A joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, this legislation is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. Since that time, the legislation has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the committee unanimously both as a freestanding bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now as a free-standing bill.

International crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. We have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons.

In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Clearly we need a full range of tools to prevail. Our committee's focus has been on boosting the civilian side of our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities, while encouraging improved mechanisms for civilian and military agencies to work together on these missions.

Over the years, our Government has cobbled together plans, people, and projects to respond to post-conflict situations in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere. The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies have been complex and time sensitive. In my judgment, our ad hoc approach has been inadequate to deal quickly and efficiently with complex emergencies. In turn, our lack of preparation for immediate stabilization contingencies has made our subsequent reconstruction efforts more difficult and expensive.

This legislation builds on legislation, S. 2127, that Senators Biden and Hagel and I introduced in early 2004 to encourage and support a well-organized, sufficiently resourced and strongly led civilian counterpart to the military in post-conflict zones. It is our view that the civilian side needs both operational capability and a significant surge capacity. This legislation gives statutory status to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization and makes the position of Coordinator subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a civilian response corps with both Active-Duty and Reserve components and provides the office flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build that corps and create surge capacity in an emergency. Finally, it authorizes expenditures for a crisis response fund, for the civilian response corps, and for a substantial training, planning and operational capacity for the office.

The State Department has come a long way in recognizing the role it could and should be playing. It established the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization in July of 2004. Under the leadership of Carlos Pascual, the office conducted a government- wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks in post-conflict zones. It has undertaken the planning necessary to recruit, train, and organize a Reserve corps of civilians for rapid deployment. It also is formulating interagency contingency plans--informed by our past experiences--for countries and regions of the world where the next crisis could suddenly arise.

In December 2005, the President signed a directive putting the Secretary of State in charge of interagency stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Last month, Secretary Rice promised to dedicate 15 of the 100 new positions she is requesting for fiscal year 2007 to the Reconstruction and Stabilization Office. This will increase staff to about 95 individuals, with seconded personnel and contractors included in that count.

Despite this good progress, significant gaps in our capabilities remain. Our legislation calls for a 250-person Active-Duty corps, in addition to the Reserves, made up of both State Department and OSAID employees. Such a corps could be rapidly deployed with the military for both initial assessments and operational purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, well in advance of the establishment of an embassy. This Active-Duty corps would be able to do a wide range of civilian jobs that are needed in a post-conflict or otherwise hostile environment.

Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than the typical Army company, but it would be a force multiplier. It would be equipped with the authority and training to take broad operational responsibility for stabilization missions. Establishment of such a corps is a modest investment when seen as part of the overall national security budget. Even in peace time, we maintain Active-Duty military forces of almost 1.4 million men and women who train and plan for the possibility of war. Given how critical post-conflict situations have been to American national security in the last decade, I believe it is reasonable to have a mere 250 civilians who are training for these situations and are capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, at any time they may be needed.

This legislation also calls on the heads of other executive branch agencies to establish personnel exchange programs designed to enhance stabilization and reconstruction capacity. The Departments of Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services--indeed virtually all the civilian agencies--can make unique contributions to the overall effort.

Once the Department embraced the concept of organizing and leading the civilian effort, the main roadblock became resources. So far, only about $21 million has been provided for the operations of the office, despite administration requests for substantially more funding. For 2007, the administration has requested a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration would like to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the Reserve component of the response corps. This legislation authorizes the crisis response fund and $80 million for the operations of the new State Department office and the Active-Duty corps, including training, equipment, and travel.

So far, the office has heroically stretched dollars by recruiting personnel on detail from other agencies, taking advantage of DOD-funded training, and getting the State Department to pay for the overhead of new office space from other sources. But such a hand-to-mouth existence has obvious disadvantages. Detailed personnel rarely stay long, and institutional memory

becomes short. Relying on DOD funds puts the office in the passenger seat when it should have the resources to pursue uniquely civilian- oriented goals.

In addition, the crisis response fund outlined in our legislation has not been appropriated. On the Senate side, we were able to secure $20 million for the fund in the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The entire amount, however, was eliminated in the conference committee with the House.

One stopgap measure that the Congress did pass in fiscal year 2006 was the authority to transfer up to $100 million from the Pentagon to the State Department for boosting the civilian response to particular trouble spots. However, this money will not provide the resources necessary over the long term to improve the State Department's capacity to be a capable partner in responding to complex emergencies.

The foreign affairs budget is always a tougher sell to Congress than the military budget. President Bush has attempted to reverse the downward spiral in overall foreign affairs spending that took place in the 1990s. In that decade, both the executive and legislative branches rushed to cash in on the peace dividend. But President Bush has consistently requested increases for the 150 Account in his budgets. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, he requested a 10.3-percent increase over the CBO-determined baseline of fiscal year 2006.

But, if previous years are any example, the amount appropriated will fall far short of the amount requested. Last year, the President's annual request for foreign affairs was cut by $2.1 billion. The Congress cut the fiscal 2005 annual request by a similar amount. According to a Congressional Research Service report that I requested, Congress has provided $5.8 billion less than the President has requested for foreign affairs in regular and supplemental spending bills since September 11, 2001.

Today, when we are in the midst of a global struggle of information and ideas: when anti-Western riots can be set off by the publication of a cartoon; when we are in the midst of a crisis with Iran that will decide whether the nonproliferation regime of the last half century will be abandoned; when we have entered our fourth year of attempting to stabilize Iraq; and when years of effort to move the Arab-Israeli peace process are at risk--even then, we are unable to muster the necessary support for the President's budget in foreign affairs.

As all this suggests, we have a long way to go in creating the kind of robust civilian capacity that we need. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this legislation. If we cannot think this through and plan better as a government, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. But I remain optimistic that we can build on the progress already made to create a strong and reliable civilian component that boosts our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Passing this legislation will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward. It will support executive branch actions already taken and encourage further progress. I urge its passage.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and McCain, I rise to introduce an extension of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

We are joined by a host of original cosponsors: Senators Frist, Reid, Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Chafee, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Collins, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Durbin, Ensign, Feingold, Hagel, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Kyl, Leahy, Lieberman, Lugar, Martinez, Menendez, Mikulski, Murkowski, Obama, Salazar, Santorum, Sarbanes, Smith, Stabenow, Sununu, Voinovich, and Wyden.

This broad bipartisan coalition reflects the overwhelming consensus within this body that the issue of freedom in Burma--and the immediate threat that that country poses to the entire region--is one of major importance. To put it simply, America has a moral obligation to continue to stand with the Burmese people against the country's dictatorial regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

As many of you know, last year the extension of sanctions was signed into law by President Bush on July 27, 2005, and it enjoyed strong bipartisan support. It passed the Senate by a vote of 97-1.

The past year has brought more news from Burma that has ranged from the disconcerting to the horrific. First, the SPDC inexplicably decided to move the nation's capital from Rangoon to the hinterlands. Thus, instead of using state resources for the betterment of the Burmese people, who desperately need it, the SPDC will use state funds to build a brand new, unneeded capital located deep within the interior.

Second, Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and scores of other prisoners of conscience remain imprisoned by the SPDC. There are rumors that she may be released soon, and I hope they prove true.

Third, last fall the SPDC began a brutal military campaign against ethnic minorities, creating thousands of new internally displaced persons (IDPs); these thousands to be added to the approximately half million already without a home in Burma. Burma has the biggest IDP problem in Asia, Mr. President.

This bill ensures that the United States will not be a party to such brutality and oppression. As in the past, the legislation prohibits imports into the United States from Burma. The bill also maintains a freeze on the assets held by Burmese Government officials in U.S. financial institutions. In addition, the bill authorizes the President to assist democracy activists dedicated to nonviolent opposition to the regime in Burma.

America is not alone in the effort to promote freedom and democracy in that nation. In addition to our allies in Europe, the ASEAN Inter- Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus, a grouping of members of parliament from six countries in ASEAN, just this week issued a strong statement on Burma. The group called on the U.N. Security Council to ``adopt[] a resolution on Burma that would empower them to intervene in Burma's crises. It is time for real action. It is time for a new, democratic and peaceful Burma.''

Clearly, it is time for the Security Council to discuss and debate a legally-binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma that calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners in that country; an end to abuses against minorities (including the use of rape as a weapon of war); and the beginning of a meaningful national reconciliation process that includes the unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and ethnic minorities with the SPDC.

Let me be clear that a briefing on Burma before the U.N. Security Council by U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari should not serve as a substitute for a resolution on this matter. We need less talk and more action at the U.N. in support of democracy, freedom and justice in Burma.

Let me offer a comment or two about Mr. Gambari's recent visit to Burma. I do not share his optimistic view that the SPDC is ready to ``turn the page.'' In my view, the junta is only interested in deflecting and deflating growing pressure by the international community to change its repressive ways--and in avoiding the U.N. Security Council's consideration of a resolution that addresses the threat the SPDC poses to its own people and the entire region. This may explain why rumors of Suu Kyi's release abound.

However, even if Suu Kyi were to be released there is no reason-- absolutely none--for anyone to decrease pressure on the junta. The SPDC is to be judged not by what it says--we've certainly heard much of the same before--but by what it does. We have yet to see any evidence of the formation of a credible reconciliation process that includes the full and unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy and ethnic nationalities--who, by the way, are being slaughtered and raped by an ongoing military offensive waged by the junta.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feinstein, Frist, Brownback, Lautenberg, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski and Lugar in sending a letter to President Bush today asking that the United States work to secure a resolution at the Security Council as soon as possible.

Until the SPDC's demonstrates by its actions that it is serious about reconciliation and reform in Burma, the international community has no choice but to use more sticks--and less carrots--to increase pressure on the junta.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and McCain, I rise to introduce an extension of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

We are joined by a host of original cosponsors: Senators Frist, Reid, Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Chafee, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Collins, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Durbin, Ensign, Feingold, Hagel, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Kyl, Leahy, Lieberman, Lugar, Martinez, Menendez, Mikulski, Murkowski, Obama, Salazar, Santorum, Sarbanes, Smith, Stabenow, Sununu, Voinovich, and Wyden.

This broad bipartisan coalition reflects the overwhelming consensus within this body that the issue of freedom in Burma--and the immediate threat that that country poses to the entire region--is one of major importance. To put it simply, America has a moral obligation to continue to stand with the Burmese people against the country's dictatorial regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

As many of you know, last year the extension of sanctions was signed into law by President Bush on July 27, 2005, and it enjoyed strong bipartisan support. It passed the Senate by a vote of 97-1.

The past year has brought more news from Burma that has ranged from the disconcerting to the horrific. First, the SPDC inexplicably decided to move the nation's capital from Rangoon to the hinterlands. Thus, instead of using state resources for the betterment of the Burmese people, who desperately need it, the SPDC will use state funds to build a brand new, unneeded capital located deep within the interior.

Second, Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and scores of other prisoners of conscience remain imprisoned by the SPDC. There are rumors that she may be released soon, and I hope they prove true.

Third, last fall the SPDC began a brutal military campaign against ethnic minorities, creating thousands of new internally displaced persons (IDPs); these thousands to be added to the approximately half million already without a home in Burma. Burma has the biggest IDP problem in Asia, Mr. President.

This bill ensures that the United States will not be a party to such brutality and oppression. As in the past, the legislation prohibits imports into the United States from Burma. The bill also maintains a freeze on the assets held by Burmese Government officials in U.S. financial institutions. In addition, the bill authorizes the President to assist democracy activists dedicated to nonviolent opposition to the regime in Burma.

America is not alone in the effort to promote freedom and democracy in that nation. In addition to our allies in Europe, the ASEAN Inter- Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus, a grouping of members of parliament from six countries in ASEAN, just this week issued a strong statement on Burma. The group called on the U.N. Security Council to ``adopt[] a resolution on Burma that would empower them to intervene in Burma's crises. It is time for real action. It is time for a new, democratic and peaceful Burma.''

Clearly, it is time for the Security Council to discuss and debate a legally-binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma that calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners in that country; an end to abuses against minorities (including the use of rape as a weapon of war); and the beginning of a meaningful national reconciliation process that includes the unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and ethnic minorities with the SPDC.

Let me be clear that a briefing on Burma before the U.N. Security Council by U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari should not serve as a substitute for a resolution on this matter. We need less talk and more action at the U.N. in support of democracy, freedom and justice in Burma.

Let me offer a comment or two about Mr. Gambari's recent visit to Burma. I do not share his optimistic view that the SPDC is ready to ``turn the page.'' In my view, the junta is only interested in deflecting and deflating growing pressure by the international community to change its repressive ways--and in avoiding the U.N. Security Council's consideration of a resolution that addresses the threat the SPDC poses to its own people and the entire region. This may explain why rumors of Suu Kyi's release abound.

However, even if Suu Kyi were to be released there is no reason-- absolutely none--for anyone to decrease pressure on the junta. The SPDC is to be judged not by what it says--we've certainly heard much of the same before--but by what it does. We have yet to see any evidence of the formation of a credible reconciliation process that includes the full and unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy and ethnic nationalities--who, by the way, are being slaughtered and raped by an ongoing military offensive waged by the junta.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feinstein, Frist, Brownback, Lautenberg, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski and Lugar in sending a letter to President Bush today asking that the United States work to secure a resolution at the Security Council as soon as possible.

Until the SPDC's demonstrates by its actions that it is serious about reconciliation and reform in Burma, the international community has no choice but to use more sticks--and less carrots--to increase pressure on the junta.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the rights of student borrowers trying to repay their loans. Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher education. Need-based grant aid has stagnated while college costs have grown. The result is more students borrowing and higher levels of borrowing. In 1993, less than one-half of students graduating from 4-year colleges and universities had student loans. Now two-thirds do.

Unlike other debt, you take out student loans to invest in yourself. For most people, that is a wise investment. In the long run student loans help people earn more money and have more choices in their careers. Student borrowers must also take their responsibilities seriously, so future generations of students can also benefit from the chance to borrow money--so they do not have to burden their families.

But today it is harder to pay back loans than when I left school or when most of the Members of this Chamber did. The average debt burden for college graduates has increased 58 percent over the past decade, after accounting for inflation. And too many borrowers are overly burdened as they repay student loans. When I travel in New York, I meet young people all the time who say to me, ``You know, Senator, I'd like to go to nursing school or I'd like to be a teacher or I'd like to go into law enforcement, but I've got so much debt that I can't afford to do that.'' We need to make sure that student loans do not stand in people's way and prevent them from following their dreams.

The burden of student loan debt can put people in economic handcuffs, forcing them out of important but low-paying professions or forcing them to delay the purchase of a home. Today 54 percent of former students wish they had borrowed less for college, up from 31 percent in 1991. Student loan debt may even prevent borrowers from pursuing a higher degree. According to the Nellie Mae Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates who do not go to graduate school blame student loan debt. Most disturbingly, the prospect that student loans will be burdensome may prevent successful high school students from going to college. Twenty percent of low-income high school graduates who are qualified for college do not go to college.

The Student Borrower Bill of Rights will make it easier for students to repay and give them rights that are enforceable. The bill will give students the right to shop for loans in a free marketplace. It will give students access to better information about their loans. The bill will give student borrowers the right to make fair, monthly payments that do not exceed a percentage of their incomes and fair interest rates and fees. The bill would also give students the right to borrow without exploitation.

We need this bill now to help students struggling to go to college. For the average family it now takes more income to pay for a child to go to college than it did, as a percentage, 25 years ago.

So we need to do everything we can to ensure all students can afford college. It is in their best interest and it is in the Nation's best interest.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Borrower Bill of Rights.

Mr. President, today, I join the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, in introducing an amended version of S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006, the FAIR Act. This legislation enhances our previous trust fund bill by adopting many of the amendments filed in February by Senators on both sides of the aisle. We have incorporated amendments that further protect against fraud and make sure the sickest victims are paid as soon as possible. We added crucial provisions that make the trust fund accessible to victims who were exposed to asbestos during the attacks on the World Trade Center and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We clarified the bill language to ensure that inactive dormant claims cannot be revived to overwhelm the trust fund.

This legislation also contains a few additional changes that we believe respond directly to concerns raised by our colleagues during floor debate. The floor amendments incorporated in this bill include, among others, the Kyl funding amendment that will protect small and medium sized businesses. We also addressed the concerns of businesses that currently pay nothing or very little because they are well- insured. None of these changes undermine the existing guarantee on overall private funding at $140 billion.

Also importantly, we preserved the ability of the existing bankruptcy trusts to continue paying impaired victims while the trust fund becomes operational. This will smooth the transition for victims who were exposed by companies that are currently protected from suit by bankruptcy. And finally, we clarified the statute of limitations for our Nation's war veterans so they will have better access to the trust fund.

None of the additional provisions contained in this substitute diminish the bill's key principle: That the asbestos trust fund will be comprised solely of private money. Nothing in this bill will reduce the protection of victims against insurance subrogation. I am proud to report that we have also maintained our core medical criteria so that those who have been impaired by asbestos exposure will receive compensation appropriate to their injuries.

Earlier this week, we were all saddened to learn of the passing of Judge Edward R. Becker. As many of my colleagues are keenly aware, Judge Becker worked patiently with Senators and all of the stakeholders on this legislation for almost 3 years. We engaged in an exhaustive process of committee hearings, deliberations and negotiations. Judge Becker was crucial to each step in the process. We would not have made the bipartisan progress that this legislation reflects without his tireless efforts.

Unfortunately, time is running out for this session of Congress. I know that some partisans will claim that we should refrain from reaching across the aisle during an election year but this persistent problem compels us to move forward to try and help the thousands of victims of asbestos exposure. I urge the Senate majority leader to give us sufficient floor time to debate and vote on this important legislation on its merits.