PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1417-1418)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 15, 2005
Fair Currency Enforcement Act of 2005 - Directs the President to: (1) begin bilateral and multilateral negotiations for a 90-day period with those governments of nations determined to be engaged most egregiously in currency manipulation; (2) seek a prompt and orderly end to such currency manipulation; and (3) ensure that the currencies of these countries are freely traded on international currency markets, or are established at a level that reflects a more appropriate and accurate market value.
Requires the International Trade Commission (ITC), during the 90-day negotiation period, to study and report to the President, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Secretary of the Treasury, and the appropriate congressional committees on currency manipulation by trading countries to increase their exports to the United States and limit their imports of U.S. products.
Directs the President, at the end of the negotiation period, if agreements are not reached to end currency manipulation promptly, to: (1) institute proceedings under the relevant U.S. and international trade law with respect to those countries that, based on the ITC findings, continue to engage in the most egregious currency manipulation; and (2) seek appropriate damages and remedies for the Nation's manufacturers and other affected parties.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires reports to the appropriate congressional committees on: (1) the effects on U.S. national security of countries engaging in significant currency manipulations, as well as the effect of such manipulation on critical manufacturing sectors; (2) other trade practices and trade barriers by major East Asian trading nations (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, among others) potentially in violation of international trade agreements; and (3) steps that could be taken to significantly improve trade enforcement efforts against unfair trade practices by competitor trading nations, and trade promotion for U.S. goods and services.
People & committees
Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. [D-CT] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1417-1418)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1417)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.377 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.377 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.377 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.377 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.