[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9060-9068]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 9061]]

     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.
                                 ______
                                 
      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

[[Page 9062]]

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;
       (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--

[[Page 9063]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 9064]]

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
       ``(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.

[[Page 9065]]



     ``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.
  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

[[Page 9066]]

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 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

[[Page 9067]]

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 supported by the National 
League for Democracy. These restrictions must remain until Burma 
embarks on a true

[[Page 9068]]

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.

                          ____________________