. According to the State Department, three political prisoners died in custody last year.

The government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine.

The Thai-sponsored ``Bangkok Process''--designed to mediate a solution to the political situation in Burma--collapsed after one meeting with the SPDC's refusal to attend further sessions with ``like- minded'' countries. The regime said it was ``too busy'' to attend this week's session.

For years, we have been working with ASEAN nations to put pressure on the military junta to make changes. But these nations were reluctant to do so. The Thailand-sponsored Bangkok Process aimed to do the same thing. However, what is clear is that the military junta has ignored those efforts.

So over the past several months, the regime has gone to great lengths to rehabilitate its standing with neighbors and the international community. Some thought this was evidence that the junta was committed to national reconciliation, that engagement works, and that the sanctions and other pressures on Rangoon should be eased to facilitate the implementation of this new roadmap.

But I think they are mistaken because I think we have learned something now about this regime's intentions. So what we need is substantive and meaningful action, not more promises and empty statements and failure to deliver on commitments.

For over 15 years, this junta has engaged in a systematic campaign to wipe out the democratic movement in Burma and the NLD's 1990 election victory.

For over 15 years, we have listened to assurances that the junta was committed to national reconciliation and a dialog with all parties on restoring democracy, and still nothing has happened.

I was actually cautiously optimistic when Suu Kyi was first released from house arrest 2 years ago. Yet sure enough, 1 year later, she was back in custody. The regime showed its true colors in orchestrating and carrying out a brutal attack. After her release, Aung San Suu Kyi had gone on the road. She was greeted with enormous popularity. The junta's forces attacked her caravan. Many of her people were killed; many were arrested; and she was shoved back into house arrest for doing nothing more than what she was elected originally to do.

So whatever the regime might say about ``roadmaps'' and ``national conventions,'' their actions have clearly demonstrated they are uninterested in restoring democracy to the Burmese people and, more importantly, they are going to take any steps they can to hold on to power.

Even if, as we all hope, Aung San Suu Kyi is released and is invited to take part in a national convention, I think we should maintain the pressure on this junta and keep the sanctions in place.

Now, earlier this week, the junta allowed members of the NLD, the democratic party, to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi to discuss their participation at the convention. But this is hardly progress.

``Substantial and measurable'' progress is just that, and we should not settle for lofty pronouncements when they have a record of breaking their word on virtually every statement they have made.

So I am very pleased that Secretary of State Colin Powell has testified that the administration supports reauthorizing the sanctions. He recently stated:

I have seen no improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu

Kyi remains unable to participate in public political life in

Burma, and we will not ignore that. We will not shrink from

the strong position we have taken.

So now is not the time to reduce our support for this brave leader. Now is the time to stand with her side by side, to buttress her, to reinforce her, to point out, over and over again that she is the elected democratic leader of that country; now is the time to show the SPDC that America is not going to stand by and see members of the parliament jailed, not going to stand by and see her people continually attacked, and not going to stand by and see every promise the junta made violated.

So I feel very strongly and am very pleased to join with the distinguished Senators from Kentucky and Arizona in supporting this extension legislation.

S.J. Res. 36

Whereas the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has

failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward

implementing a democratic government in Burma;

Whereas the courage and determination of the people of

Burma in their struggle for freedom and justice remains

steadfast and strong;

Whereas import sanctions and other restrictions against the

SPDC and its affiliated entities should remain in force until

Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that

includes the full and unfettered participation of the

National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the

country; and

Whereas the Department of State supports the continuation

of sanctions against the SPDC: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress

approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in

section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of

2003.