[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4871-S4879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 984. A bill to amend the Exchange Rates and International Economic
Policy Coordination Act of 1988 to clarify the definition of
manipulation with respect to currency, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of
currency policies and to offer a bill, the Fair Currency Practices Act
of 2005, that will address key concerns regarding the Treasury
Department's statutory review and reporting requirements on currency
manipulation. In particular, this bill strengthens Treasury's hand in
addressing currency manipulation, including the current practices of
countries such as China.
Through the practice of pegging its currency to the dollar, China
artificially maintains the yuan, at 8.28 per dollar. While economists
differ over the extent that China's currency is undervalued, it is
often estimated to be undervalued by as much as fifteen to forty
percent, rendering Chinese manufactured goods cheaper in the U.S.--and
U.S. manufactured goods more expensive in China.
China's deliberate and unfair currency practices have contributed to
our Nation's trade deficit with China, reaching a record $162 billion
last year. The yuan's undervaluation has had a profound impact on our
Nation's manufacturing sector--particularly on U.S. manufacturing
employment.
As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Co-Chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing,
and a Senator from a State with a rich history in manufacturing, I am
keenly aware of this issue's importance. Indeed, our manufacturers--who
are integral to our economic security and national defense--
unjustifiably struggle to compete with countries that disregard their
international obligations.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a
report today, which focuses on China's exchange rate problem. In the
report, the Commission notes that foreign exchange markets are sending
clear signals that China should revalue its yuan, and that in recent
years all major currencies have adjusted upward with the exception of
China's. The Commission explains that an appreciation of foreign
currencies is needed to help correct the U.S. current account deficit.
In the report, the Commission discusses the value of improving the
process by which the Treasury Department assesses and reports upon the
issue of foreign countries' currency manipulation. The legislation that
I offer today, which is cosponsored by Senator Dole, makes substantial
improvements to that process.
Chair Manzullo, my counterpart in the House of Representatives is
offering this bill today in the House. I thank him for his leadership
on issues affecting our Nation's small businesses, and particularly for
his efforts on behalf of our Nation's manufacturers.
Specifically, the legislation amends the Exchange Rates and Economic
Policy Coordination Act of 1988, to clarify that a country is
manipulating its currency if it is engaged in ``protracted large-scale
intervention in one direction in the exchange market.''
The legislation also amends the 1988 Act to eliminate the necessity
that a country have both a material global current account surplus and
a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States, before
the Secretary of the Treasury is required to enter into negotiations
with the offending country to end its unfair practices. The change
requires such negotiations if there is either a material global current
account surplus or a significant bilateral trade surplus with the
United States.
Currently, the Treasury Department, the International Monetary Fund,
and others rely largely upon suspect Chinese data in determining
China's trade balance with other countries. The legislation's final
provision instructs the Treasury Department to undertake an exercise
examining China's trade surplus. The investigation would include an
analysis of why China's reported trade surplus with the U.S. and other
countries differs from that reported by China's trading partners. The
legislation requires that the Treasury Department submit a report of
its investigation to Congress.
Representative Manzullo and I will continue to collaborate on
addressing unfair currency practices by offending countries. We Are
both well aware of the negative effects these practices have on our
Nation's small businesses. One of our combined efforts commissioned a
General Accounting Office study which examined issues related to
foreign government manipulation of world currency markets. That study
is expected to be released soon.
As in the past, I will continue to strive to draw greater attention
to the effects of China's currency practices
[[Page S4872]]
and to find solutions that enable our domestic industries to compete on
a level and fair playing field.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and that a section-
by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 984
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Currency Practices Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL
POLICY.
(a) Bilateral Negotiations.--Section 3004(b) of the
Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination
Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended in the second
sentence by striking ``and (2)'' and inserting ``or (2)''.
(b) Definition of Manipulation.--Section 3006 of the
Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination
Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5306) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(3) Manipulation of rate of exchange.--For purposes of
this Act, a country shall be considered to be manipulating
the rate of exchange between its currency and the United
States dollar if there is a protracted large-scale
intervention in one direction in the exchange markets. The
Secretary may find that a country is manipulating the rate of
exchange based on any other factor or combination of
factors.''.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
undertake an examination, and submit a report to Congress,
regarding the trade surplus of the People's Republic of
China. The Secretary shall examine why the trade surplus with
the United States and other countries reported by the
People's Republic of China differs from the trade surplus
reported by the other countries. The report shall also
quantify the differences between the trade surplus reported
by the United States and other countries and what is reported
by the People's Republic of China.
Legislation Addressing China's Currency Manipulation
Background: The Exchange Rates and International Economic
Policy Coordination Act of 1998 (the 1998 Act) requires that
Treasury regularly make a determination of whether countries
are manipulating the rate of exchange between their currency
and the U.S. dollar for purposes of preventing effective
balance of payments adjustments or gaining an unfair
competitive advantage in international trade. If the
Secretary of Treasury considers that such manipulation is
occurring with respect to countries that (1) have material
global current account surpluses; and (2) have significant
bilateral trade surpluses with the United States, the
Secretary is required to take action to initiate negotiations
with such foreign countries on an expedited basis.
Section 1--Short Title--This Act will be known as the Fair
Currency Practices Act of 2005.
Section 2--Amendments Relating to International Financial
Policy.
(a)--Amends the Trade Act to eliminate the necessity that a
country have both a material global current account surplus
AND a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United
States, before the Secretary of the Treasury is required to
enter into negotiations with the offending country to end its
unfair practices. The change requires such negotiations if
there is either a material global current account surplus OR
a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States.
Reasoning: Under current law, even if manipulation was
found, Treasury would not be required to act unless the
offending country has a significant bilateral trade surplus
with the U.S. AND a material global current account surplus.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
recommended in its 2004 Report to Congress that the material
global current account surplus condition not be required.
(b)--Amends the 1988 Act to clarify that a country engaged
in ``protracted large-scale intervention in one direction in
the exchange market'' is manipulating its currency. This
language derives from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF)
Principles for Fund Surveillance Over Exchange Rate Policies.
Reasoning: Treasury repeatedly fails to make a
determination that China is manipulating its currency and the
Trade Act does not specifically define ``manipulating.'' This
provision clarifies that a country engaged in ``protracted
large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange
market'' is manipulating its currency. The provision does not
preclude the Secretary of Treasury from finding a country to
be manipulating its rate of exchange based on any other
factor or combination of factors.
(c)--Requires that Treasury undertake an examination of
China's trade surplus and report on its findings. The
Department of Treasury should investigate why China's
reported trade surplus with the U.S. and other countries
differs from that reported by the trading partner countries.
The report should quantify these differences so that policy
makers will be better able to understand the facts behind
China's trade surplus.
Reasoning: Treasury and the IMF use official Chinese
statistics when determining China's global current account
and trade balances. China's global current account and trade
balance statistics differ markedly from the aggregate
statistics of its trading partners. This results in an
inaccurate depiction of China's true surplus, which is
presumably much larger than reported by China.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Cochran):
S. 985. A bill to establish kinship navigator programs, to establish
kinship guardianship assistance payments for children, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Kinship
Caregiver Support Act with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia
Snowe. I would like to acknowledge Senators Tim Johnson and Thad
Cochran who are original co-sponsors of this legislation.
Over the weekend, America celebrated Mother's Day, a special day when
we honored our mothers, whose love and nurturing sustains us throughout
our lives. Mother's Day offers a wonderful opportunity to honor the
millions of mothers who offer the gifts of love and nurturing for
children in need. They give so much to the most vulnerable among us,
and too often they go unnoticed and unthanked. Many of these women earn
the title of Mother not through biology, but by their unconditional
love for children.
In New York alone, more than 500,000 children are cared for by non-
parent relative caregivers. Nationwide, grandparents head 4.5 million
households and other relatives head another 1.5 million households.
Linda James of Rochester, NY is one such mother. She became a second-
time mother at the age of 41 when her granddaughter Jasmine was born
prematurely and her daughter, Jasmine's mother, was unable to care for
her daughter. When the hospital needed authorization to perform an
emergency operation on tiny Jasmine, Linda stepped in and assumed
responsibility. Since that day, Linda has been Jasmine's only resource
for stability and happiness.
Over time, Linda, like many relative caregivers, faced many
challenges as she tried to raise Jasmine. Simple tasks such as
enrolling her in school and securing health insurance were daunting
because she had trouble finding basic information about how to approach
the process. Linda made many sacrifices to ensure Jasmine's success,
even taking a leave of absence from her job so she could give Jasmine
the constant medical attention she required, but she often felt like
the cards were stacked against her. Emotionally, physically, and
financially, the experience of raising little Jasmine was nothing short
of exhausting.
Kinship caregivers like Linda are often the best chance for a loving
and stable childhood for the children in their care, but Federal law
does little to support these families. In fact, unless a child's
parents relinquish their parental rights, and the relative caregivers
become adoptive parents, kinship caregivers are no different from
strangers in the eyes of Federal law.
In these sad cases, children often linger in foster care
unnecessarily while a stable, permanent, loving option is overlooked.
That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing The Kinship Caregiver
Support Act. This proposal will provide relative caregivers with the
information and assistance they need to thrive as non-traditional
families. This bill will link kinship families with localized
information about the services and support available to them. By
creating one-stop centers for kinship caregivers, this bill will
provide essential support that will keep these families afloat. This
legislation will also allow States to use their Federal foster care
funds to provide kinship caregiver assistance payments for children
languishing in foster care while a kinship caregiver stands ready to
step in.
At this time of year, when we remember and honor our mothers, let us
also remember the contributions that unconventional mothers make,
mothers who each and every day go above and beyond the call of duty to
help some of the most vulnerable of our children.
[[Page S4873]]
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 987. A bill to restore safety to Indian women; to the Committee on
Indian Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Restoring
Safety to Indian Women Act'' and I look forward to working with the
Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that the provisions of this bill
are given consideration, particularly as the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act moves forward. I also wish to thank Senator
Byron Dorgan for co-sponsoring this legislation and for his dedication
to addressing the health and welfare needs of Indian tribes.
This legislation creates a new Federal criminal offense authorizing
Federal prosecutors to charge repeat domestic violence offenders before
they seriously injure or kill someone and to use tribal court
convictions for domestic violence for that purpose. It authorizes the
creation of tribal criminal history databases to document these
convictions and protection orders for use by all law enforcement. The
bill authorizes BIA and tribal officers to make arrests for domestic
violence assaults committed outside of their presence and would
authorizes a comprehensive study of domestic violence in Indian Country
to determine its impact to Indian tribes.
The 1994 Violence Against Women Act has had a tremendous impact on
raising the national awareness of domestic violence and providing
communities, including Indian tribes, the resources to respond to the
devastating impact of domestic violence. National studies show that one
in four women are victims of domestic violence. Since 1999, the
Department of Justice has issued various studies which report that
Indian women experience the highest rates of domestic violence compared
to all other groups in the United States. These reports state that one
out of every three Indian women are victims of sexual assault; that
from 1979 to 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of
Indian females between the ages of 15 to 34 and that 75 percent of
those deaths were committed by a family member or acquaintance. These
are startling statistics that require our close examination and a
better understanding of how to prevent and respond to domestic violence
in Indian Country.
Domestic violence is a national problem and not one that is unique to
Indian Country. Yet, due to the unique status of Indian tribes, there
are obstacles faced by Indian tribal police, Federal investigators,
tribal and Federal prosecutors and courts that impede their ability to
respond to domestic violence in Indian Country. This bill is intended
to remove these obstacles at all levels and to enhance the ability of
each agency to respond to acts of domestic violence when they occur.
The division of criminal jurisdiction between Federal and tribal law
enforcement and prosecutors working in Indian Country present
challenges. For example, Federal prosecutors prosecute acts of domestic
violence in Indian Country using the Assault or, unfortunately, the
Murder statutes in the Major Crimes Act. These statutes require the
prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was
disfigured, suffered a serious risk of death or was killed before these
felony charges can be filed. Meanwhile, the research has shown that
perpetrators of domestic violence become increasingly more violent over
time. Under the existing statutory scheme, these perpetrators may
escape felony charges until they seriously injure or kill someone.
This bill would create a new Federal offense aimed at the habitual
domestic violence offender and allow tribal court convictions to count
for purposes of Federal felony prosecution when the perpetrator has at
least two separate Federal, State or tribal convictions for crimes
involving assault, sexual abuse or a violent felony against a spouse or
intimate partner. This provision is similar to many state laws that
apply a felony penalty to an individual who commits multiple offenses.
It will empower Indian tribal prosecutors and courts to document
domestic violence cases at the local level and give federal prosecutors
the ability to intervene in the cycle of violence by charging repeat
offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone.
The bill would also encourage the use of existing grants authorized
by the Violence Against Women Act to create tribal criminal history
databases for use by Indian tribes and tribal, State and Federal law
enforcement agencies to document final convictions, stay away orders
and orders of protection issued by tribal courts. As I understand it,
no such database exists today. This database would be used solely as a
law enforcement and court tracking tool. It would enable tribal, State
and Federal law enforcement officers to determine whether an individual
is a habitual domestic violence offender and therefore subject to the
felony crime described above. It also would enhance the implementation
of the criminal provisions that already exist in the Violence Against
Women Act.
All manner of law enforcement agencies report that responding to
domestic violence disturbances are among the most dangerous situations
that a police officer faces. Therefore, many States have enacted
immediate arrest or removal policies that enable responding officers to
diffuse these dangerous situations. Currently, the primary law
enforcement authority for Indian tribes, the BIA police, are only
authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed
in Indian Country if the offense is committed in the presence of the
officer or the offense is a felony. This legislation would expand the
authority of the BIA police, and tribal police agencies that derive
their arrest authority by contract with the BIA, to make an arrest
without a warrant for a domestic violence offense when the officer has
reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested committed the
offense. This arrest authority will enable a responding officer to
diffuse the dangerous situation by arresting the perpetrator. This will
go a long way toward improving public safety for both the officer and
the domestic violence victim.
Finally, while the national data on the rates of violence affecting
Indian women are astounding, we do not know the full extent to which
Indian women residing in Indian Country are impacted by domestic
violence or the impact of domestic violence on Indian tribes. For
example, we know that nationally, domestic violence costs $4.1 billion
each year for direct medical and mental health services and in my own
State of Arizona, last year, police received approximately 100,000
domestic violence calls, but we do not know the extent to which tribal
prevention programs, law enforcement, court or medical intervention
resources are similarly impacted. Therefore, this bill would require
that a comprehensive study be done on the scope of the domestic
violence problem in Indian Country.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Indian Affairs
Committee and the Judiciary Committee to ensure that these statistics
become a record of the past. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 987
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Safety to Indian
Women Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) national studies indicate that Indian women experience
domestic and sexual assaults at a far greater rate than other
groups of women in the national population;
(2) there is relatively little data on the rate of domestic
violence perpetrated upon Indian women in Indian country or
the costs associated with responding to acts of domestic
violence in Indian country;
(3) Indian tribes have criminal jurisdiction to prosecute
Indians who commit violations of tribal law;
(4) the Federal Government has jurisdiction to prosecute
specific enumerated crimes that arise in Indian country under
section 1153 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known
as the Major Crimes Act);
(5) the Major Crimes Act does not include provisions to
provide Federal prosecutors the ability to prosecute domestic
violence assaults unless they rise to the level of serious
bodily injury or death;
(6) national studies conducted by law enforcement
organizations show that domestic violence disturbance calls
are the most dangerous situations and pose the highest risk
to responding law enforcement officers;
[[Page S4874]]
(7) the limited arrest authority of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Indian tribal law enforcement agencies impacts
the ability of law enforcement to properly respond to acts of
domestic violence; and
(8) Federal and tribal prosecutors and law enforcement
services are hampered in their efforts to address domestic
violence by the lack of available criminal history
information for tribal ordinance offenders.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To obtain data on the rates of domestic violence
perpetrated upon Indian women in Indian country.
(2) To close existing gaps in Federal criminal laws to
enable Federal, State, and tribal law enforcement,
prosecution agencies, and courts to address incidents of
domestic violence.
(3) To address the public safety concerns experienced by
tribal police officers that arise in responding to incidents
of domestic violence.
(4) To prevent the serious injury or death of Indian women
subject to domestic violence.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Attorney general.--The term ``Attorney General'' means
the Attorney General of the United States.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Department of the Interior.
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the same
meaning as in section 4 of the Indian Self-determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
SEC. 5. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HABITUAL OFFENDER.
Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 117. Domestic assault by a habitual offender
``(a) Any person who commits a domestic assault within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States or Indian country and who has a final conviction on at
least two separate prior occasions in Federal, State, or
Indian tribal court proceedings for offenses that would be,
if subject to Federal jurisdiction--
``(1) any assault, sexual abuse, or serious violent felony
against a spouse or intimate partner; or
``(2) an offense under chapter 110A,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for a term of not
more than 5 years, or both, except that if substantial bodily
injury results from a violation under this section, the
offender shall be imprisoned for a term of not more than 10
years.
``(b) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `domestic assault' means an assault
committed by a current or former spouse, parent, child, or
guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim
shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating
with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent,
child, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a
spouse, parent, child, or guardian of the victim;
``(2) the term `final conviction' means the final judgment
on a verdict of finding of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a
plea of nolo contendere, but does not include a final
judgment which has been expunged by pardon, reversed, set
aside, or otherwise rendered void;
``(3) the term `order of protection' has the meaning given
to such term by section 2265(b);
``(4) the term `serious violent felony' has the meaning
given to such term by section 3559(c)(2)(F);
``(5) the term `State' has the meaning given to such term
by section 3559(c)(2)G);
``(6) the term `substantial bodily injury' has the meaning
given to such term by section 113(b)(1); and
``(7) the term `sexual abuse' has the meaning given to such
term by section 2242.''.
SEC. 6. ENHANCED ARREST AUTHORITY.
Section 4 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25
U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, or'' and inserting
``; or''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, or'' and inserting
a semi-colon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C)(i) the offense is a misdemeanor offense of domestic
violence (as defined in section 117 of title 18, United
States Code); and
``(ii) the employee has reasonable grounds to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing,
the offense;''.
SEC. 7. CRIMINAL RECORDS DATABASE PILOT PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants
available pursuant to section 2001(b) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg(b)) to
Indian tribes for the development of tribal criminal history
databases to document final convictions of tribal domestic
violence court adjudications, orders of protection, stay away
orders, and such other domestic violence criminal history.
(b) Requirements.--A database developed under subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) final convictions by a tribal court order;
(2) orders of protection that are currently in effect and
meet the requirements of section 2265(b) of title 18, United
States Code;
(3) a means to provide tribal, Federal, and State law
enforcement agencies with access to the information in the
database; and
(4) safeguards to prevent the dissemination of the
information contained therein for other than a criminal
justice or law enforcement purpose.
SEC. 8. STUDY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN INDIAN COUNTRY.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Secretary, the Director of the Indian Health Service, and
Indian tribes, shall conduct a study on the incidents of
domestic violence in Indian country.
(b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) determine the extent of domestic violence in Indian
country and its causes; and
(2) identify obstacles to--
(A) the prevention of incidents of domestic violence;
(B) the appropriate response to incidents of domestic
violence;
(C) adequate treatment for victims of domestic violence;
and
(D) criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenders.
(c) Report .--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall transmit to
Congress a report regarding the study conducted under this
section. This report shall include recommendations, including
legislative recommendations, to address domestic violence in
Indian country.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
Section 2001(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) to develop tribal domestic violence criminal history
databases for use by Indian tribal courts and tribal, State,
and Federal law enforcement officers engaged in a law
enforcement function''.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 990. A bill to provide a grant program to support the
establishment and operation of Teachers Professional Development
Institutes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, legislation that will bolster
the content and pedagogical knowledge of our K-12 teacher workforce.
This measure provides resources and incentives to enlist college and
university faculties in partnerships with public school districts
throughout the Nation in an effort to strengthen public school
instruction.
My proposal will establish, over the next five years, forty new
Teacher Professional Development Institutes in locales throughout the
Nation. Based on the model which has been operating at Yale University
and the City of New Haven for over 25 years, Teacher Professional
Development Institutes consist of partnerships between one or more
institutions of higher education and local, economically disadvantaged
public school systems. These Institutes will strengthen the present
teacher workforce by giving participants an opportunity to gain more
sophisticated content knowledge and instructional skills, and will
provide them a chance to develop--in conjunction with their Institute
colleagues--practical curriculum units that they can implement in their
classrooms and share with their schools and districts.
Since 1978, the Yale-New Haven Institute has offered five to seven
thirteen-session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics
that teachers have selected to enhance their teaching mastery. To begin
the process, teacher representatives from the Institute solicit
teachers throughout the school district for ideas on how to help meet
their perceived needs--for example, improving content area knowledge,
preparing instructional materials, managing the classroom, or
addressing accountability standards. As a consensus emerges regarding
seminar content, the Institute director identifies and enlists
university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest,
and desire to lead the seminar. Because the topics are ultimately
determined by the teachers who participate, seminars offer content
which teachers believe is pertinent, valuable, and practical for both
themselves and their students.
It is, in fact, the cooperative and emergent nature of the Institute
seminar planning process that ensures its success--rigorous topical
instruction
[[Page S4875]]
and relevant materials are provided based on participants' self-
identified needs. Granted the opportunity to examine and act on their
own skills and knowledge, teachers gain a sense of self-sufficiency,
and are more enthusiastic about their participation. Teachers gain
further confidence as they practice using the materials they obtain and
develop among their peers, ensuring that the experience not only
increases their subject-matter proficiency, but also provides immediate
hands-on active learning materials that can be transferred to the
classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar
subjects and providing them the resources to develop curricula relevant
to their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers.
Teachers are the front line--they are the interface between the
educational system and the students it aspires to shape and inform--and
they know what should be done to improve their schools and increase
student achievement. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes
promote this philosophy.
From 1999-2002, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute conducted a
National Demonstration Project to create comparable Institutes at four
diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students.
These demonstration projects were located in Pittsburgh, PA; Houston,
TX; Albuquerque, NM; and Santa Ana, CA. Based on the success of that
Project, the Institute has launched the Yale National Initiative--a
long-term endeavor to establish exemplary Teachers Institutes in states
throughout the nation, just as the legislation I have introduced would
do.
Follow-up evaluations have garnered encouraging reactions from
teachers who have participated both in the Yale-New Haven Institute and
in the demonstration Institutes. These data strongly support the
conclusions that virtually all teachers felt substantially strengthened
in their mastery of content knowledge and that they developed increased
expectations for students' achievement. Further, because of their
personal involvement in the course selection and curriculum development
process, teacher participants have found these seminars to be
especially relevant and useful in their classroom practices--in fact,
ninety-five percent of all participating teachers reported them to be
beneficial. Finally, study results have found that these Institutes
foster teacher leadership, develop supportive teacher networks,
heighten university faculty commitments to improving K-12 public
education, and create more positive partnerships between school
districts and institutions of higher education--something I believe is
essential to improving students' readiness for college.
Several studies assert that teacher quality is the single most
important school-related factor in determining student achievement.
Accordingly, the No Child Left Behind Act requires a ``highly
qualified'' teacher to be in every classroom by the end of the 2005-
2006 academic year. Effective teacher professional development programs
that focus on content area and pedagogical knowledge are proven means
of enhancing the success of classroom teachers and helping to meet the
``highly qualified'' criteria. Yet, a 2003 Government Accountability
Office Report on Teacher Quality found that many state and local school
districts view shortcomings in their current professional development
practices as a significant barrier to meeting this requirement. These
local agencies are looking for innovative, research-proven alternatives
to their current programs, and this is precisely what Teacher
Professional Development Institutes will provide.
Nationwide, projects developed to conform to the Yale-New Haven
Institute model have proven to be successful in providing innovative
teacher professional development. Virtually all teacher participants
felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge
and their teaching skills. My proposal would open this opportunity to
many more urban teachers and would provide high quality professional
development to educators and policy makers throughout the Nation. In
this way, we can set high standards for effective teacher professional
development as we have done for student achievement outcomes.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Teachers Professional
Development Institutes Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 990
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TEACHERS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTES.
Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1021 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART C--TEACHERS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTES
``SEC. 241. SHORT TITLE.
``This part may be cited as the `Teachers Professional
Development Institutes Act'.
``SEC. 242. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) Ongoing, subject-specific teacher professional
development is essential to improved student learning.
``(2) The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 calls for a
highly qualified teacher in every core-subject classroom;
attaining this goal will require innovative and effective
approaches to improving the quality of teaching.
``(3) The Teachers Institute Model is an innovative and
proven approach that encourages collaboration between urban
school teachers and university faculty. The model focuses on
teachers' continuing academic preparation and on the personal
and collaborative application of their studies in their
classrooms, schools, and districts.
``(4) The Teachers Institute Model has a proven record, as
demonstrated by the success of a 3-year national
demonstration pilot project (referred to in this part as the
`National Demonstration Project') in several United States
cities.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this part is to provide
Federal assistance to support the establishment and operation
of Teachers Professional Development Institutes for local
educational agencies that serve significant low-income
populations in States throughout the Nation--
``(1) to improve student learning; and
``(2) to enhance the quality of teaching by strengthening
the subject matter mastery and pedagogical skills of current
teachers through continuing teacher preparation.
``SEC. 243. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act) applicable
to a family of the size involved.
``(2) Significant low-income population.--The term
`significant low-income population' means a student
population of which not less than 25 percent are from
families with incomes below the poverty line.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(4) Teachers professional development institute.--The
term `Teachers Professional Development Institute' means a
partnership or joint venture between or among 1 or more
institutions of higher education, and 1 or more local
educational agencies serving a significant low-income
population, which partnership or joint venture--
``(A) is entered into for the purpose of improving the
quality of teaching and learning through collaborative
seminars designed to enhance both the subject matter and the
pedagogical resources of the seminar participants; and
``(B) works in collaboration to determine the direction and
content of the collaborative seminars.
``SEC. 244. GRANT AUTHORITY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized--
``(1) to award grants to Teachers Professional Development
Institutes to encourage the establishment and operation of
Teachers Professional Development Institutes; and
``(2) to provide technical assistance, either directly or
through existing Teachers Professional Development
Institutes, to assist local educational agencies and
institutions of higher education in preparing to establish
and in operating Teachers Professional Development
Institutes.
``(b) Selection Criteria.--In selecting a Teachers
Professional Development Institute for a grant under this
part, the Secretary shall consider--
``(1) the extent to which the proposed Teachers
Professional Development Institute will serve a community
with a significant low-income population;
``(2) the extent to which the proposed Teachers
Professional Development Institute will follow the
Understandings and Necessary Procedures that have been
developed following the National Demonstration Project;
``(3) the extent to which the local educational agency
participating in the proposed Teachers Professional
Development Institute has a high percentage of teachers who
are unprepared or under prepared to teach the core academic
subjects the teachers are assigned to teach; and
[[Page S4876]]
``(4) the extent to which the proposed Teachers
Professional Development Institute will receive a level of
support from the community and other sources that will ensure
the requisite long-term commitment for the success of a
Teachers Professional Development Institute.
``(c) Consultation.--
``(1) In general.--In evaluating applications under
subsection (b), the Secretary may request the advice and
assistance of existing Teachers Professional Development
Institutes.
``(2) State agencies.--If the Secretary receives 2 or more
applications for new Teachers Professional Development
Institutes that propose serving the same State, the Secretary
shall consult with the State educational agency regarding the
applications.
``(d) Fiscal Agent.--For the purpose of this part, an
institution of higher education participating in a Teachers
Professional Development Institute shall serve as the fiscal
agent for the receipt of grant funds under this part.
``(e) Limitations.--A grant under this part--
``(1) shall be awarded for a period not to exceed 5 years;
and
``(2) shall not exceed 50 percent of the total costs of the
eligible activities, as determined by the Secretary.
``SEC. 245. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.
``(a) In General.--A Teachers Professional Development
Institute that receives a grant under this part may use the
grant funds--
``(1) for the planning and development of applications for
the establishment of Teachers Professional Development
Institutes;
``(2) to provide assistance to existing Teachers
Professional Development Institutes established during the
National Demonstration Project to enable the Teachers
Professional Development Institutes--
``(A) to further develop existing Teachers Professional
Development Institutes; or
``(B) to support the planning and development of
applications for new Teachers Professional Development
Institutes;
``(3) for the salary and necessary expenses of a full-time
director to plan and manage such Teachers Professional
Development Institute and to act as liaison between the
participating local educational agency and institution of
higher education;
``(4) to provide suitable office space, staff, equipment,
and supplies, and to pay other operating expenses for the
development and maintenance of Teachers Professional
Development Institutes;
``(5) to provide stipends for teachers participating in
collaborative seminars in the sciences and humanities, and to
provide remuneration for those members of the higher
education faculty who lead the seminars; and
``(6) to provide for the dissemination through print and
electronic means of curriculum units prepared in conjunction
with Teachers Professional Development Institutes seminars.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may use not more
than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to carry out this
part to provide technical assistance to facilitate the
establishment and operation of Teachers Professional
Development Institutes. For the purpose of this subsection,
the Secretary may contract with existing Teachers
Professional Development Institutes to provide all or a part
of the technical assistance under this subsection.
``SEC. 246. APPLICATION, APPROVAL, AND AGREEMENT.
``(a) In General.--To receive a grant under this part, a
Teachers Professional Development Institute shall submit an
application to the Secretary that--
``(1) meets the requirement of this part and any
regulations under this part;
``(2) includes a description of how the Teachers
Professional Development Institute intends to use funds
provided under the grant;
``(3) includes such information as the Secretary may
require to apply the criteria described in section 244(b);
``(4) includes measurable objectives for the use of the
funds provided under the grant; and
``(5) contains such other information and assurances as the
Secretary may require.
``(b) Approval.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) promptly evaluate an application received for a grant
under this part; and
``(2) notify the applicant within 90 days of the receipt of
a completed application of the Secretary's approval or
disapproval of the application.
``(c) Agreement.--Upon approval of an application, the
Secretary and the Teachers Professional Development Institute
shall enter into a comprehensive agreement covering the
entire period of the grant.
``SEC. 247. REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS.
``(a) Report.--Each Teachers Professional Development
Institute receiving a grant under this part shall report
annually on the progress of the Teachers Professional
Development Institute in achieving the purpose of this part
and the purposes of the grant.
``(b) Evaluation and Dissemination.--
``(1) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate the
activities funded under this part and submit an annual report
regarding the activities to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives.
``(2) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall broadly
disseminate successful practices developed by Teachers
Professional Development Institutes.
``(c) Revocation.--If the Secretary determines that a
Teachers Professional Development Institute is not making
substantial progress in achieving the purpose of this part
and the purposes of the grant by the end of the second year
of the grant under this part, the Secretary may take
appropriate action, including revocation of further payments
under the grant, to ensure that the funds available under
this part are used in the most effective manner.
``SEC. 248. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part--
``(1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(4) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
``(5) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.''.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Akaka):
S. 991. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to limit the availability of benefits under an
employer's nonqualified deferred compensation plans in the event that
any of the employer's defined benefit pension plans are subjected to a
distress or PBGC termination in connection with bankruptcy
reorganization or a conversion to a cash balance plan, to provide
appropriate funding restrictions in connection with the maintenance of
nonqualified deferred compensation plans, and to provide for
appropriate disclosure with respect to nonqualified deferred
compensation plans; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Pension Fairness and Full Disclosure
Act we are introducing today is urgently needed to end the nightmare
that the current pension system is becoming for millions of families
across the Nation.
Thousands of flight attendants and machinists from United Airlines
have suffered heavily in pay and job security in recent years, and now
they're losing their pensions, too. Yet corporate CEO's are still
receiving bonuses worth millions of dollars a year.
This nightmare is happening to workers all across America. Companies
are cutting employees' pensions by switching to cash balance plans, or
even going into bankruptcy. But executive retirement is still going
through the roof. A recent report found over 20 percent of America's
top 500 largest companies have promised pensions worth more than $1
million a year for their CEOs.
President Bush has said that what is good for the top floor is good
for the shop floor. It's wrong for it to be business as usual on the
top floor when so much pain is spreading on the shop floor.
Polaroid in Massachusetts filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and terminated
its pension plan in 2002. Its pension plan was underfunded by over $300
million dollars. Thousands of retirees had their benefits cut when the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation took over. Yet the principal
executives of the company received millions of dollars in bonuses. Last
week, the company was sold again, and the chairman and CEO received
golden parachutes of nearly $10 million each.
The bill we are introducing will end that injustice. It prohibits
companies from lining executives' pockets and ignoring commitments to
rank-and-file workers. It will require companies to inform employees
about executive compensation.
These changes are long overdue. It's an issue of basic fairness, and
only Congress can solve this.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 992. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate the
consumptive demand exception relating to the importation of goods made
with forced labor; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am proposing to strike the
consumptive demand clause from Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1307). Section 307 prohibits the importation of any product
or good produced with forced or indentured labor including forced or
indentured child labor.
The consumptive demand clause creates an exception to this
prohibition. Under the exception, if a product is not made in the
United States, and there is a demand for it, then a product made with
forced or indentured child labor may be imported into this country.
[[Page S4877]]
Let us be clear: forced or indentured labor means work which is
extracted from any person under the menace of penalty for
nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself
voluntarily. Let us be really clear: this means slave labor. In the
case of children, it means child slavery.
Some examples of goods that are made with child slave labor include
cocoa beans, hand-knotted carpets, beedis, which are small Indian
cigarettes, soccer balls and cotton.
Throughout my Senate career, I have worked to reduce the use of
forced child labor worldwide.
In 2003, my staff was invited by Customs to meet with field agents on
Section 307 to discuss what appropriations were needed to enforce the
statute. At the meeting, the field agents reported that the consumptive
demand clause was an obstacle to their ability to enforce the law that
is supposed to prevent goods made with slave labor from being imported
into the United States.
The consumptive demand clause is outdated. Since this exception was
enacted in the 1930s, the U.S. has taken numerous steps to stop the
scourge of child slave labor. Most notably, the United States has
ratified International Labor Organization's Convention 182 to Prohibit
the Worst forms of Child Labor. Currently, 152 other countries have
also ratified this ILO Convention.
Retaining the consumptive clause contradicts our international
commitments to eliminate abusive child labor. Maintaining the
consumptive demand clause says to the world that the United States
justifies the use of slave labor, if US consumers need an item not
produced in this country. There should be no exception to a fundamental
stand against the use of slave labor. it is my hope that Congress will
act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 992
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GOODS MADE WITH FORCED OR INDENTURED LABOR.
(a) In General.--The second sentence of section 307 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) is amended by striking
``; but in no case'' and all that follows to the end period.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 993. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose
an excise tax on amounts received under certain insurance policies in
which certain exempt organizations hold an interest; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the bill imposes an excise tax, equal to
100 percent of the acquisition costs, on the taxable acquisition of any
interest in an applicable insurance contract. An applicable insurance
contract is any life insurance, annuity or endowment contract in which
both an applicable exempt organization and any person that is not an
applicable exempt organization have, directly or indirectly, held an
interest in the contract (whether or not the interests are held at the
same time).
An applicable exempt organization generally includes an organization
that is exempt from Federal income tax by reason of being described in
section 501(c)(3) (including one organized outside the United States),
a government or political subdivision of a government, and an Indian
tribal government.
The bill provides that an interest in an applicable insurance
contract includes any right with respect to the contract, whether as an
owner, beneficiary, or otherwise. An indirect interest in a contract
includes an interest in an entity that, directly or indirectly, holds
an interest in the contract.
Exceptions apply under the bill. An exception is provided if each
person (other than the exempt organization) with an interest in the
contract has an insurable interest in the insured person independent of
any interest of the exempt organization. Another exception is provided
if each person, other than an exempt organization, has an interest
solely as a named beneficiary. An exception is also provided for a
person, other than the exempt organization, with an interest as a trust
beneficiary, if the beneficiary designation is purely gratuitous, or
with an interest as a trustee who holds in a fiduciary capacity for an
applicable exempt organization or another permitted beneficiary.
The bill provides reporting rules requiring an applicable exempt
organization or other person that makes a taxable acquisition of an
applicable insurance contract to file a return showing required
information. A statement is required to be furnished to each person
whose taxpayer identification information is required to be reported on
the return. Penalties apply for failure to file the return or furnish
the statement, including, in the case of intentional disregard of the
return filing requirement, a penalty equal to the amount of the excise
tax that has not been paid with respect to the items required to be
included on the return.
The bill is effective for contracts issued after May 3, 2005. The
bill requires reporting of existing life insurance, endowment and
annuity contracts issued on or before that date, in which an applicable
exempt organization holds an interest and which would be treated as an
applicable insurance contract under the bill. This reporting is
required within one year after the date of enactment.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Obama, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr.
Alexander):
S.J. Res. 18. A joint resolution approving the renewal of import
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, along with my colleagues from
California, Arizona, Vermont, Kansas and Illinois, I come to the floor
to introduce legislation to renew sanctions against the illegitimate
and repressive State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in Burma.
I do not intend today to recount the litany of abuses committed by
the military junta in Rangoon against the Burmese people and their
neighbors given the extensive documentation of these violations by
credible sources, including the U.S. Department of State, the United
Nations and numerous nongovernmental organizations, my colleagues are
undoubtedly familiar with many of the SPDC's heinous crimes--from the
production and trafficking of illicit drugs, to the use of rape as a
weapon of war against ethnic minority women and girls and the forced
conscription of children into military service.
Instead, I urge my colleagues to act quickly--as we have in the
past--in considering and passing the renewal of sanctions, which
include an import ban on Burmese goods and visa restrictions on
officials from the SPDC and affiliated organizations.
We must act quickly as the SPDC poses an immediate danger to the
entire region, whether through the trafficking of illicit drugs, the
unchecked spread of HIV/AIDS, or the forced movement of people who seek
refuge and safety in neighboring countries.
There is no more definitive expression of support for democracy and
human rights--for solidarity with those struggling for freedom--than an
import ban. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu has eloquently pointed out on
several occasions, sanctions worked in South Africa, and they can work
in Burma, too.
We must act resolutely as the junta continues to imprison those who
nonviolently struggle for freedom and justice, including Nobel laureate
and Burmese democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Burma has a rising
prisoner of conscience population, with over 1,300 political prisoners.
I renew my call that Suu Kyi and other prisoners of conscience be
immediately and unconditionally released.
Just last month, the European Union renewed sanctions against the
SPDC that restrict members of the junta and their families from
entering the EU, and bans EU companies from doing business in Burma.
While I applaud this action, I call upon the EU and other multilateral
organizations, including the United Nations, to do more in support of
freedom in Burma.
Specifically, the EU, along with the United States, should not
participate
[[Page S4878]]
in any Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) related meetings
should the SPDC assume chairmanship of that Association next year. It
is worth noting that some ASEAN member states are now publicly
discussing the junta's possible leadership with growing concern. This
increased attention--and a growing chorus for political reform in Burma
in the region by likeminded lawmakers--is also appreciated.
Finally, while I welcome UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's personal
comments in support of freedom in Burma, the time for talk is over. The
UN must act on Burma--in New York. It is past time for the UN to
discuss and debate the myriad threats Burma poses to the region. What
are they waiting for?
The people of Burma must know that they have no better friends in
this body than Senators Feinstein, McCain, Leahy, Brownback and Obama.
There is an unofficial Burma Caucus in the Senate, and I am proud to
stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my dedicated colleagues on this issue.
To them--and to Suu Kyi and all who nonviolently struggle for freedom
in Burma--I say ``we will prevail.''
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 18
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.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a
resolution introduced by myself, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy,
Senator McCain, Senator Brownback, and Senator Obama to renew the
sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003.
Last year, in response to the failure by the military junta--the
State Peace and Development Council, SPDC--to take any meaningful steps
towards restoring democracy and releasing Nobel Peace Prize winner and
National League for Democracy, NLD, leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Congress
overwhelmingly renewed a complete ban on all imports from Burma for
another year.
One year later, it is clear that Rangoon has once again failed to
make ``substantial and measurable progress'' toward putting Burma on a
irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy.
Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. On her 60th birthday on June 19,
2005, she will have spent a total of 2,523 days in detention.
NLD Vice Chairman Tin Oo has also remained in custody since May 2003.
And 1,400 political prisoners are still in jail.
The military junta's ``road map'' to democracy and national
convention to draft a new constitution has produced no timetable for
restoring democracy and shut out the participation of Suu Kyi and the
NLD, the legitimate winners of the 1990 elections.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution
last month highlighting continued human rights abuses by Rangoon
including ``extrajudicial killings,'' rape, torture, sex trafficking
and forced labor.
And let us not forget that Congress passed the original ``Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' in response to a brutal coordinated
assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on Suu Kyi and other
members of the NLD. Is anyone surprised that no one has been brought to
justice for these crimes?
The generals who run the country have shown a remarkable ability to
ignore the demands of their own people and the international community.
The simple truth is that as long as the SPDC remains in power the
democratic hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people will continue to
be denied.
Now is not the time to let the sanctions expire and try to ``engage''
the military junta.
Doing so without any meaningful steps toward democracy taken by
Rangoon would only serve to bolster the regime's campaign against
democratic government, the rule of law, and basic human rights.
I point out that the democratic movement in Burma continues to
support sanctions against the SPDC. We must give them more time to
effect change in Burma.
Let us not fall into the trap of thinking true representative
democracy cannot come to Burma and the Burmese people. I agree with
Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick when he said recently:
What we see throughout the world, even in places where
people don't expect it, like the Middle East, is a process of
openness and democracy. There's no reason it can't happen in
Burma as well.
As champions of freedom and respect for human rights, we must stand
in solidarity with Suu Kyi, the people of Burma, and the international
community in once again calling on the SPDC to release Suu Kyi,
relinquish power, and respect the 1990 elections. Archbishop Desmond
Tutu has rightly said:
As long as [Suu Kyi] remains under house arrest, none of us
is truly free.
In the face of human rights abuses and terror, approximately 300,000
Burmese citizens have already defied the military junta and signed
their names on a petition calling for true democratic change in Burma.
We must back their courage. I urge my colleagues to support the
resolution.
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators McConnell
and Feinstein for their efforts to renew again the sanctions contained
in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to join along
with Senators Leahy, Brownback, and Obama as sponsors of this
resolution.
As we take action to renew this legislation, the situation inside
Burma grows ever dimmer. The military junta in that country controls
the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack
of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime
has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor,
and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain
imprisoned, including elected members of parliament, and Aung San Suu
Kyi remains a captive.
Aung San Suu Kyi's courageous and steadfastness in the face of
tyranny inspires me and, I believe, every individual who holds
democracy dear. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has
endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands
of the regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she
represents--peace, freedom and justice for all Burmese people. The
thugs who run the country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will
never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine
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. We must continue to press the
junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to
democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve no less. And I see
encouraging signs that the world is no longer content to sit on the
sidelines.
The U.S. Congress has been in the forefront, and we stepped up our
pressure significantly in 2003 with 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.
Now the Europeans and the countries of Southeast Asia are finally
stepping up their own pressure. While they can and should do more, the
signs are encouraging. I have recently seen a report that 78 Thai
senators have sponsored a motion opposing Burma's chairmanship of
ASEAN, scheduled for next year. Similar moves by governments of other
Southeast Asian nations suggest that opposition to Burma's rotation is
becoming widespread, as it should--ASEAN's credibility would crumble
under Burmese leadership. A unified message from all ASEAN countries
that Burma's behavior is simply unacceptable would make clear to its
leaders that they cannot practice repression forever.
For our part, I support today the joint resolution that will renew
the import restrictions--sanctions that are
[[Page S4879]]
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.
The picture today in Burma is tragically clear. So long as a band of
thugs rules Burma, its people will 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. With our action today,
we will support this spirit.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise with several of my colleagues to
speak about the importance of the renewal of the Burma sanctions. I
also wish to speak candidly about the Burmese Military Junta's
continued oppression of their people through rape, torture and other
severe human rights abuses.
As the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San
Suu Kyi continues to inspire the democracy movement and seek support
for their peaceful cause. It has been reported that the National League
for Democracy has collected more than 300,000 signatures on a petition
calling for change in the country. Those who sign are actively putting
their lives in danger by publicly stating that they seek democratic
change and some 1,400 political prisoners are locked up for supporting
human rights and democracy.
The human rights abuses in Burma continue daily against ethnic
minorities, political activists and others who simply suffer as
innocent bystanders. A 2002 Human Rights Watch report found that Burma
has nearly 70,000 child soldiers in its army, more than any other
country in the world. Up to 2 million people have been forced to flee
the country as refugees and migrants and the burning of villages
continues in eastern Burma, especially in the Karen and Karenni states.
Last year I drew to your attention a report titled ``Shattering
Silences'', in which the Karen Women's Organization carefully
investigated and recorded the Burmese military regime's use of rape as
a weapon of war against ethnic minority women, revealing a shockingly
brutal and callous practice.
For the past two years, I have joined my colleagues in reauthorizing
the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which bans mainly textile and
garment imports from Burma. When I chaired the East Asia and Pacific
Subcommittee I held a hearing on this very subject. In that hearing I
spoke about the importance of a multilateral isolation policy. I urge
my colleagues to consider the strides that have been made in just two
years of promoting such a policy.
In a major and important move, the European Union, in October 2004,
followed the lead of the United States and significantly strengthened
its sanctions on Burma, including a ban on investments in enterprises
of the ruling regime and a strengthened visa ban. The EU also pledged
to join the United States in opposing loans to Burma's regime from the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The European Parliament
passed a resolution calling ``on the UN Security Council to address the
situation in Burma as a matter of urgency.'' Additionally, 289 members
of the British parliament tabled a motion calling on the UN Security
Council to address the situation in Burma.
After both houses of Congress passed resolutions in October 2004
calling on the UN Security Council to address the situation in Burma,
the parliament of Australia followed suit. The Australian motion called
on the government to, ``support the Burmese National League for
Democracy's call for the UN Security Council to convene a special
session to consider what further measures the UN can take to encourage
democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma.''
Support at the United Nations is growing as well. Burma was one of
only a few countries on which resolutions were passed by the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights. This was led by the European Union
with strong support from the United States as well as support from
Japan. The resolution strongly condemned what it called ``the
systematic ongoing violation of human rights'' in Burma.
There has been unprecedented action on Burma within ASEAN. Whereas in
the past ASEAN refused to even comment on what it deemed Burma's
``internal affairs'', many members of the organization are now publicly
pressuring Burma to step aside as the chair of the association in 2006.
The tough approach maintained by the United States towards Burma,
including import sanctions and a possible boycott of 2006 meetings, is
for the first time encouraging many Asian nations to rethink whether
the Burmese regime should assume the rotating chairmanship. There is
widespread belief within the leadership of ASEAN countries that Burma
has failed to deliver on its promises to the region.
In all of the above-mentioned instances, the strong stand of the
United States has influenced countries around the world. The movement
at the EU, UN, and within ASEAN is unprecedented. We must keep up the
tough pressure by the United States.
I urge my colleagues to reauthorize the sanctions as a strong and
clear signal that the United States will not support this brutal regime
and their continued oppression of activists and minorities.
____________________