Justice for Troops Act

Mr. President, when Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs due to trade policy will not equal the loss of health care coverage. The health coverage tax credit, HCTC, was designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage when their jobs are displaced by outsourcing--and it has been a lifeline for these middle- class families who simply cannot afford coverage on their own. In 2010, an Internal Revenue Service survey found that 90 percent of HCTC participants are very satisfied with the program.

However, despite the high satisfaction rate among participants, far too many trade-displaced workers are not able to take advantage of this important program. Historically, fewer than 30,000 of the hundreds of thousands of potentially eligible individuals each year have participated in the HCTC. These hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers and retirees have been left uninsured because the program still has several barriers to enrollment, and despite the 65 percent subsidy provided by the program, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers.

I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my state about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we have not been able to make the credit as affordable and accessible as possible for people who need it the most--laid-off workers and retirees who have very limited income.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations have cited affordability as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is simply not enough for many to afford the high cost of health insurance premiums. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, made several temporary changes to expand eligibility for and benefits of the HCTC program. These changes included an increase in the tax credit's subsidy rate from 65 percent to 80 percent of the health insurance premium, and expanded TAA eligibility to additional workers. The GAO released a report

last year on the credit and found that HCTC participation increased after these key Recovery Act changes took effect. As a result of the Recovery Act, many more people eligible for the program felt they could afford a qualified health plan and afford to pay their share of monthly premiums. However, 33 percent still could not afford their share of monthly premiums, even with the credit and these expanded provisions expired on February 13, 2011.

As our economy continues its recovery, it is critical to build on this program to help more Americans secure health coverage. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act would extend the Recovery Act's temporary provisions, and it would also address the issues of affordability by increasing the subsidy amount from 65 percent to 95 percent, retroactive to the date the Recovery Act expired.

This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, states have been allowed by prior Administrations to create state-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment. As a result, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state GAO reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community-rated.

Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed.

Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this three month period to be counted as the three months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration has interpreted the three month requirement as three months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage means three months prior to separation from employment.

Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to maintain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit if the worker or retiree becomes eligible for Medicare. Younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents.

Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin. This legislation allows workers to be eligible for the HCTC even if they are not receiving training, an important provision that was included in the Recovery Act. The current training requirement subjects families to a loss of health coverage when transportation, relocation, or childcare issues interfere with an individual's ability to participate in training.

As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition.

Since 2002, the HCTC program has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of participants. But for many others who face barriers to participation, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The GAO has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems, and the Recovery Act has shown us that the situation can improve for trade- displaced workers. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to make the health coverage tax credit workable for eligible individuals and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act, legislation that will protect American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a level playing field with foreign companies.

The legislation I am introducing today should be viewed as a placeholder for a more comprehensive updated bill that I plan on introducing after the recess. Given the potential for legislative action at any time on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the three pending Free Trade Agreements, and the continuing harm caused by illegally dumped foreign goods, I thought it was imperative that I introduce this bill today and move the discussion of our country's trade policy forward.

The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act allows the government to live up to its commitment to protect American businesses by allowing the businesses being harmed by unfairly subsidized imports to have a seat at the table in trade dispute proceedings. It also strengthens countervailing duty laws that are used to impose tariffs on goods from countries like China that are being unfairly subsidized.

Importantly, my bill would prevent the World Trade Organization, WTO, from dictating American policy by mandating that Congress must approve of any regulatory change to American law that is meant to conform with an adverse WTO decision.

This bill goes after countries that use currency manipulation to keep their prices artificially low by allowing the American government to treat this manipulation as an unfair subsidy that can be responded to with countervailing duties.

My bill also allows a panel of judicial experts to review recent adverse WTO decisions to ensure that they were made correctly and that obligations are not being imposed on the United States that our government has not previously agreed to.

These steps are important because businesses like those in my home state of West Virginia face a constant threat from foreign made goods that are being sold at prices well below cost in an effort to drive American businesses out of the marketplace altogether. In West Virginia, we know all too well the impact these unfair practices can have, as numerous manufacturing businesses have closed in recent years in response to these challenges.

I have worked through the system to try to protect our employers, testifying numerous times before the International Trade Commission on behalf of West Virginia businesses, including our steel industry, in an effort to get the government to counter unfair subsidies and give American manufacturers a fighting chance in the global marketplace. It has become clear to me through the years though that the current protections are not strong enough and that more must be done to allow our businesses to compete. That is what I hope to accomplish with this bill. I am not asking for any unfair advantages for American businesses. I just want to allow them the opportunity to succeed on the merits of their ideas and their hard work.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation previously sponsored by a Member of the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee in the 111th Congress that would direct funds from the administrative, civil, and criminal penalties stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to fund coastal and marine restoration, research and education, as well as promote tourism and economic development in the coastal Gulf states. The bill that I introduce today, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, is identical to the bill by the same name introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

To remind my colleagues, under Senate Rule XXV(f), the Commerce Committee possesses broad jurisdiction, including over ``Coast Guard . . . coastal zone management . . . interstate commerce . . . marine and ocean navigation, safety and transportation, including navigational aspects of deepwater ports . . . marine fisheries . . . merchant marine and navigation . . . oceans . . . regulation of consumer products and services including testing related to toxic substances . . . science, engineering, and technology research and development and policy . . . transportation, and the transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf Lands.'' As Chairman of the Committee I am well aware that individual Members of my Committee have strong views on all of these issues.

In the coming weeks, the Commerce Committee will be reviewing and considering a legislative package in a renewed effort to respond the Gulf oil spill. My introduction of the bill today is intended to clearly establish that the Commerce Committee continues to hold strong views about how to direct funding from the assessed penalties back to restoring the Gulf economy and environment. It is also intended to assert the Commerce Committee will conduct its oversight over the promotion of commerce, as well as over ocean and coastal programs, and reserve its rights to review and consider the authorization of programs needed to support the economic recovery of the Gulf, and the long term restoration of Gulf ecosystems. Finally, introduction of this bill is intended to provide Commerce Committee Members with the opportunity to ensure that needed baseline science is put in place, along with emergency response technology and programs, to support improved offshore energy decisions in the future. I look forward to revising this bill following introduction to reflect the views of the Committee.

Mr. President, President, I rise today to introduce the Enforcing Orders and Reducing Circumvention and Evasion Act, or the ENFORCE Act, of 2011.

For almost a century, Democratic and Republican Administrations have promoted and protected America's anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws. These laws recognize the reality that foreign competitors don't always play by the rules. Some employ unfair and unscrupulous trade practices that put American businesses at a serious disadvantage. So, when it comes to ensuring that American businesses and workers have a level playing field to compete, anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws are the first line of defense.

But it is not enough to just pass these laws; they need to be enforced. Duties don't work unless they are assessed and collected. But just like some people cheat their way out of taxes, the same is true for foreign supplies and dishonest importers who evade and flout the anti-dumping and countervailing duties that protect American business and workers from grievous economic harm.

These suppliers and importers are what I call trade cheats.

You see, under U.S. trade laws, when a certain import is found to be unfairly traded, that is, it benefits from government subsidies or is sold below market prices, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposes additional duties on these imports. These duties, we call them anti- dumping and countervailing duties, or AD/CVD, ensure that American producers are only asked to compete on a playing field that is level.

But we have these trade cheats out there. They cheat American taxpayers out of the revenue that is supposed to be collected on imports, and which is needed to reduce the budget deficit, and they cheat American producers out of business that may otherwise be theirs. In short, the trade cheats steal American jobs and America's treasure.

The trade cheats are increasingly, and brazenly, employing a variety of schemes to evade AD/CVD orders. Sometimes, they hustle their merchandise through foreign ports to claim that it originates from somewhere it doesn't. Other times, the trade cheats will provide fraudulent information' to government authorities at American ports of entry, or they engage in schemes to mislabel and misrepresent imports.

In recognizing this problem, I convened a hearing in the subcommittee on international trade, customs and global competitiveness entitled ``Enforcing America's Trade Laws in the Face of Customs Fraud and Duty Evasion'' in May of this year. At this hearing we heard from Senators of both political parties and companies from across this nation about their concerns regarding this lack of enforcement. Others launched their own investigation into the matter.

My own staff on the Finance Subcommittee on Trade, Customs and Competitiveness learned that if often takes Customs and Border Protection, CBP, nearly a year to ask its sister agencies for investigatory help when it is needed and when CBP does refer a case to an outside agency they don't follow-up to ensure that it gets handled. It generally takes several years for the government to conclude an investigation into evasion and reassess the appropriate duties that should have been collected.

Customs and Border Protection, is the nation's frontline defense against unfair trade and is responsible for enforcing U.S. trade remedy laws and collecting AD/CV duties. Yet, if you listen to the concerns of domestic producers, like those who testified at my hearing, timely and effective enforcement of AD/CVD orders remains problematic and AD/CV duty evasion continues, seemingly unabated.

While Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and CBP are dragging their feet to enforce our trade laws, this country's domestic manufacturers are being hammered by foreign trade cheats. It is not like the cheaters wait around to get caught and pay their fines, they disappear long before the so called government watchdogs arrive. ICE and CBP are the two principal American government agencies that are supposed to police this beat. In my view, one of them, CBP, treats allegations of duty evasion like junk mail. The other, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has been more visible on the issue of alleged illegal movie downloads than taking steps to protect tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs that are threatened by unfair trade.

Such lollygagging is not only hurting our domestic producer, it is hurting our country's treasury. U.S. industry sources estimate that approximately

$91 million in AD/CV duties that were supposed to be applied to just four steel products went uncollected as a result of evasion in 2009. This is an amount equal to 30 percent of all AD/CV duties CBP collected that year. With 300 current AD/CVD orders in place on countless products from over 40 countries, the potential for AD/CV duty evasion is vast, and hundreds of millions of AD/CV duties may be unaccounted for. Every penny counts and we have an obligation to the American businesses, and the workers they rely on, to do a better job.

The bill I am introducing today, with Senators Snowe, McCaskill, Blunt, Brown from Ohio, Portman, and Schumer, will go a long way toward empowering the federal government to do a better job to combat the trade cheats and enforce U.S. trade laws. I would like to highlight just a few of the main provisions.

First, the ENFORCE Act would formalize a process by which allegations of evasion are acted on. Because CBP primarily relies on the private sector to identify evasion of AD/CVD, the ENFORCE Act would formalize that process by allowing stakeholders to file a petition alleging evasion and require CBP to initiate an investigation pursuant to the petition within 10 days.

Second, our bill would establish a rapid-response timeline by which CBP would investigate allegations of evasion. The ENFORCE Act would give the CBP 90 days, after an investigation of evasion begins, to make a preliminary determination into whether there is a reason to believe an importer is evading an AD/CVD order. So if an affirmative preliminary determination is made, AD/CV duties would be required to be collected in cash until the investigation is concluded and any entries of subject merchandise would not be liquidated by CBP in order to ensure that the correct amount of duties owed can be collected. CBP would also be required to make a final determination as to whether merchandise subject to an investigation under the bill entered into the U.S. through an evasion scheme within 120 days after CBP has issued a preliminary determination. Flexibilities are added to these timelines for cases that are complex. All of this would put an end to the lollygagging that our domestic producers would desperately like to see ended.

Third, the ENFORCE Act would help facilitate information sharing. Our bill would establish clear instruction and guidelines to promote appropriate information sharing among the various agencies to better combat evasion and protect consumers from unsafe goods. Everyone knows that the more information law enforcement agencies have, the better they are able to do their jobs.

Last and certainly not least, our bill would establish accountability. CBP's broad mandate to facilitate trade, enforce trade remedy laws, and protect national security often leads to inconsistent efforts to combat evasion of the trade remedy laws. The ENFORCE Act would require CBP to provide annual reports to us here in Congress about the effectiveness of its enforcement efforts and the job it is required to do to protect American producers from the harm of unfairly traded imports.

As you can see, this bill presents a common-sense strategy to combat trade cheating and the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty collection. Enforcing U.S. trade laws and combating unfair trade practices must be a central pillar of an economic and trade policy that is designed to promote economic growth and job expansion, especially as we continue to recover from a recession.

I want to take a moment to recognize and thank some terrific colleagues of mine in the Senate that are joining me in introducing this legislation. I thank you, and your staff, for your help and for your efforts. I would also like to thank the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, and the Coalition to Enforce Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Orders for their valuable input. I look forward to more of their input going forward.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and with my friends in the House of Representatives to build support for this initiative and to take action on behalf of American producers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011. This bill would prohibit Federal agencies from collecting or using information about political contributions made by businesses or individuals that seek to do business with the Federal Government. My bill would keep politics out of Federal contracting.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Rules Committee Ranking Member Lamar Alexander, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight Ranking Member Rob Portman, as well as our colleagues Senators Scott Brown, Ron Johnson, Jerry Moran, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, John Cornyn, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, John Thune, John Barrasso, Roger Wicker, Mike Johanns, Dan Coats, Roy Blunt, and Kelly Ayotte.

We learned in April that the Obama administration was seriously considering requiring Federal agencies to collect information about campaign contributions by companies, some of their employees, and even their directors as a condition of competing for Federal contracts. This is simply shocking. It amounts to intentionally injecting political considerations into the Federal contracting process. What possible good can come from linking political information to a process which must be grounded solely and unequivocally on providing the very best value to American taxpayers?

The trust of the American people in the integrity of our Federal contract award process depends on ensuring that the government's ``best value'' determination is free from political bias. It is unfathomable that this administration would even consider a move that would inject politics into the process, or create a perception that politics is something to be considered in selecting the winners and losers among businesses vying for Federal contracts.

In addition to threatening the integrity of the procurement process, the draft Executive Order would also chill the First Amendment rights of individuals to contribute to the political causes or candidates they choose.

Were the President to issue such an order, undoubtedly we would see a chilling effect on political activity. Many contractors would fear that the success or viability of their business could be threatened if they support the causes or candidates opposed by the administration.

If the collection of such data were required, American businesses would be forced to think twice before contributing to political candidates or causes.

In true Orwellian fashion, the draft executive order suggests that the only way to keep politics out of the contracting process is to include political information with every contract offer. If the White House gets its way, Federal agencies would have to collect information about the campaign contributions and other political expenditures of potential contractors before any contract could be awarded.

This EO would be far reaching and would apply not only to contributions made by the contracting company but also to those made by its directors, officers, and affiliates.

These requirements would also apply retroactively to contributions made two years before the submission of an offer. Just think about-- political donations made years before a contract is even contemplated would have to be shared with government officials.

By contrast, my bill reaffirms the fundamental principle that federal contracts should be awarded free from political considerations and be based on the best value to the taxpayers. Specifically, the bill would prohibit a Federal agency from collecting the political information of contractors and their employees as part of any type of request for proposal in anticipation of any type of contract.

It would prohibit the agency from using political information received from any source as a factor in the source selection decision process for new contracts, or in making decisions related to modifications or extensions of existing contracts; and prohibit databases designed to be used by contracting officers to determine the responsibility of bidders from including political information, except for information on contractors' violations already permitted by law.

Whether or not a prospective contractor agrees with the political views of this or any other administration should be completely irrelevant.

Businesses that have supported conservative causes or whose directors have contributed to Republican candidates should not have to fear that bidding for Federal work would be a waste of their effort.

Similarly, in the next Republican administration, contributors to Democratic causes and candidates should not be intimidated from competing for contracts. The result of such considerations would be less competition for Federal contracts and thus higher prices for goods and services procured by the Federal Government.

The President and the Federal contracting system must not discourage businesses from competing for government contracts. At a time when the budget is under severe constraints, the administration should be seeking to expand the pool of bidders, not shrink it.

In April, 27 Senators wrote to the President to express our opposition to this ill-conceived proposal. We pointed out that ``political activity would obviously be chilled if prospective contractors have to fear that their livelihood could be threatened if the causes they support are disfavored by the Administration. No White House should be able to review your political party affiliation or the causes you support before deciding if you are worthy of a government contract. And no American should have to worry about whether his or her political activities or support will affect the ability to get or keep a federal contract * * *''

I also joined three other colleagues in a bipartisan letter to the President in May stressing the Executive Order's impact on the Federal contracting process and the already stretched-thin Federal acquisition workforce.

I have not received a response to either letter.

It simply doesn't pass the straight face test for this administration to suggest that this dramatic change in federal contracting is needed to remove politics from the contracting process. In fact, even the administration's chief procurement official recently admitted at a House hearing that there was no evidence of any problem of political corruption in the contracting process that would warrant correction with this type of new Executive Order.

The reality is just the opposite: requiring disclosure of one's political activities and leanings as part of that process would likely ensure that politics would play a role in the award of federal contracts.

If more transparency is truly the goal, why don't these requirements also apply to organizations receiving Federal grants?

In fact, campaign contributions to candidates and political committees already are required to be reported to the

Federal Election Commission, and with a click of a mouse, can be viewed on FEC.gov.

Americans should get the best value in the marketplace and not a partisan policy that stifles First Amendment rights, politicizes the contracting process, and reduces competition in Federal contracting. I am pleased to note that my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives Darrell Issa, Tom Cole, and Sam Graves agree. Today they have introduced an identical measure in that chamber. And last night, the House adopted an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would prohibit Federal agencies from requiring contractors to reveal contributions to political campaigns.

Keep politics out of Federal contracting. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2011.

As we all know, the Department of Veterans Affairs strives to provide the best possible health care for our nation's heroes. However, it has come to my attention that the quality of care provided to our nation's veterans remains inconsistent among community-based outpatient clinics. Some of these clinics are operated by private health care providers under VA contracts. These VA-contracted health care providers are compensated for their work at community-based outpatient clinics on a capitated basis, which means they are essentially paid based on how many new veterans they see during a pay period. These firms are therefore rewarded for the number of veterans they sign up, not for the quality of treatment provided to our veterans. While I am not opposed to capitation per se, I am concerned current VA policy provides contractors with the wrong incentives. Contracted health care providers should have incentives to provide the best possible care for veterans, not simply get as many veterans as possible through their doors.

As a result of the capitated system, it has been reported that too many of our nation's heroes have faced difficulties at these clinics in scheduling appointments, have suffered from neglect or have received substandard health care. This occurred under the last administration and I am concerned it may be continuing in the current one.

As such, I am reintroducing the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, which attempts to fix the way VA-contracted health care providers are compensated at clinics. This bill would require the VA to begin to introduce a pay-for-performance compensation plan for contractors, thereby gradually incentivizing a higher quality of care for veterans seen at privately-administered community-based outpatient clinics.

This bill gives the VA the flexibility to begin to implement such a system through a pilot program and leaves the VA the discretion as to how to adopt and best implement the pay-for-performance standards. In this respect, the bill defers to the VA on how best to execute these changes. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, McCain and Durbin, to introduce renewal of sanctions against the military junta in Burma.

The casual observer could be excused for thinking that things have changed for the better in Burma over the past year. After all, elections were held last fall, a ``new'' regime took office earlier this year, Aung San Suu Kyi was freed and the lead Burmese general Than Shwe seemed to retire from political life. However, in Burma as is so often the case, things are not what they seem. And that is certainly the case here.

First, the elections that were held in November took place without the benefit of international election monitors. All reputable observers termed the elections not to be free or fair. This was in large part because the National League for Democracy, NLD, Suu Kyi's party and the overwhelming winner of the last free elections in the country in 1990, was effectively banned by the junta and could not participate in the election. There were restrictions placed on how other political parties could form and campaign. No criticism of the junta could be voiced. And the results were unsurprising: the regime's handpicked candidates won big and the democratic opposition was largely sidelined.

Second, the new regime is essentially the junta with only the thinnest democratic veneer pulled over it. The Constitution, which places great power in the military as it is, cannot be amended without the blessing of the armed forces. Those in parliament are limited in how they can criticize the regime. Moreover, sitting atop these new institutions is rumored to be a shadowy panel known as the State Supreme Council, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and which is led by, you guessed it, the military.

The only legitimately good news of late was the freeing of Suu Kyi. I was fortunate enough to be able to speak with her for the first time earlier this year. Yet, the extent of her freedom remains open to question. She was, of course, freed only following the sham election. She and her party have also been publicly threatened by the regime; thus, the extent to which she can move about the country or travel overseas remains unclear. Further, more than 2,000 other political prisoners remain behind bars in Burma; they are no better off than before. Neither are the hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons who are without a home due to the repressive policies of the junta.

Finally, it is worth noting that there are growing national security factors that cause one to be even more reluctant than ever to remove sanctions and reward bad behavior. The junta's increasingly close bilateral military relationship with North Korea is a source of much concern in this vein.

For all of these reasons, I believe the sanctions that are in place should remain until true democratic reform has been instituted. That is the position of Suu Kyi herself and of the NLD. It is also the position of the Obama administration. In a State Department letter dated April 27, the State Department states that ``in the absence of meaningful reforms, the U.S. government should maintain its sanctions on Burma.'' As Suu Kyi herself recently stated, ``[s]o far'' there hasn't been ``any meaningful change'' since the November elections.

We should not be fooled by the transparent efforts of the regime. It is merely trying to get out from under the international cloud of sanctions, without making true changes in how it governs itself, treats its people and interacts with the rest of the world.

It is my hope that my colleagues will once again renew this bipartisan measure that in 2010 enjoyed the support of 68 Senate cosponsors and was adopted 99-1. The bill is identical to last year's in that it does the following: continues the ban on imports from Burma into the U.S., including products containing rubies and jadeite; authorizes the freezing of assets against a number of Burmese leaders; prevents the U.S. from supporting loans for Burma in international financial institutions; prohibits the issuance of visas to junta officials; and limits the use of correspondent accounts that may facilitate services for the regime's leaders. These measures would remain in place until the regime undertakes meaningful steps toward democratization and reconciliation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, earlier this month, the President requested that Congress provide a limited exception to the statutory limit on the service of the FBI Director in order to allow Robert Mueller to continue his service for up to two additional years, until September 2013. I spoke with the President about his request, and understand his desire for continuity and stability in our national security leadership team at a time of great challenge and heightened threat concerns.

On May 12, the President explained in a statement: ``Given the ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership transitions at other agencies like the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, I believe continuity and stability at the FBI is critical at this time.'' It is for that reason, along with his confidence in Director Mueller, that the President has made this request of us. The President has asked us ``to join together in extending that leadership for the sake of our nation's safety and security.''

Since the attack on September 11, 2001, I have spoken often of the need for us all to join together. When I spoke to the Senate about the successful operation against Osama bin Laden, I urged all Americans to support our President in his continuing efforts to protect our Nation and keep Americans safe. I reiterated my hope that Americans would stand shoulder-to-shoulder, as we did in the weeks and months immediately following the September 11 attacks, unified in our resolve to keep our Nation secure. And I urged Congress to join together for the good of the country and all Americans. This is one of those times that we must join together.

We face a time of heightened threats, particularly when experts are so concerned about possible reprisal attacks by al Qaeda. Indeed, most Americans share a concern that al Qaeda will try to strike back. So now is not a time for obstruction or delay in considering the President's request to maintain continuity and stability in his national security team.

We have an opportunity now to set aside partisanship and come together to work with our President to keep America safe. While the threat from al Qaeda continues, and as the President makes necessary shifts in his national security team, I appreciate why President Obama has proposed that we continue the service of President Bush's appointee to the important leadership position of Director of the FBI. I appreciate Director Mueller's willingness to continue in service to the Nation. This was not Bob Mueller's idea or request. This is the President's request and, as a patriotic American, Director Mueller is willing to give another two years in service to a grateful Nation.

The Bureau has seen significant transformation since September 11, 2001. Director Mueller has handled this evolution with professionalism and focus. The FBI plays a critical role in our efforts to protect national security. Attorney General Holder said recently: ``The United States faces ongoing threats from terrorist intent on attacking us both at home and abroad, and it is crucial that the FBI have sustained, strong leadership to confront that threat.'' He is right.

I was encouraged to see the reports that Senator McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, supports the President's request. I appreciate the comments by Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee, supporting the President's decision, and stating his agreement that ``it is important to maintain continuity for our intelligence community during this transition period.''

I am pleased that Senator Grassley, our ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has joined as a cosponsor of a bill to extend the service of Director Mueller, who Senator Grassley said has ``proven his ability to run the FBI'' in these ``extraordinary times.'' I am also pleased that Senators Feinstein and Chambliss, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are joining as cosponsors of the bill. We recognize the extraordinary circumstances confronting the President, and support his request for a short extension of Director Mueller's service. But we also all agree that this needs to be a one-time exception and this measure we join together to introduce today is intended to be a one-time exception and not a permanent extension.

I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001 when President Bush nominated Bob Mueller. The President nominated him on July 18; the Judiciary Committee received his paperwork on July 24; and we held two days of hearings on July 30 and July 31. The Judiciary Committee voted on his nomination on August 2 and the Senate confirmed him that same day. It is already as long from the day that President Obama made his request for the short extension of his term of service as it took us in 2001 to hold hearings and for the Senate to confirm Bob Mueller to a 10-year term as FBI Director. We must not delay action any longer.

Bob Mueller served for three years in the United States Marine Corps; led a rifle platoon in Vietnam; and earned a Bronze Star, two Navy Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. This is a man who served as the United States Attorney in both Massachusetts and Northern California, as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, and the acting Deputy Attorney General at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration. This is a man who left a lucrative position in private practice to return to law enforcement after he had served in higher positions, by joining the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of Columbia as a line prosecutor in the homicide section.

The President could have nominated the next director of the FBI, someone who could serve for the next 10 years, until 2021. That is someone who would serve through the presidential elections in 2012, 2016 and 2020, and into the period long after his own presidency. Instead, he has chosen to ask Congress to extend the term of service of a proven leader for a brief period, given the extenuating circumstances facing our country.

I emphasize that this is not Bob Mueller's request, it is the President's. Bob Mueller has served tirelessly and selflessly for 10 years, and is undoubtedly ready to begin the next phase of his life. But Bob has characteristically answered duty's call and indicated his willingness to continue his service. We should fulfill our duty, as well, and join together without delay to secure the continuity and stability that is demanded at this time, and that is needed to keep our country safe. It is time for us to join together and act on the President's request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.