[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5499-S5510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Allard, Mr. Burr,
Mr. Isakson, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1262. A bill to protect students receiving student loans, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
S. 1262
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Student Loan
Accountability and Disclosure Reform Act which I, along with Senators
Alexander, Burr, Isakson, Allard and Murkowski, am introducing today.
In this era of rising college costs, it is more important than ever to
make sure that the colleges, lenders and guaranty agencies that provide
loans to help students pay for college operate in a fair, accountable
and transparent manner.
In fiscal year 2007, the Federal Government, through the Federal
Family Education Loan, FFEL, and Direct
[[Page S5500]]
Loan programs is expected to back and provide $65.9 billion in new
loans to students and their parents for attendance at over 6,000
schools. The FFEL program accounts for about 79 percent of new student
loan volume. There are approximately 3,200 FFEL lenders. Thirty-five
State and private, nonprofit guaranty agencies back the FFEL loans.
Overall, the programs are expected to provide financing to 14.3
million students and their families this year. These students and their
families are depending upon us to protect them from those individuals
who are using the financial loan programs to benefit themselves to the
detriment of students.
The focus of this bill is to make colleges, lenders and guaranty
agencies accountable, by prohibiting lenders and guaranty agencies from
offering inducements, and colleges from accepting them, and by
requiring disclosures to students, their families and the public.
There are a lot of ethical, hard-working financial aid administrators
and lenders who have spent their lives helping students go to college.
It is a shame that a few bad actors have cast a shadow over the whole
student loan industry. However, in light of recent revelations about
the behavior of a few college officials and a few lenders, it is clear
that we need to take steps to protect students and their families from
any actions and arrangements that are not fully disclosed.
A key part of this bill is a Code of Conduct for institutions of
higher education. It prohibits colleges and their employees with
responsibility for student financial aid from receiving anything of
value from any lender in exchange for advantages sought by the lender.
The prohibition applies not only to gifts and trips, but to
compensation for service on advisory boards and consulting contracts.
Colleges are prohibited from designating ``preferred lenders.''
However, they may collect information from lenders, at the college's
invitation or upon the request of a lender, including interest rates,
payment of origination and other fees, discounts, services and terms
and conditions of the loans, and the lender's contact information, on a
standard electronic template. All templates submitted will be made
available to current and prospective students and their families.
Colleges will provide students and parents with a guide that enables
the students and parents to do their own evaluation of the loan
products, benefits, and services offered by the lenders. An annual
attestation of college compliance by a high level college official with
the Code of Conduct is required.
The bill expands prohibitions on guaranty agencies and lenders,
including provisions that prohibit the offering of any premiums,
payments, prizes, and tuition payments. Guaranty agencies are precluded
from performing any services for colleges without compensation. Lenders
may not provide information technology equipment at below market value.
Both lenders and guaranty agencies are prohibited from sending
unsolicited electronic mailings to potential borrowers.
Finally, the recent revelations of questionable relationships between
colleges and lenders have led to new calls to eliminate any areas of
potential conflicts of interest. For this reason, it is time to phase
out the ability of colleges to act as lenders in the FFEL program, a
provision commonly referred to as ``school-as-lender.''
Higher education is crucial to maintaining America's competitiveness.
Education at all levels, including lifelong education opportunities, is
vital to ensuring that America retains its competitive edge in the
global economy. In this global economy, learning is never over and
school is never out. If students and families are to make informed
decisions about how to pay for college, they must have clear, accurate,
comprehensive information on which to base their decisions.
We must help and protect the 14.3 million students and their families
who will seek student loans this year to pay for the education they
need. Therefore, we must maintain the integrity of the student loan
programs. Let's fix the system and restore the confidence of students
that they are being treated fairly from the beginning, and through the
time they are repaying their loans and realizing their goals.
I want to thank Senators Alexander, Burr, Isakson, Allard, and
Murkowski for joining me in this effort.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1262
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 ``Student Loan Accountability
and Disclosure Reform Act''.
SEC. 2. INSURANCE PROGRAM AGREEMENTS.
Paragraph (3) of section 428(b) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Restrictions on inducements, payments, mailings, and
advertising.--A guaranty agency shall not--
``(A) offer, directly or indirectly, premiums, payments,
stock or other securities, prizes, travel, entertainment
expenses, tuition repayment, or other inducements to--
``(i) any institution of higher education or the employees
of an institution of higher education in order to secure
applicants for loans made under this part; or
``(ii) any lender, or any agent, employee, or independent
contractor of any lender or guaranty agency, in order to
administer or market loans made under this part (other than a
loan made under section 428H or a loan made as part of the
guaranty agency's lender-of-last-resort program pursuant to
section 439(q)) for the purpose of securing the designation
of the guaranty agency as the insurer of such loans;
``(B) conduct unsolicited mailings, by postal or electronic
means, of student loan application forms to students enrolled
in secondary school or postsecondary educational
institutions, or to the parents of such students, except that
applications may be mailed, by postal or electronic means, to
students or borrowers who have previously received loans
guaranteed under this part by the guaranty agency;
``(C) perform, for an institution of higher education
participating in a program under this title and without
appropriate compensation by such institution, any function
that the institution is required to perform under part B, D,
or G (except for the exit counseling described in section
485(b));
``(D) pay, on behalf of the institution of higher
education, another person to perform any function that the
institution of higher education is required to perform under
part B, D, or G (except for the exit counseling described in
section 485(b)); or
``(E) conduct fraudulent or misleading advertising
concerning loan availability, terms, or conditions.
It shall not be a violation of this paragraph for a guaranty
agency to provide assistance to institutions of higher
education comparable to the kinds of assistance provided to
institutions of higher education by the Department.''.
SEC. 3. DISCLOSURE RULES FOR EDUCATIONAL LOANS.
Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART E--DISCLOSURE RULES FOR EDUCATIONAL LOANS
``SEC. 151. DISCLOSURE RULES RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL LOANS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this part:
``(1) Cost of attendance.--The term `cost of attendance'
has the meaning given the term in section 472.
``(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education'--
``(A) has the meaning given the term in section 102; and
``(B) includes an employee or agent of the institution of
higher education or any organization or entity directly or
indirectly controlled by such institution.
``(3) Lender.--The term `lender' means--
``(A) any lender of a loan made, insured, or guaranteed
under title IV, including a consolidation loan under section
428C;
``(B) any lender that is a financial institution, as such
term is defined in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(15 U.S.C. 6809); and
``(C) for any loan issued or provided to a student under
part D of title IV, the Secretary.
``(4) Private educational loan.--The term `private
educational loan' means a private loan that--
``(A) is not made, insured, or guaranteed under title IV;
and
``(B) is offered to a borrower by an institution of higher
education through an award letter or other notification.
``(b) Disclosures.--
``(1) Disclosures by lenders.--Before a lender issues or
otherwise provides a loan under title IV or a private
educational loan to a student, the lender shall provide the
student, in writing, with the disclosures described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Disclosures.--The disclosures required by this
paragraph shall include a clear and prominent statement--
[[Page S5501]]
``(A) that the borrower may qualify for Federal financial
assistance through a program under title IV, in lieu of or in
addition to a loan from a non-Federal source;
``(B) of the interest rates available with respect to such
Federal financial assistance;
``(C) showing sample educational loan costs, disaggregated
by type;
``(D) that describes, with respect to each loan being
provided to the student by the lender--
``(i) how the applicable interest rate is determined,
including whether the rate is based on the credit score of
the borrower;
``(ii) the types of repayment plans that are available;
``(iii) whether, and under what conditions, early repayment
may be made without penalty;
``(iv) when and how often the loan would be recapitalized;
``(v) all fees, deferments, or forbearance;
``(vi) all available repayment benefits, and the percentage
of all borrowers who qualify for such benefits;
``(vii) the collection practices in the case of default;
``(viii) the late payment penalties and associated fees;
and
``(ix) whether the amount of all loans issued by the lender
to the borrower exceeds the student's cost of attendance; and
``(E) such other information as the Secretary may
require.''.
SEC. 4. REVIEW OF PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL LOAN MARKET.
Section 495 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1099a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Review of Private Education Loan Markets.--The
Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct an
evaluation of markets for educational loans to--
``(1) evaluate any variations in availability, terms, and
conditions of educational loans provided to students who
qualify for a simplified needs test under section 479 or any
income-contingent simplified version of the Free Application
for Federal Student Aid;
``(2) identify possible discriminatory lending patterns
affecting students described in paragraph (1); and
``(3) report, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Student Loan Accountability and Disclosure
Reform Act to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Education and
Labor and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives, on findings and recommendations for the need
to afford protections from predatory lending practices to
such students.''.
SEC. 5. DISQUALIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE LENDER.
Section 435(d)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1085(d)(5)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (H) and (I), respectively; and
(2) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the
following:
``(A) offered, directly or indirectly, points, premiums,
payments (including payments for referrals and for processing
or finder fees), prizes, stock or other securities, travel,
entertainment expenses, tuition repayment, the provision of
information technology equipment at below-market value,
additional financial aid funds, or other inducements to any
institution of higher education or any employee of an
institution of higher education in order to secure applicants
for loans under this part;
``(B) conducted unsolicited mailings, by postal or
electronic means, of student loan application forms to
students enrolled in secondary school or postsecondary
institutions, or to parents of such students, except that
applications may be mailed, by postal or electronic means, to
students or borrowers who have previously received loans
under this part from such lender;
``(C) entered into any type of consulting arrangement, or
other contract to provide services to a lender, with an
employee who is employed in the financial aid office of an
institution of higher education, or who otherwise has
responsibilities with respect to student loans or other
financial aid of the institution;
``(D) compensated an employee who is employed in the
financial aid office of an institution of higher education,
or who otherwise has responsibilities with respect to student
loans or other financial aid of the institution, and who is
serving on an advisory board, commission, or group
established by a lender or group of lenders for providing
such service, except that the eligible lender may reimburse
such employee for reasonable expenses incurred in providing
such service;
``(E) performed for an institution of higher education,
without compensation from the institution, any function that
the institution of higher education is required to carry out
under part B, D, or G (except for general debt counseling,
such as the exit counseling described in section 485(b));
``(F) paid, on behalf of an institution of higher
education, another person to perform any function that the
institution of higher education is required to perform under
part B, D, or G (except for general debt counseling, such as
the exit counseling described in section 485(b));
``(G) provided payments or other benefits to a student at
an institution of higher education to act as the lender's
representative to secure applications under this title from
individual prospective borrowers, unless such student--
``(i) is also employed by the lender for other purposes;
and
``(ii) made all appropriate disclosures regarding such
employment;''.
SEC. 6. CERTIFICATIONS; CODE OF CONDUCT REGARDING STUDENT
LOANS.
Section 487 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1094) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) The institution will not provide any student with any
statement or certification to a lender that qualifies the
student for a loan or loans in excess of the amount that
student is eligible to borrow in accordance with sections
425(a), 428(a)(2), and subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
428(b)(1) unless--
``(A) the loan in question is a private educational loan as
defined under section 151(a); and
``(B) the student does not qualify for the simplified needs
test under section 479 or any income-contingent simplified
version of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (21), (22), and (23) as
(22), (23), and (24), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (20) the following:
``(21)(A) The institution will establish, follow, and
enforce a code of conduct regarding student loans that
includes not less than the following:
``(i) Revenue sharing prohibition.--The institution is
prohibited from receiving anything of value from any lender
in exchange for any advantage sought by the lender.
``(ii) Gift and trip prohibition.--Any employee who is
employed in the financial aid office of the institution, or
who otherwise has responsibilities with respect to student
loans or other financial aid of the institution, is
prohibited from taking from any lender any gift or trip worth
more than nominal value, except for reasonable expenses for
professional development that will improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of programs under this title and for domestic
travel to such professional development.
``(iii) Contracting arrangements.--Any employee who is
employed in the financial aid office of the institution, or
who otherwise has responsibilities with respect to student
loans or other financial aid of the institution, shall be
prohibited from entering into any type of consulting
arrangement or other contract to provide services to a
lender.
``(iv) Advisory board compensation.--Any employee who is
employed in the financial aid office of the institution, or
who otherwise has responsibilities with respect to student
loans or other financial aid of the institution, and who
serves on an advisory board, commission, or group established
by a lender or group of lenders shall be prohibited from
receiving anything of value as compensation from the lender
or group of lenders for serving on such advisory board,
commission, or group, except that the employee may be
reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such
service.
``(v) Lender information requirements.--The institution--
``(I) will not designate any lender as a preferred lender
for loans under this title or private educational loans;
``(II) may invite a lender of such loans to submit to the
institution a standard electronic template that specifies the
rates, services, discounts, and terms and conditions of the
loans, and the lender's contact information;
``(III) upon request of a lender interested in offering
loans under this title or private educational loans to
students at the institution, will provide the lender with the
ability to submit the standard electronic template described
in subclause (II) to the institution;
``(IV) will make all submitted standard electronic
templates available to current and prospective students of
the institution, and the parents of such students;
``(V) if such student, or a parent of such student,
requests information on the lenders that have submitted
standard electronic templates to the institution, will
provide the student or parent with a guide that--
``(aa) enables students and parents to do their own
evaluation of the loan products, benefits, and services
offered by such lenders; and
``(bb) includes the disclosures required under clause (vi).
``(vi) Disclosures.--An institution required to make the
disclosures under this clause will--
``(I) disclose the criteria and process used to develop the
guide described in clause (v)(V) regarding the products
offered by each lender that submitted a standard electronic
template, as described in clause (v)(II);
``(II) disclose which lenders listed in the guide have an
agreement in place to sell the loans of the lender to another
lender; and
``(III) provide a notice to the student that the student
has the right to select a lender of the student's choosing,
regardless of any information regarding the lender in the
institution's guide under clause (v) or whether the lender
submitted a standard electronic template to the institution.
``(vii) Lender services to institutions of higher
education.--
``(I) Any agent, employee, or independent contractor of a
lender who is performing any service for the institution
shall disclose the individual's relationship with the lender
to
[[Page S5502]]
any students and parents for whom the individual provides
such service.
``(II) Any agreement for the performance of a service by a
lender for the institution shall comply with all applicable
State and institution ethics laws and codes of ethics.
``(viii) Interaction with borrowers.--The institution will
not--
``(I) for any first-time borrower, assign, through award
packaging or other methods, the borrower's loan to a
particular lender; and
``(II) refuse to certify, or, delay certification of, any
loan in accordance with paragraph (6) based on the borrower's
selection of a particular lender or guaranty agency.
``(B) The institution will designate an individual who
shall be responsible for signing an annual attestation on
behalf of the institution that the institution agrees to, and
is in compliance with, the requirements of the code of
conduct described in this paragraph. Such individual shall be
the chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief
financial officer, or comparable official, of the
institution, and shall annually submit the signed attestation
to the Secretary.
``(C) The institution will make the code of conduct widely
available to the institution's faculty members, students, and
parents through a variety of means, including the
institution's website.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Violation of Code of Conduct Regarding Student
Loans.--
``(1) In general.--Upon a finding by the Secretary, after
reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that an
institution of higher education that has entered into a
program participation agreement with the Secretary under
subsection (a) willfully contravened the institution's
attestation of compliance with the provisions of subsection
(a)(21), the Secretary may impose a penalty described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Penalties.--A violation of paragraph (1) shall result
in the limitation, suspension, or termination of the
eligibility of the institution for the loan programs under
this title.''.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF SCHOOL-AS-LENDER PROGRAM.
Section 435(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1085(d)) (as amended by section 5) is further
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(E), by inserting ``subject to
paragraph (8),'' before ``an eligible institution''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Sunset of authority for school as lender program.--
``(A) Sunset.--The authority provided under subsection
(d)(1)(E) for an institution to serve as an eligible lender,
and under paragraph (7) for an eligible lender to serve as a
trustee for an institution of higher education or an
organization affiliated with an institution of higher
education, shall expire on June 30, 2008.
``(B) Application to existing institutional lenders.--An
institution that was an eligible lender under this
subsection, or an eligible lender that served as a trustee
for an institution of higher education or an organization
affiliated with an institution of higher education under
paragraph (7), before June 30, 2008, shall--
``(i) not issue any new loans in such a capacity under part
B after June 30, 2008; and
``(ii) shall continue to carry out the institution's
responsibilities for any loans issued by the institution
under part B on or before June 30, 2008, except that,
beginning on June 30, 2010, the eligible institution or
trustee may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
sell or otherwise dispose of such loans if all profits from
the divestiture are used for need-based grant programs at the
institution.''.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1265. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand
eligibility for veterans' mortgage life insurance to include members of
the Armed Forced receiving specially adapted housing assistance from
the Department of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on
legislation I am introducing that will continue a positive trend in the
provision of benefits to severely injured servicemembers and their
families by making assistance available when it is needed most. My bill
would give active duty servicemembers who utilize VA's specially
adapted housing grant assistance with the ability to also purchase
Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance, or VMLI, through VA. Under current
law, the receipt of specially adapted housing grants is the gateway to
VMLI eligibility. And only those separated from service and legally
classified as ``veterans'' are able to purchase coverage through VMLI.
Servicemembers and veterans who are blind, have lost the use of both
their legs, and who have other severely disabling conditions are
eligible to receive up to $50,000 in grants from VA to assist with
needed housing adaptations, such as the widening of doorways, the
construction of wheelchair ramps, and the installment of handrails.
Notwithstanding this grant assistance, servicemembers and veterans must
still pay any underlying mortgage that exists on the modified home. To
ensure that survivors are not saddled with mortgage debt they cannot
afford following the death of a severely disabled veteran, VA's VMLI
program is available. Under VMLI, up to $90,000 of coverage, or
coverage in the amount of any outstanding mortgage debt, whichever is
less, is available. Veterans pay premiums at standard mortality rates
and VA contributes subsidy payments so that all program expenses are
met.
Until recently, grants under the specially adapted housing program
could only be made to individuals who had separated from military
service. In recognition of what can be an extremely lengthy recovery
and separation process for those with profoundly disabling conditions,
in 2004 we in Congress allowed housing grants to be made to active duty
servicemembers. However, we did not extend the same access to VA's VMLI
program for those still on active duty, an oversight that my
legislation would remedy.
VA estimates that roughly 30 servicemembers per year will receive
specially adapted housing grants, thus giving rise to VMLI eligibility
should my bill be enacted. Because it is optional, VA expects only 15
servicemembers per year to purchase VMLI policies. Therefore, subsidy
costs associated with my legislation are minimal, less than $500,000
over 10 years.
This Congress increasingly is recognizing that the benefits provided
to our wounded servicemembers need to flow immediately, and that
outmoded distinctions between ``veteran'' and ``active duty
servicemember'' mean little when it comes to honoring our commitment to
them. My legislation continues what I believe is an encouraging trend
that looks at the career of a military man or woman as a continuum. It
is a continuum that begins the day they enlist and it ends the day they
die. Our Government's benefits should reflect that reality.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1265
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR VETERANS' MORTGAGE
LIFE INSURANCE TO INCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES RECEIVING SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING
ASSISTANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.
Section 2106 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``veteran'' each place it appears and
inserting ``veteran or member of the Armed Forces'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``veterans' election''
and inserting ``election of the veteran or member of the
Armed Forces'';
(3) in subsection (f), by inserting ``, members of the
Armed Forces,'' after ``veterans''; and
(4) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``veteran's
indebtedness'' and inserting ``indebtedness of the veteran or
member of the Armed Forces''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``veteran's ownership''
and inserting ``ownership of the veteran or member of the
Armed Forces''.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1266. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase
assistance for veterans interred in cemeteries other than national
cemeteries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on
legislation I am introducing that will improve the availability of
dignified burials for those who have served our country. The Veterans'
Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 would make three improvements
to programs designed to ensure that veterans are perpetually honored
for their service. Let me start by describing the first improvement
which had its genesis, I am proud to say, in my home State of Idaho.
We have in Idaho a State veterans' cemetery located in Boise. The
cemetery was established with the help of VA's State Cemetery Grants
Program, a program which pays for 100 percent of
[[Page S5503]]
the costs of establishing, expanding, and improving state cemeteries.
Over one thousand veterans have been interred in the Idaho State
Cemetery since it opened in 2004. I want to focus on 91 of those
veterans who were interred through a program pioneered in Idaho called
``Missing in America.''
Through the Missing in America program Idaho cemetery officials,
working with veterans' organizations and others, have actively sought
to locate the unclaimed cremated remains of veterans throughout the
State. They contacted funeral homes, county coroner offices, and any
other place where those remains may have been located. Remarkably, they
discovered the remains of 91 veterans. After verifying that they had
eligibility, all 91 veterans were given a dignified burial.
I suspect what was found in Idaho would be found in other States. My
legislation would incentivize other States to develop Missing in
America programs like Idaho's by allowing revenue from VA's plot
allowance benefit to go to states which seek out and inter unclaimed
remains.
Under current law, State cemeteries may be reimbursed for the cost of
interring eligible veterans. For each eligible veteran interred, a $300
plot allowance may be paid by VA. Revenue from the plot allowance is
used to operate and maintain the appearance of State cemeteries.
However, plot allowance revenue is not payable to States when veterans
are interred more than 2 years after the permanent burial or cremation
of the veteran's body. Thus, since each of the 91 veterans interred in
Idaho had been left sitting on shelves in an urn for a great deal
longer than 2 years, no plot allowance is payable. This doesn't make
sense. Just as our system of benefits does not abandon or give up on
veterans who are homeless or chronically ill, so too should our burial
benefits system be designed not to abandon or give up on veterans whose
remains are unclaimed. To that end, my legislation would waive the 2-
year limit so that States could receive plot allowance revenue for
interment of the unclaimed remains of veterans. The extra plot
allowance revenue could be used to help states meet costs associated
with running this program and other cemetery operation costs. Most
importantly, my legislation would reward States for giving veterans
what is long overdue: a fitting burial.
The second way my legislation helps to ensure dignified burials is by
increasing VA's plot allowance benefit from $300 to $400. As I
mentioned earlier, the plot allowance can be paid directly to a State
cemetery for the interment of eligible veterans. But it can also be
paid to the survivors of veterans who purchase burial space on their
own in the private market. Under current law, veterans who die in a VA
facility, who are in receipt of disability compensation, or who have
low incomes and are in receipt of VA pension are eligible to receive
the $300 plot allowance benefit. The plot allowance, created in 1973,
is designed to ensure that veterans are not buried in a pauper's grave.
When the benefit was created, it covered 13 percent of the average cost
of an adult funeral. Today, it only covers approximately 5 percent of
the cost. An independent assessment of VA burial benefits directed by
Congress and published in 2000 recommended, as an option, increasing
the plot allowance to $670, which at the time of the assessment
represented 13 percent of the average cost of an adult funeral. Since
that assessment was published, the major veterans' organizations have
persistently recommended that Congress increase this benefit. In its
most recent budget submission, the authors of the Independent Budget
recommended that the plot allowance be increased to $745. In 2001,
Congress took a first step, raising the benefit from $150 to $300. My
legislation would take yet another, measured step.
Finally, my legislation would authorize $5 million per year under
VA's State Cemetery Grant Program for VA to assist States in meeting
operational and maintenance expenses. As I mentioned, the State
Cemetery Grant Program finances the cost of establishing, expanding, or
improving State cemeteries. States must agree to provide suitable land
for a cemetery and they must meet administrative, operational, and
maintenance costs.
My purpose in introducing this aspect of the legislation is twofold.
First, VA is in the midst of the largest national cemetery expansion
since the Civil War. Guiding its cemetery expansion effort was a
prospective look at where and how many veterans will be living 20 years
from now. Based on that prospective analysis, national cemeteries are
being built in those areas of the country that have veterans'
populations of 170,000 or more and that are not residing within, or
expected to reside within, 75 miles of an open State or national
cemetery. It is therefore highly likely that after this expansion has
concluded, no additional national cemeteries will be built for quite
some time. Thus, in order to serve veterans' populations in less
densely populated areas in the future, VA and the States will need to
rely more on the State Cemetery Grant Program. Allowing reimbursement
for some maintenance or operational expenses will serve to make the
program more attractive to States, which may otherwise decline to
participate in the program due to budget constraints. In fact, the 2000
independent assessment I spoke about earlier made the same point,
recommending Congressional consideration of amending the grant program
to allow for reimbursement of the sort contemplated in my legislation.
My second purpose behind this provision is a bit more parochial.
There are eight States in the country without any national cemetery,
including Idaho. These are States with small or scattered veterans'
populations. VA's criteria for establishing national cemeteries makes
it unlikely that veterans in these States will ever have access to a
national cemetery within the borders of their home State. Yet their
service was national in character, and the desire for recognition of
that national service through interment in a national cemetery is real,
if not practical. It is my opinion that the Federal obligation to
veterans residing in States like my own is therefore heightened. And if
the only way to heighten that obligation is by requiring reimbursement
of a greater share of the expenses now borne by the States, so be it.
To my mind, this would be an equitable outcome, and one that I hope VA
factors into criteria it will develop should my legislation be enacted.
Let me make one final and very important point. The cost of my
legislation is in the $8 million per year range. Although I am
convinced of the merits of the legislation, I am also committed to
adhering to our budget rules which require that appropriate spending
offsets be identified before new spending is advanced. I assure my
colleagues that should my legislation be reported from the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, it will be fully offset in accordance with our rules
and my own principle of fiscal discipline.
In summary, the Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007
will help us along in our collective goal of providing veterans with
lasting resting places to honor their lives and service. This is good
legislation, and I urge the support of my colleagues.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1266
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 ``Veterans' Dignified Burial
Assistance Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN ASSISTANCE FOR VETERANS INTERRED IN
CEMETERIES OTHER THAN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Increase in Plot or Interment Allowance.--Section
2303(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``$300'' each place it appears and inserting
``$400''.
(b) Repeal of Time Limitation for State Filing for
Reimbursement for Interment Costs.--
(1) In general.--The second sentence of section
3.1604(d)(2) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, shall
have no further force or effect as it pertains to unclaimed
remains of a deceased veteran.
(2) Retroactive application.--The provision of paragraph
(1) shall take effect as of October 1, 2006.
(c) Grants for Operation and Maintenance of State Veterans'
Cemeteries.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 2408 of such
title is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Subject to'';
(B) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (2) and
indenting the margin of such paragraph, as so designated, two
ems from the left margin; and
[[Page S5504]]
(C) in paragraph (1), as designated by subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph, by striking ``assist such State in
establishing, expanding, or improving veterans' cemeteries
owned by such State.'' and inserting ``assist such State in
the following:
``(A) Establishing, expanding, or improving veterans'
cemeteries owned by such State.
``(B) Operating and maintaining such cemeteries.''.
(2) Limitation on amounts awarded.--Subsection (e) of such
section is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Amounts''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) In any fiscal year, the aggregate amount of grants
awarded under this section for the purposes specified in
subsection (a)(1)(B) may not exceed $5,000,000.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--(A) Subsection (b) of such
section is amended--
(i) by striking ``Grants under this section'' and inserting
``Grants under this section for the purposes described in
subsection (a)(1)(A)''; and
(ii) by striking ``a grant under this section'' each place
it appears and inserting ``such a grant''.
(B) Subsection (d) of such section is amended by inserting
``, or in operating and maintaining a veterans' cemetery,''
after ``veterans' cemetery''.
(C) Subsection (f)(1) of such section is amended by
inserting ``, or in operating and maintaining veterans'
cemeteries,'' after ``veterans' cemeteries''.
(4) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments made
by this subsection.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Graham, Mr. Domenici,
and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 1267. A bill to maintain the free flow of information to the
public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure
of information by certain persons connected with the news media; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my
colleagues Senators Dodd, Graham, Domenici, and Landrieu to introduce
the Free Flow of Information Act.
The free flow of information is an essential element of democracy. A
free press promotes an open marketplace of information and provides
public and private sector accountability to our Nation's electorate. By
ensuring the free flow of information, citizens can work to bring about
improvements in our governance and in our civic life. It is in our
nation's best interest to have an independent press that is free to
question, challenge, and investigate issues and stories, without
concern for political party, position or who holds power. The role of
the media as a conduit between government and the citizens it serves
must not be devalued.
This principle that we practice at home is also one that we promote
abroad. Spreading democracy abroad has become a pillar of United States
foreign policy, and we have recognized that a free and independent
press is both essential to building democracies and a barometer of the
health of young and often imperfect democratic systems. The example of
press freedom we set in this country is an important beacon to guide
other nations as they make the transition from autocratic forms of
government.
Unfortunately, the free flow of information to citizens of the United
States is inhibited and our open market of information is being
threatened. While gathering information on a story, a journalist is
sometimes required to accept information under a promise of
confidentiality. Without assurance of anonymity, many conscientious
citizens with evidence of wrongdoing would stay silent. Restricting the
manner in which appropriate news is gathered is tantamount to
restricting the information that the public has the right to hear.
After a long period when there were few clashes between the media and
authorities, a disturbing new trend has developed. More than 30
reporters have recently been served subpoenas or questioned in at least
four different Federal jurisdictions about their confidential sources.
From 1991 to September 6, 2001, the Department of Justice issued 88
subpoenas to the media, 17 of which sought information leading to the
identification of confidential sources. In fact, three journalists have
been imprisoned at the request of the Department of Justice, U.S.
attorneys under its supervision, or special prosecutors since 2000. As
a result, the press is hobbled in performing the public service of
reporting news. I fear the end result of such actions is that many
whistleblowers will refuse to come forward and reporters will be unable
to provide the American people with information they deserve.
Most jurisdictions in our country have recognized that confidential
sources are integral to the press's role of keeping the public
informed, and have provided some kind of shield so that journalists can
keep secret the names of such sources. Every State and the District of
Columbia, excluding Wyoming, has, by legislation or court ruling,
created a privilege for reporters not to reveal their confidential
sources. My own State of Indiana provides qualified reporters
appropriate protection from having to reveal any such information in
court.
The Federal courts of appeals, however, have an inconsistent view of
this matter. Some circuits allow the privilege in one category of
cases, while others have expressed skepticism about whether any
privilege exists at all. It does not make sense to have a Federal
system of various degrees of press freedom dependent upon where you
live or who provides the subpoena. In fact, 34 State attorneys general
have argued that the lack of a clear standard of Federal protection
undermines state laws.
In addition, there is ambiguity between official Department of
Justice rules and unofficial criteria used to secure media subpoenas.
The Department of Justice guidelines also do not apply to special
prosecutors or private civil litigants. There is an urgent need for
Congress to state clear and concise policy guidance.
In response to this situation, 2 years ago, I was pleased to join
with my colleague Congressman Mike Pence, and Congressman Rick Boucher
in the House of Representatives and Senator Chris Dodd in the Senate to
introduce the Free Flow of Information Act. This legislation provides
journalists with certain rights and abilities to seek sources and
report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or
imprisonment. The bill sets national standards which must be met before
a Federal entity may issue a subpoena to a member of the news media in
any Federal criminal or civil case. It sets out certain tests that
civil litigants or prosecutors must meet before they can force a
journalist to turn over information. Litigants or prosecutors must
show, for instance, that they have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the
information in other ways and that the information is critical to the
case. These standards were based on Justice Department guidelines and
common law standards.
Subsequently, additional protections have been added to this bill to
ensure that information will be disclosed in cases where the
information is critical to prevent death or bodily harm or in cases
which relate to the unlawful disclosure of trade secrets. The bill also
permits a reporter to be compelled to reveal the source in certain
national security situations. Finally, the bill would provide
protections to ensure that source information can be provided when
personal health records and financial records were disclosed in
violation of Federal law.
By providing the courts with a framework for compelled disclosure,
our legislation promotes greater transparency of government, maintains
the ability of the courts to operate effectively, and protects
whistleblowers who identify government or corporate misdeeds.
It is also important to note what this legislation does not do. The
legislation neither gives reporters a license to break the law, nor
permits reporters to interfere with criminal investigation efforts.
State shield laws have been on the books for years, and I have not seen
any evidence to support a correlation between reporter privilege laws
and criminal activity or threats to public safety. Furthermore, the
Free Flow of Information Act does not weaken our national security. The
explicit national security exception will ensure that reporters are
protected while maintaining an avenue for prosecution and disclosure
when considering the defense of our country. This qualified privilege
has been carefully crafted to balance the distinct and important roles
of both the press and law enforcement.
[[Page S5505]]
As ranking member of the United States Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, I believe that passage of this bill would have positive
diplomatic consequences. This legislation not only confirms America's
Constitutional commitment to press freedom, it also advances President
Bush's American foreign policy initiatives to promote and protect
democracy. Our Nation always leads best when it leads by example.
Unfortunately, the press remains under siege in a number of foreign
countries. For instance, Reporters Without Borders points out that 125
journalists are currently in jail around the world, with more than half
of these cases in China, Cuba, and Burma. This is not good company for
the United States of America. Global public opinion is always on the
lookout to advertise perceived American double standards.
I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd as well as
Mike Pence and Rick Boucher, in the House of Representatives for their
tireless work on this issue. I look forward to continuing work with
each of them to protect the free flow of information.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Lugar,
along with Representatives Boucher and Pence in the House of
Representatives, in introducing the Free Flow of Information Act. This
bill would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their
confidential sources, not as an end in itself, but as a means to a
well-informed public. I applaud the tireless efforts of the senior
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, in once again bringing this important
issue to the attention of Congress and indeed the nation.
I hardly have to read the litany of grave wrongs that have been
exposed because journalists called the powerful to account. And I don't
have to remind you how many of those exposures relied on confidential
sources. Without confidential sources, would we still be ignorant about
abuse of power in the Watergate era? Without confidential sources,
would Enron still be profiting from fraud? How long would torture at
Abu Ghraib have persisted, if proof hadn't been provided to the press?
The free flow of information provides the American people its most
meaningful check on abuses such as those. Thomas Jefferson said it
best: ``If I had to make a choice, to choose the government without the
press or to have the press but without the government, I will select
the latter without hesitation.'' Jefferson clearly understood that a
free Government cannot possibly last without a free press.
But today, we find this cornerstone of self-government facing a new
threat. This threat has not come from the dictates of a dangerous
government, but from the best of intentions. In a spate of recent
cases, prosecutors have used subpoenas, fines, and jail time to compel
journalists to reveal their anonymous sources. Judith Miller of The New
York Times was jailed for 85 days for refusing to reveal a source. Two
San Francisco Chronicle reporters were found in contempt of court for
refusing to identify sources and hand over material related to the
BALCO steroids investigation. A Rhode Island journalist was sentenced
to home arrest on similar charges. Last year alone, a total of some two
dozen reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about confidential
sources. They were all journalists prosecuted only for the offense of
journalism.
The impact of these subpoenas on the broader issue of freedom of
information is undeniable. Last summer, for instance, the editor-in-
chief of Time magazine testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This is what he said about the fallout from the Justice Department's
efforts to obtain confidential information from a Time reporter:
``Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted the
magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories. The
chilling effect is obvious.''
The chilling effect is obvious. Experience has shown us that the most
effective constraint on free speech need not be blatant censorship: A
few cases like Ms. Miller's and the San Francisco Chronicle's, and news
will begin censoring itself. We can only speculate as to how many
editors and publishers put the brakes on a story for fear that it could
land one of their reporters in a spider web of subpoenas, charges of
contempt, and prison. When we minimize the impact of confidential
sources, serious journalism is crippled. We will find our papers full
of stories more and more palatable to the powerful and secretive. No
one argues that that is the intention of those prosecuting these cases;
but few deny that it could, in time, be their effect.
When journalists are hauled into court and threatened with
imprisonment if they don't divulge their sources, we are entering
dangerous territory for a democracy. The information we need to remain
sovereign will be degraded; the public's right to know will be
threatened; and I suggest to you that the liberties we hold dear will
be threatened as well.
That is exactly why we need a Federal reporter shield. Forty-nine
States and the District of Columbia have already recognized that need
by enacting similar protection on the state level either through
legislation or court decisions; the Free Flow of Information Act simply
extends that widely recognized protection to the Federal courts.
The new version of this bill expands coverage in two significant
ways. First, it will not only protect the information journalists
obtain under the promise of confidentiality; it will also cover the
``work product'' of journalists as well, whether or not it was subject
to that promise. And second, it no longer limits protection to
mainstream reporters; the new version also shields any person ``engaged
in journalism.'' In today's expansive media environment, it would be
unacceptable to deny the shield to our citizen-journalists.
Of course, the reporter shield is not absolute. The public's need to
know must be weighed against other goods, and that is why the bill
establishes a balancing test that takes into account ``both the public
interest in compelling disclosure and the public interest in gathering
news and maintaining the free flow of information.'' Specifically, the
bill will not protect anonymity when disclosure of a source would
prevent imminent harm to national security, imminent death or bodily
harm, or the release of personal or health related information. In
other words, we are balancing our right to know with our need for
security, whether physical or economic. Secrecy is as necessary in
extreme circumstances as it is dangerous on the whole.
It is on the idea of balance that I would like to conclude. A
prosecution, whatever its individual merits, sacrifices something
higher when it turns on reporters; and so those merits must be balanced
against the broader harms such a prosecution can work. If a free press
inexorably creates a free government, as Jefferson suggested, then the
agents of that free government, prosecutors included, owe a high debt
to journalism. When prosecutors threaten journalism, they have begun to
renege on that debt. So I am proud to support this valuable bill, a
step toward rebalancing the pursuit of justice and the diffusion of
truth.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 1269. A bill to improve border security in the United States and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I once again today introduced S. 1269, the
ENFORCE Act, because this body has failed to move forward with sound
immigration legislation. My bill is a strong step in the right
direction to help solve our growing problem of illegal immigration.
I did this already. I did this last year. We had a chance to talk
about it, but we never were able to get this up to a vote. I do want to
keep this subject moving because people are not talking about this
anymore. This bill focuses on securing our borders and empowering our
citizens and law enforcement officers to fight the all-time high flood
of illegal immigrants. There are around a million illegal aliens
infiltrating our borders each year. It also addresses some of the
lesser known but equally destructive exploitations of our Nation by
some of these illegal immigrants.
I wish to be clear, for some reason--I am not sure why--- I have been
honored over the years to speak at nationalization ceremonies. It is
one of the emotional things a person can go through. When you see
people coming into this country and doing it the way
[[Page S5506]]
they are supposed to, they learn the history. Those who have gone
through the legal process know more about the history of America than
the average person you run into on the street. I am very strongly in
favor of legal immigration.
In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform stated that
``measured, legal immigration has led to create one of the world's
greatest multiethnic nations.'' I agree with that statement. I also
agree with their statement that when immigrants become
``Americanized,'' they help cultivate a shared commitment to ``liberty,
democracy, and equal opportunity'' in our Nation. That is legal
immigration. I agree with that.
However, I am quoting now from Roy Beck, executive director of
Numbers USA. He stated:
A presence of 8 to 11 million illegal aliens--
I think the figure is now approximately 12 million--
in this country is a sign that this country has lost
control of its borders and the ability to determine who is a
member of this national community. And a country that has
lost that ability increasingly loses its ability to determine
the rules of its society--environmental protections, labor
protection, health protections, safety protections.
Further quoting:
In fact, a country that cannot keep illegal immigration to
a low level quickly ceases to be a real country, or a real
community. Rather than being self-governed, such a country
begins to have its destiny largely determined by citizens of
other countries who manage to move in illegally.
With that being said, I cannot and I will not stand idly by and watch
our great Nation collapse under the pressures of uncontrolled illegal
immigration. This is a crisis, one that must be addressed aggressively.
While I would not belabor the point, I will chronicle some of illegal
immigration's specific threats to our Nation's vitality and how this
bill will address them.
First and foremost, the issue of border security must be addressed.
My bill would help ramp up border security by providing a way for
civilians and retired law enforcement officers to assist the Border
Patrol in stopping illegal border crossings. Keep in mind, if you are a
retired Federal law enforcement officer, they have a mandatory
retirement age of 57. There are many of these who would work for
expenses. What we are advocating is a three-tiered system where you
have the Border Patrol who are skilled the way they are today but have
them fortified by this army of retired law enforcement officers and
then bring in the third tier which are those which we have watched in
the past that have been very effective in adding to the numbers on the
border.
It is already working. It is very similar to the National Border
Neighborhood Watch. I know in my State of Oklahoma it has been a very
effective program. It is more eyes to watch and more talent to arrest,
when necessary. A more obscure issue that also warrants reform is the
legal status of what has become known as anchor babies.
To better their odds of remaining in the United States, illegal
immigrants have taken advantage of a constitutional provision granting
automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, by
providing citizenship to these ``anchor babies,'' as they are known,
our Nation rewards the illegal entry of their parents and facilities
the further exploitation of our borders and national resources.
This trend has contributed to the alarming fact that the illegal
immigrant population is growing faster than the birthrate of American
citizens. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, based on
numbers from the National Center of Health Statistics, in 2002, there
were about 8.4 million illegal aliens, which represented about 3.3
percent of the total U.S. population. That same year, there were about
383,000 babies born to illegal aliens, which represents about 9.5
percent of all U.S. births in 2002.
This problem continues to grow exponentially and serves as a strong
incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country in hopes
of shortcutting citizenship requirements. Language included in the
ENFORCE Act will put an end to this much exploited practice.
Another ``supposed'' obligation we face is the education of illegal
aliens. Some States, such as my State of Oklahoma, allow the illegal
aliens the advantage of receiving in-State tuition at our State
colleges and universities. I believe it is inexcusable to give away
State-subsidized educations to those who do not pay taxes. This act
will address this problem by making it unlawful for illegal aliens to
receive this particular handout.
The ENFORCE Act includes several provisions to halt illegal
immigrants' continued exploitation of our tax laws and our Social
Security benefits. One of the greatest problems in this area is illegal
immigrants' abuse of the individual tax identification number. That is
the ITIN program.
Currently, it so closely resembles the Social Security number that
many illegal immigrants are able to use it in place of a Social
Security card to bypass our tax laws or receive wrongly awarded
benefits. The ENFORCE Act will require a change in the physical
appearance of this particular document so its identity can no longer be
mistaken for that of a Social Security number, and it will also
prohibit that document from being used for identification purposes.
Additionally, my bill will require Social Security numbers to expire
as soon as a person's permission to be in the United States expires. So
it would expire at the same time that permission expires.
It will prohibit illegal immigrants who gain legal status from
collecting Social Security benefits for the time they worked illegally
in the country.
Finally, the legality of day-labor centers is a topic that must be
addressed by any comprehensive immigration reform package. These day-
labor centers exist within illegal immigration-friendly ``sanctuary
sites'' and not just in San Francisco. Day-labor centers are State-
designated and funded sites where illegal aliens congregate and wait
for employers to pick them up for a day of illegal work.
One such site was approved in 2005 in Fairfax County, VA, to be paid
for by taxpayer dollars. Sanctuary cities such as these enable and
encourage unlawful activity by both illegal aliens and the employers
who hire them. The ENFORCE Act will outlaw the creation of those
particular centers.
Illegal immigrants continue to cause a myriad of problems for our
country and for law-abiding citizens such as you and me. Illegal
immigrants not only drain our economy through their exploitation of
public services and resources, but we must not forget the national
security threat posed by would-be terrorists who have entered our
country illegally or remain here unlawfully by overstaying their visas.
The Center for Immigration Study says:
Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from
which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal
immigration in terms of government expenditures for
education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are
significant. Illegal immigration is straining our economy,
jeopardizing our security, and burdening our education and
health care systems.
So this ENFORCE Act will provide solid tools to eliminate illegal
immigration and strongly enforce the existing U.S. immigration laws.
The seriousness of this crisis warrants that Americans of all political
stripes come together to address this problem.
One thing that is not included in this legislation that I think
should be included in any kind of reform--and some of my colleagues can
remember I had on the floor of the Senate the legislation making
English the official language of the United States--and it is
interesting that some 88 percent of the American people want this, and
some 70 percent of the Hispanic population want this also. It is also
interesting that there are 50 countries around the world that have
English as their official language, including Ghana in West Africa and
some other countries, and yet we do not have it for ourselves. But that
is going to be handled separately at a different time.
History shows us that declaring ``immigration bankruptcy'' does not
work. We saw that in the amnesty of 1986. Simply granting citizenship
to immigrants who are currently in our country illegally is not the
answer. We have to enhance our border security, hold those accountable
who encourage illegal immigration, and ensure that those who violate
our laws by entering our country illegally do not remain here and are
not easily welcomed back.
[[Page S5507]]
So I am introducing that legislation, and I am going to be bringing
it up at the appropriate time.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Obama,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Isakson):
S. 1270. A bill to amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, in the case of airline pilots who are required by
regulation to retire at age 60, to compute the actuarial value of
monthly benefits in the form of a life annuity commencing at age 60; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act to ensure fair
treatment of commercial airline pilot retirees. I thank my cosponsors,
Senators Kennedy, Inouye, Obama, Durbin, Harkin, and Salazar. I also
thank Representative George Miller for introducing the companion
legislation in the other body.
My bill corrects an injustice imposed on pilots whose pensions have
been terminated and handed over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, PBGC. This bill will lower the age requirement to receive
the maximum pension benefits allowed by the PBGC to age 60 for pilots,
who are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, to retire
before age 65. With the airline industry experiencing severe financial
distress, we need to enact this legislation to assist pilots whose
companies have been or will be unable to continue their defined benefit
pension plans. This bill will require the PBGC to take into account the
fact that the pilots are required to retire at the age of 60 when
calculating their benefits.
The FAA requires commercial aviation pilots to retire when they reach
the age of 60. Pilots are therefore denied the maximum pension benefit
administered by the PBGC because they are required to retire before the
age of 65. Herein lies the problem. If pilots want to work beyond the
age of 60, they have to request a waiver from the FAA. It is my
understanding that the FAA has only granted these waivers for pilots
working for foreign airlines that fly to and from the United States.
Therefore, retired pilots whose pensions are administered by the PBGC
do not receive the maximum pension guarantee because they are forced to
retire at age 60.
For plans terminated in 2005, the maximum benefit for someone that
retires at 65 is $45,614 a year. For those who retire at 60, the
maximum is $29,649. This significant reduction in benefits puts pilots
in a difficult position. Their pensions have been reduced significantly
and they are prohibited from reentering their profession due to the
mandatory retirement age. They are unable to go back to their former
jobs. My legislation ensures that pilots are able to obtain the maximum
PBGC benefit without being unfairly penalized for having to retire at
60. We must pass this bill to provide some relief for United Airlines,
Aloha Airlines, US Airways, Delta, TWA, and other pilots who have had
their pensions terminated and taken over by the PBGC and suffer from
this wrongly imposed penalty.
In the previous Congress, this legislation was included in the
Senate-passed version of the Pension Security and Transparency Act of
2005. However, this provision was not included in the conference
report. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we can
finally provide some relief for our pilots who already have suffered
financially due to the termination of their pension plans.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1270
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 ``Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act''.
SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR AIRLINE PILOTS.
(a) Single-Employer Plan Benefits Guaranteed.--Section
4022(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322(b)(3)) is amended by inserting at the
end the following: ``If, at the time of termination of a plan
under this title, regulations prescribed by the Federal
Aviation Administration require an individual to separate
from service as a commercial airline pilot after attaining
any age before age 65, this paragraph shall be applied to an
individual who is a participant in the plan by reason of such
service by substituting such age for age 65.''.
(b) Aggregate Limit on Benefits Guaranteed; Criteria
Applicable.--Section 4022B(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322b(a)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``If, at the time of
termination of a plan under this title, regulations
prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration require an
individual to separate from service as a commercial airline
pilot after attaining any age before age 65, this subsection
shall be applied to an individual who is a participant in the
plan by reason of such service by substituting such age for
age 65.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to benefits
payable on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. KYL:
S. 1273. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
permanent look-through treatment of payments between related foreign
corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make
permanent a provision of our tax that was enacted in 2006 as part of
the Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, but expires at the end
of 2008. The controlled-foreign corporation (CFC) look-through
provision allows U.S.-based multinational companies to better compete
with foreign companies by enabling them to be more flexible in their
overseas operations. In this age of global competition, I hope my
colleagues will agree that the United States needs to maintain a
business climate that encourages U.S.-based companies to grow and
succeed. The CFC look-through provision is an important part of that
effort.
For several years now, I have been encouraging my colleagues to
recognize that our tax system puts many of our best U.S. employers at a
competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign-based companies. Many
foreign countries only impose tax on income earned within their
borders; the United States taxes U.S. companies on their worldwide
income.
The general rule is that income from a foreign subsidiary is not
taxed by the United States until those earnings are brought back to the
U.S. parent, usually in the form of a dividend. Subpart F of the
Internal Revenue Code sets forth a number of exceptions to this general
rule, imposing current U.S. tax, instead of allowing deferral of
taxation, on subsidiary earnings generally when that income is passive
in nature. One exception to the general deferral rule imposes tax on
the U.S. parent when a foreign-based subsidiary receives dividends,
interest, rents or royalties from another subsidiary that is located in
a different country. If the two subsidiaries are in the same country,
however, U.S. tax is generally deferred until the income is repatriated
to the U.S. parent.
In 2005, I introduced legislation to extend this ``same-country''
treatment, the CFC look-through provision, to payments between related
foreign subsidiaries that are located in different countries, and I was
pleased that the 2006 tax reconciliation bill included this provision.
Today, I am introducing legislation to make the CFC look-through
permanent.
Today's global economy is significantly different from the
environment that existed when the subpart F rules were first introduced
in 1962. As the global economy has changed, the traditional model for
operating a global business has changed as well. In today's world, it
makes no sense to impose a tax penalty when a company wants to fund the
operations of a subsidiary in one country from the active business
earnings of a subsidiary in another country. For example, to operate
efficiently, a U.S.-based manufacturer could establish specialized
manufacturing sites, distribution hubs, and service centers. As a
result, multiple related-party entities may be required to fulfill a
specific customer order. Before the CFC look-through was enacted last
year, U.S. tax law inappropriately increased the cost for these foreign
[[Page S5508]]
subsidiaries to serve their customers in a very competitive business
environment by imposing current tax on these related-party payments,
even though the income continues to be used in active operations in the
foreign market.
In another example, financial institutions have established foreign
subsidiaries with headquarters in a financial center, such as London,
and branches in multiple countries in the same geographic region. This
permits an efficient ``hub and spoke'' form of regional operation;
however, this efficient business model made it difficult for the same-
country exception to be met for payments of dividends and interest.
Before the CFC look-through was enacted, American companies were at a
real and significant competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign-
based companies. U.S.-based multinationals were penalized for
responding to market or investment opportunities by redeploying active
foreign earnings among foreign businesses conducted through multiple
subsidiaries. To remove this impediment, Congress amended subpart F to
provide a general exception for inter-affiliate payments of dividends,
interest, rents or royalties that are generated from an active
business.
Congress was right to apply look-through treatment to payments of
dividends, interest, rents and royalties between subsidiaries. If the
underlying earnings would not have been subject to subpart F, the
payments should not be subpart F income. Look-through treatment for
payments of dividends, interest, rents and royalties should be
permitted as long as the payments are made out of active business, non-
subpart F, income. Look-through principles are already well developed
for other purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, a look-
through approach to the characterization of foreign income is used for
purposes of calculating foreign tax credits. A consistent application
of look-through principles simplifies the interaction between subpart F
and the foreign tax credit rules.
If we want to keep U.S.-based multinational companies, which employ
millions of workers here at home headquartered in the United States, we
must modernize our tax rules so that our companies can be competitive
around the globe. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation to
make permanent this modest change in the law that will enhance the
position of U.S.-based employers trying to succeed in competitive
foreign markets.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 1274. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to the safety of food for humans and pets; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1274
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 ``Human and Pet Food Safety
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FOOD SAFETY FOR HUMANS AND PETS.
(a) Adverse Events; Inspections; Recall.--Chapter IV of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 417. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL.
``(a) Notice to Secretary of Violation.--
``(1) In general.--A person that has reason to believe that
any food introduced into or in interstate commerce, or held
for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in
interstate commerce, may be in violation of this Act shall
immediately notify the Secretary of the identity and location
of the food.
``(2) Manner of notification.--Notification under paragraph
(1) shall be made in such manner and by such means as the
Secretary may require by regulation.
``(b) Recall and Consumer Notification; Voluntary
Actions.--If the Secretary determines that food is in
violation of this Act when introduced into or while in
interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not
the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce and
that there is a reasonable probability that the food, if
consumed, would present a threat to public health, as
determined by the Secretary, the Secretary shall give the
appropriate persons (including the manufacturers, importers,
distributors, or retailers of the food) an opportunity to--
``(1) cease distribution of the food;
``(2) notify all persons--
``(A) processing, distributing, or otherwise handling the
food to immediately cease such activities with respect to the
food; or
``(B) to which the food has been distributed, transported,
or sold, to immediately cease distribution of the food;
``(3) recall the food;
``(4) in conjunction with the Secretary, provide notice of
the finding of the Secretary--
``(A) to consumers to whom the food was, or may have been,
distributed; and
``(B) to State and local public health officials; or
``(5) take any combination of the measures described in
this paragraph, as determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate in the circumstances.
``(c) Civil and Criminal Penalties.--
``(1) Civil sanctions.--
``(A) Civil penalty.--Any person that commits an act that
violates the notification and recall standards under
subsection (b) (including a regulation promulgated or order
issued under this Act) may be assessed a civil penalty by the
Secretary of not more than $10,000 for each such act.
``(B) Separate offense.--Each act described in subparagraph
(A) and each day during which that act continues shall be
considered a separate offense.
``(2) Other requirements.--
``(A) Written order.--The civil penalty described in
paragraph (1) shall be assessed by the Secretary by a written
order, which shall specify the amount of the penalty and the
basis for the penalty under subparagraph (B) considered by
the Secretary.
``(B) Amount of penalty.--Subject to paragraph (1)(A), the
amount of the civil penalty shall be determined by the
Secretary, after considering--
``(i) the gravity of the violation;
``(ii) the degree of culpability of the person;
``(iii) the size and type of the business of the person;
and
``(iv) any history of prior offenses by the person under
this Act.
``(C) Review of order.--The order may be reviewed only in
accordance with subsection (d).
``(3) Exception.--No person shall be subject to the
penalties of this subsection--
``(A) for having received, proffered, or delivered in
interstate commerce any food, if the receipt, proffer, or
delivery was made in good faith, unless that person refuses
to furnish (on request of an officer or employee designated
by the Secretary)--
``(i) the name, address and contact information of the
person from whom that person purchased or received the food;
``(ii) copies of all documents relating to the person from
whom that person purchased or received the food; and
``(iii) copies of all documents pertaining to the delivery
of the food to that person; or
``(B) if that person establishes a guaranty signed by, and
containing the name and address of, the person from whom that
person received in good faith the food, stating that the food
is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this
Act.
``(d) Judicial Review.--
``(1) In general.--An order assessing a civil penalty under
subsection (c) shall be a final order unless the person--
``(A) not later than 30 days after the effective date of
the order, files a petition for judicial review of the order
in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in
which that person resides or has its principal place of
business or the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia; and
``(B) simultaneously serves a copy of the petition by
certified mail to the Secretary.
``(2) Filing of record.--Not later than 45 days after the
service of a copy of the petition under paragraph (1)(B), the
Secretary shall file in the court a certified copy of the
administrative record upon which the order was issued.
``(3) Standard of review.--The findings of the Secretary
relating to the order shall be set aside only if found to be
unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
``(e) Collection Actions for Failure to Pay.--
``(1) In general.--If any person fails to pay a civil
penalty assessed under subsection (c) after the order
assessing the penalty has become a final order, or after the
court of appeals described in subsection (d) has entered
final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the Secretary shall
refer the matter to the Attorney General, who shall institute
in a United States district court of competent jurisdiction a
civil action to recover the amount assessed.
``(2) Limitation on review.--In a civil action under
paragraph (1), the validity and appropriateness of the order
of the Secretary assessing the civil penalty shall not be
subject to judicial review.
``(f) Penalties Paid Into Account.--The Secretary--
``(1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section
in an account in the Treasury; and
``(2) may use the funds in the account, without further
appropriation or fiscal year limitation--
``(A) to carry out enforcement activities under food safety
law; or
``(B) to provide assistance to States to inspect retail
commercial food establishments, such as an establishment that
holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients, or
[[Page S5509]]
other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food
safety programs.
``(g) Discretion of the Secretary to Prosecute.--Nothing in
this section, section 418, or section 419 requires the
Secretary to report for prosecution, or for the commencement
of an action, the violation of this Act in a case in which
the Secretary finds that the public interest will be
adequately served by the assessment of a civil penalty under
this section.
``(h) Remedies Not Exclusive.--The remedies provided in
this section may be in addition to, and not exclusive of,
other remedies that may be available.
``SEC. 418. MANDATORY RECALL ACTION.
``(a) Mandatory Actions.--If a person referred to in
section 417(b) refuses to or does not adequately carry out
the actions described in that section within the time period
and in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, the Secretary
shall--
``(1) have authority to control and possess the food,
including ordering the shipment of the food from a food
establishment, such as an establishment that holds, stores,
or transports food or food ingredients, to the Secretary--
``(A) at the expense of such food establishment; or
``(B) in an emergency (as determined by the Secretary), at
the expense of the Secretary; and
``(2) by order, require, as the Secretary determines to be
necessary, the person to immediately--
``(A) cease distribution of the food; and
``(B) notify all persons--
``(i) processing, distributing, or otherwise handling the
food to immediately cease such activities with respect to the
food; or
``(ii) if the food has been distributed, transported, or
sold, to immediately cease distribution of the food.
``(b) Notification to Consumers by Secretary.--The
Secretary shall, as the Secretary determines to be necessary,
provide notice of the finding of the Secretary under
paragraph (1)--
``(1) to consumers to whom the food was, or may have been,
distributed; and
``(2) to State and local public health officials.
``(c) Nondistribution by Notified Persons.--A person that
processes, distributes, or otherwise handles the food, or to
which the food has been distributed, transported, or sold,
and that is notified under section 417(b)(2) or subsection
(a)(2)(B) of this section shall immediately cease
distribution of the food.
``(d) Availability of Records to Secretary.--Each person
referred to in section 417 that processed, distributed, or
otherwise handled food shall make available to the Secretary
information necessary to carry out this subsection, as
determined by the Secretary, regarding--
``(1) persons that processed, distributed, or otherwise
handled the food; and
``(2) persons to which the food has been transported, sold,
distributed, or otherwise handled.
``(e) Informal Hearings on Orders.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide any person
subject to an order under subsection (a) with an opportunity
for an informal hearing, to be held as soon as practicable
but not later than 2 business days after the issuance of the
order.
``(2) Scope of the hearing.--In a hearing under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consider the actions required by the
order and any reasons why the food that is the subject of the
order should not be recalled.
``(f) Post-Hearing Recall Orders.--
``(1) Amendment of order.--If, after providing an
opportunity for an informal hearing under subsection (e), the
Secretary determines that there is a reasonable probability
that the food that is the subject of an order under
subsection (a), if consumed, would present a threat to the
public health, the Secretary, as the Secretary determines to
be necessary, may--
``(A) amend the order to require recall of the food or
other appropriate action;
``(B) specify a timetable in which the recall shall occur;
``(C) require periodic reports to the Secretary describing
the progress of the recall; and
``(D) provide notice of the recall to consumers to whom the
food was, or may have been, distributed.
``(2) Vacation of orders.--If, after providing an
opportunity for an informal hearing under subsection (e), the
Secretary determines that adequate grounds do not exist to
continue the actions required by the order, the Secretary
shall vacate the order.
``(g) Remedies Not Exclusive.--The remedies provided in
this section shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of,
other remedies that may be available.
``SEC. 419. FOREIGN INSPECTIONS; IMPORTS.
``(a) Authority to Inspect.--The Secretary shall have the
authority to visit any foreign country that imports to the
United States human or pet food. Such a visit shall be for
the purpose of auditing the food safety or pet food programs
of such foreign country or to conduct investigations in the
event that a food or ingredient of a food is found to violate
this Act.
``(b) Imports.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a
system under which a foreign government or foreign
manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer that seeks
to import food to the United States shall submit a request
for certification to the Secretary.
``(2) Certification standard.--A foreign government or
foreign manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer
requesting a certification to import food to the United
States shall demonstrate, in a manner determined appropriate
by the Secretary, that food produced under the supervision of
a foreign government or by the foreign manufacturer,
importer, distributor, or retailer has met standards for food
safety, inspection, labeling, and consumer protection that
are at least equivalent to standards applicable to food
produced in the United States.
``(3) Certification approval.--
``(A) Request by foreign government.--Prior to granting the
certification request of a foreign government, the Secretary
shall review, audit, and certify the food safety program of a
requesting foreign government (including all statutes,
regulations, and inspection authority) as at least equivalent
to the food safety program in the United States, as
demonstrated by the foreign government.
``(B) Request by foreign establishment.--Prior to granting
the certification request of a foreign manufacturer,
importer, distributor, or retailer that seeks to import food
to the United States, the Secretary shall certify, based on
an onsite inspection, the food safety programs and procedures
of a requesting foreign firm as at least equivalent to the
food safety programs and procedures of the United States.
``(4) Limitation.--A foreign government or foreign
manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer approved by
the Secretary to import food to the United States under this
section shall be certified to export only the approved food
products to the United States for a period not to exceed 5
years.
``(5) Withdrawal of certification.--The Secretary may
withdraw certification of any food from a foreign government
or foreign manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer
that seeks to import food to the United States--
``(A) if such food is linked to an outbreak of human
illness;
``(B) following an investigation by the Secretary that
finds that the food safety programs and procedures of the
foreign government or foreign manufacturer, importer,
distributor, or retailer are no longer equivalent to the food
safety programs and procedures in the United States; or
``(C) following a refusal to allow United States officials
to conduct such audits and investigations as may be necessary
to fulfill the requirements under this section.
``(6) Renewal of certification.--The Secretary shall audit
a foreign government and a foreign manufacturer, importer,
distributor, or retailer that seeks to import food to the
United States at least every 5 years to ensure the continued
compliance with the standards set forth in this section.
``(7) Required routine inspection.--The Secretary shall
routinely inspect food and food animals (via a physical
examination) before it enters the United States to ensure
that it is--
``(A) safe;
``(B) labeled as required for food produced in the United
States; and
``(C) otherwise meets requirements under this Act.
``(8) Records inspection.--
``(A) In general.--The responsible party or importer shall
permit an authorized person to have access to records
required to be maintained under this section during an
inspection pursuant to section 704.
``(B) Defintions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `authorized person' means an officer or
employee of the Department of Health and Human Services, who
has--
``(I) appropriate credentials, as determined by the
Secretary; and
``(II) been duly designated by the Secretary to have access
to the records required under this section; and
``(ii) the term `responsible party' means, with respect to
an article of food, any person responsible for the
manufacturing, processing, packaging, or holding for such
food for consumption in the United States.
``(9) Enforcement.--The Secretary is authorized to--
``(A) deny importation of food from any foreign government
that does not permit United States officials to enter the
foreign country to conduct such audits and inspections as may
be necessary to fulfill the requirements under this section;
``(B) deny importation of food from any foreign government
or foreign manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer
that does not consent to an investigation by the
Administration when food from that foreign country or foreign
firm is linked to a food-borne illness outbreak or is
otherwise found to be adulterated or mislabeled; and
``(C) promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the
purposes of this section, including setting terms and
conditions for the destruction of products that fail to meet
the standards of this Act.
``(10) Detention and seizure.--Any food imported for
consumption in the United States may be detained, seized, or
condemned pursuant to section 418.''.
SEC. 3. ENSURING EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
DURING A RECALL.
The Secretary shall, during an ongoing recall of human or
pet food shall--
(1) work with companies, relevant professional
associations, and other organizations
[[Page S5510]]
to collect and aggregate information pertaining to the
recall;
(2) use existing networks of communication including
electronic forms of information dissemination to enhance the
quality and speed of communication with the public; and
(3) post information regarding recalled products on the
Internet website of the Food and Drug Administration in a
consolidated, searchable form that is easily accessed and
understood by the public.
SEC. 4. ENSURING THE SAFETY OF PET FOOD.
(a) Processing and Ingredient Standards.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as
the ``Secretary''), in consultation with the Association of
American Feed Control Officials, and other relevant
stakeholder groups, including veterinary medical
associations, animal health organizations, and pet food
manufacturers, shall by regulation establish--
(1) processing and ingredient standards with respect to
feed, pet food, animal waste, and ingredient definitions; and
(2) updated standards for the labeling of pet food that
includes nutritional information and ingredient information.
(b) Early Warning Surveillance Systems and Notification
During Pet Food Recalls.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall by regulation
establish an early warning and surveillance system to
identify contaminations of the pet food supply and outbreaks
of illness from pet food. In establishing such system, the
Secretary shall--
(A) use surveillance and monitoring mechanisms similar to,
or in coordination with, those mechanisms used by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor human health,
such as the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network
(FoodNet) and PulseNet;
(B) consult with relevant professional associations and
private sector veterinary hospitals; and
(C) work with Health Alert Networks and other notification
networks to inform veterinarians and relevant stakeholders
during any recall of pet food.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1) such sums as
may be necessary.
SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the safety and integrity of the United States food
supply is vital to the public health, to public confidence in
the food supply, and to the success of the food sector of the
Nation's economy;
(2) illnesses and deaths of individuals and companion pets
caused by contaminated food--
(A) have contributed to a loss of public confidence in food
safety; and
(B) have caused significant economic loses to manufactures
and producers not responsible for contaminated food items;
(3) the task of preserving the safety of the food supply of
the United States faces tremendous pressures with regard to--
(A) emerging pathogens and other contaminants and the
ability to detect all forms of contamination; and
(B) an increasing volume of imported food, without adequate
monitoring and inspection;
(4) the United States is increasing the amount of food that
it imports such that--
(A) from 2003 to the present, the value of food imports has
increased from $45,600,000,000 to $64,000,000,000; and
(B) imported food accounts for 13 percent of the average
Americans diet including 31 percent of fruits, juices, and
nuts, 9.5 percent of red meat and 78.6 percent of fish and
shellfish; and
(5) the number of full time equivalent Food and Drug
Administration employees conducting inspections has decreased
from 2003 to 2007.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) it is vital for Congress to provide the Food and Drug
Administration with additional resources, authorities, and
direction with respect to ensuring the safety of the food
supply of the United States;
(2) additional Food and Drug Administration inspectors are
required if we are to improve Food and Drug Administration's
ability to safeguard the food supply of the United States;
and
(3) because of the increasing volume of international trade
in food products the Secretary of Health and Human Services
should make it a priority to enter into agreements, including
memoranda of understanding, with the trading partners of the
United States with respect to food safety.
SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.
The Secretary of Health and Human Service shall, on an
annual basis, submit to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a
report that includes, with respect to the preceding 1-year
period--
(1) the number and amount of food products imported into
the United States, aggregated by country, and type of food,
if any;
(2) a listing of the number of inspectors of imported food
products and the number of inspections performed on such
products; and
(3) aggregated data on the findings of such inspections,
including data related to violations of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and
enforcement mechanisms used to follow-up on such findings and
violations.
____________________