[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 74 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5657-S5660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1315. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance
life insurance benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Disabled Veterans
Insurance Improvement Act of 2007.
The purpose of this legislation is to make certain improvements in
the insurance programs available to service-connected disabled
veterans. It has two main components.
First, this legislation would increase the maximum amount of Veterans
Mortgage Life Insurance, VMLI, that a service-connected disabled
veteran may purchase from the current maximum of $90,000 to $200,000.
The VMLI program was established in 1971 and is available to those
service-connected disabled veterans who have received specially adapted
housing grants from VA. In the event of the veteran's death, the
veteran's family is protected because the Department of Veterans
Affairs will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum
amount of insurance purchased.
The need for this increase is obvious in today's housing market
where, during February, the median sale price of a home in the United
States was estimated by the Bureau of Census to be $250,000. My
legislation would ensure that this important benefit, which helps
secure the financial future of many veterans and their families, keeps
pace with changes in the economy.
My bill would also establish a new program of insurance for service-
connected disabled veterans that would provide up to a maximum of
$50,000 in level premium term life insurance coverage. This new program
would be available to service-connected disabled veterans who are less
than 65 years of age at the time of application.
Under the new program, eligible service-connected veterans would be
able to purchase, in increments of $10,000, up to a maximum amount of
$50,000 in insurance. Importantly, unlike existing life insurance
programs, the premium rates for this program would be based on the 2001
Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality rather than
the 1941 mortality table that the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance,
S-DVI, program is based upon.
When an insured veteran reaches age 70, two things would occur under
this new program of insurance. First, the amount of insurance would be
reduced to 20 percent of the amount of insurance in force prior to the
veteran's 70th birthday. Second, the veteran would cease making premium
payments. This means that during those years where the family's
financial obligations would be commensurately higher because of
children, mortgages, and the potential impact of any loss of income,
the veteran's family would be able to purchase the maximum amount of
term life insurance. At age 70, when resources are likely to be most
restricted and the need for substantial insurance to take care of a
family's needs after the veteran's death have lessened, the veteran
would no longer have an obligation to continue to pay any insurance
premiums.
My proposal provides that application for this insurance would need
to be submitted by an eligible veteran within 2 years from the date on
which VA establishes a service-connected disability to exist but not
later than 10 years after a veteran's release from active duty. It
would further provide that during the first year of the program, any
eligible veteran who is presently insured under the S-DVI program could
convert that insurance to a policy under this new program.
Both of the proposals contained in the legislation I am introducing
today are compatible with the provisions of S. 643, the proposed
Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007, which I introduced on February
15 of this year.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S5658]]
S. 1315
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 ``Disabled Veterans Insurance
Improvement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. ENHANCEMENT OF VETERANS' MORTGAGE LIFE INSURANCE.
Section 2106(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``$90,000'' and inserting ``$200,000''.
SEC. 3. LEVEL-PREMIUM TERM LIFE INSURANCE FOR VETERANS WITH
SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 19 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1922A the
following new section:
``Sec. 1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans
with service-connected disabilities
``(a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of
this section, the Secretary shall grant insurance to each
eligible veteran who seeks such insurance against the death
of such veteran occurring while such insurance is in force.
``(b) Eligible Veterans.--For purposes of this section, an
eligible veteran is any veteran less than 65 years of age who
has a service-connected disability.
``(c) Amount of Insurance.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
the amount of insurance granted an eligible veteran under
this section shall be $50,000 or such lesser amount as the
veteran shall elect. The amount of insurance so elected shall
be evenly divisible by $10,000.
``(2) The aggregate amount of insurance of an eligible
veteran under this section, section 1922 of this title, and
section 1922A of this title may not exceed $50,000.
``(d) Reduced Amount for Veterans Age 70 or Older.--In the
case of a veteran insured under this section who turns age
70, the amount of insurance of such veteran under this
section after the date such veteran turns age 70 shall be the
amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of insurance of the
veteran under this section as of the day before such date.
``(e) Premiums.--(1) Premium rates for insurance under this
section shall be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard
Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of
4.5 per centum per annum.
``(2) The amount of the premium charged a veteran for
insurance under this section may not increase while such
insurance is in force for such veteran.
``(3) The Secretary may not charge a premium for insurance
under this section for a veteran as follows:
``(A) A veteran who has a service-connected disability
rated as total and is eligible for a waiver of premiums under
section 1912 of this title.
``(B) A veteran who is 70 years of age or older.
``(4) Insurance granted under this section shall be on a
nonparticipating basis and all premiums and other collections
therefor shall be credited directly to a revolving fund in
the Treasury of the United States, and any payments on such
insurance shall be made directly from such fund.
Appropriations to such fund are hereby authorized.
``(5) Administrative costs to the Government for the costs
of the program of insurance under this section shall be paid
from premiums credited to the fund under paragraph (4), and
payments for claims against the fund under paragraph (4) for
amounts in excess of amounts credited to such fund under that
paragraph (after such administrative costs have been paid)
shall be paid from appropriations to the fund.
``(f) Application Required.--An eligible veteran seeking
insurance under this section shall file with the Secretary an
application therefor. Such application shall be filed not
later than the earlier of--
``(1) the end of the two-year period beginning on the date
on which the Secretary notifies the veteran that the veteran
has a service-connected disability; and
``(2) the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date
of the separation of the veteran from the Armed Forces,
whichever is earlier.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 19 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item related to section 1922A the following new
item:
``1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with service-
connected disabilities.''.
(c) Exchange of Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance.--
During the one-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, any veteran insured under section 1922
of title 38, United States Code, who is eligible for
insurance under section 1922B of title 38, United States Code
(as added by subsection (a)), may exchange insurance coverage
under such section 1922 for insurance coverage under such
section 1922B.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS'
INSURANCE.
Section 1922(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``date of such insurance'' and inserting ``date
of such insurance; (5) administrative costs to the Government
for the costs of the program of insurance under this section
shall be paid from premiums credited to the fund under
paragraph (4), and payments for claims against the fund under
paragraph (4) for amounts in excess of amounts credited to
such fund under that paragraph (after such administrative
costs have been paid) shall be paid from appropriations to
the fund''.
SEC. 5. MODIFICATION OF SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE
COVERAGE.
(a) Expansion of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance to
Include Certain Members of Individual Ready Reserve.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1)(C) of section 1967(a) of
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking
``section 1965(5)(B) of this title'' and inserting
``subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 1965(5) of this title''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (5)(C) of such section
1967(a) is amended by striking ``section 1965(5)(B) of this
title'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) or (C) of section
1965(5) of this title''.
(b) Reduction in Period of Coverage for Dependents After
Member Separates.--Section 1968(a)(5)(B)(ii) of such title is
amended by striking ``120 days after''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Kennedy)
S. 1316. A bill to establish and clarify that Congress does not
authorize persons convicted of dangerous crimes in foreign courts to
freely possess firearms in the United States; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with
Senators Durbin and Kennedy in introducing the Firearms by Foreign
Convicts Clarification Act. This bill would close a loophole that
exists in current law, by stating that people convicted of foreign
felonies and domestic violence, just like people convicted of similar
American crimes, cannot possess firearms in the United States.
I imagine that most Americans may be surprised, as I was, to learn
that foreign felons actually have greater gun rights than American
citizens who have been convicted of felonies and domestic violence in
our own courts. Our country has been trying to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals for at least the last 40 years, since the landmark
Gun Control Act of 1968. Unfortunately, in 2005 the Supreme Court
created a gaping loophole in this longstanding felon-in-possession law.
That happened in the case of Small v. United States, where a majority
of the Court essentially held that foreign convictions don't count for
the purpose of being a felon in possession of a firearm. This was not
because the Justices somehow thought that exempting foreign convictions
from our felon-in-possession laws was wise public policy. In fact, as
Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation
permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping,
terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the
United States.''
The problem in Small was that a majority of the Court felt that our
1968 law had not been written clearly enough. Although Congress had
said that a person convicted of a felony ``in any court'' could not
possess a firearm, the majority said that this phrase, ``any court,''
might have been meant to apply only to ``any American court'' rather
than what the legislation actually said--``any court.''
The Federal felon-in-possession law had already been applied to
foreign felons in several prosecutions since 1968, but the Court found
unpersuasive both this history and the statute's express language.
Dissenting Justices Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy accused the majority of
creating a novel canon of legal construction that will ``wreak havoc''
with established rules of extraterritorial construction. But whatever
we may think of the Court's analysis, there is no doubt that the Small
decision is now the law of the land. And if we want to close this legal
loophole, it is clear that we need to pass some clarifying legislation.
The bill I introduce today would do just that.
Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18, the definitions section,
would be amended to state clearly that ``[t]he term `any court'
includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would
be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act, where there are
references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law, the
bill would expand these terms to include convictions of foreign
offenses and offenses under foreign law.
In other words, the bill would make clear that if someone is
convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified
him from possessing a gun if that conviction had been handed
[[Page S5659]]
down in the U.S., the same laws relating to gun possession will be
applied. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the
conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid.
In that situation, this bill would create an exemption, allowing a
person convicted in a foreign jurisdiction to challenge its validity.
Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a
``conviction'' for purposes of the felon-in-possession laws, if the
foreign conviction either (1) resulted from a denial of fundamental
fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United
States, or (2) if the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based
would be legal if committed in the United States.
I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill
does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to
anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. And in any event, it is
clear that we should not keep in place a policy in which the tail wags
the dog. The current state of the law is that we essentially treat
every foreign conviction as invalid. And that is simply illogical.
An example of why we need to fix this law occurred in 2001, when U.S.
agents with bulletproof vests raided the New York hotel room of suspect
Rohan Ingram. Ingram was found with 13 firearms and had an extensive
criminal background, including at least 18 convictions for crimes such
as assault and use of firearms during crimes. Law enforcement had
flagged him as ``armed and dangerous.'' But because all of his
convictions had occurred in foreign courts, his felon-in-possession
charge was eventually thrown out of court. That is simply not a
tolerable state of affairs in a post- 9/11 world.
Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign-
convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists an unlimited right to
buy firearms in the United States, including even assault weapons that
they might try to send to colleagues abroad, or use to develop a cache
of weapons to use to kill our citizens within the United States.
American citizens convicted of identical crimes at home are denied the
ability to buy and possess such firearms, and the time has come to fix
this loophole so that foreign convicts are placed in the same category.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1316
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 ``Firearms by Foreign Convicts
Clarification Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Courts.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(36) The term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or
foreign court.''.
(b) Exclusion of Certain Felonies.--Section 921(a)(20) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``any Federal or State
offenses'' and inserting ``any Federal, State, or foreign
offenses'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``any State offense
classified by the laws of the State'' and inserting ``any
State or foreign offense classified by the laws of that
jurisdiction''; and
(3) in the matter following subparagraph (B), in the first
sentence, by inserting before the period the following: ``,
except that a foreign conviction shall not constitute a
conviction of such a crime if the convicted person
establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from a
denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process
if committed in the United States or from conduct that would
be legal if committed in the United States''.
(c) Domestic Violence Crimes.--Section 921(a)(33) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``subparagraph (C)''
and inserting ``subparagraph (B)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``if the
conviction has'' and inserting the following: ``if the
conviction--
``(I) occurred in a foreign jurisdiction and the convicted
person establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from
a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due
process if committed in the United States or from conduct
that would be legal if committed in the United States; or
``(II) has''.
SEC. 3. PENALTIES.
Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by striking ``an offense under State law'' and
inserting ``an offense under State or foreign law''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``,
except that a foreign conviction shall not constitute a
conviction of such a crime if the convicted person
establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from a
denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process
if committed in the United States or from conduct that would
be legal if committed in the United States''.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1319. A bill to provide for the conversion of a temporary
judgeship for the district of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this bill
addressing the need for a fourth permanent judgeship for the District
of Hawaii.
Hawaii currently has four active District Court judges. However, if
any of its four active judges either accepts senior status and retires,
or becomes otherwise unable to serve, the District of Hawaii will not
be able to replace that vacancy with another active judge. This will
pose a problem for not only the active judges, as their workload will
increase, but also for the public because an unfilled vacancy may have
a disastrous effect on our court's caseloads. This bill ensures the
continued efficiency of Hawaii's District court system.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share with you the
importance of this legislation.
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. 1319
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO PERMANENT
JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII.
(a) In General.--The existing judgeship for the district of
Hawaii authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial
Improvements Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public Law 101-
650; 104 Stat. 5089) shall, as of the date of enactment of
this Act, be authorized under section 133 of title 28, United
States Code, and the incumbent in that office shall hold the
office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as
amended by this Act.
(b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section
133(a) of title 28, United States Code, will reflect the
change in the total number of permanent district judgeships
authorized as a result of subsection (a) of this section, the
item relating to Hawaii is amended to read as follows:
``Hawaii...........................................................4''.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Hawaii,
Senator Daniel Inouye, to introduce legislation to convert a temporary
judgeship for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to a
permanent position.
There are currently 3 permanent Federal judgeships and one temporary
Federal judgeship in the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. The
Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 101-650 created the temporary
position and mandates that the first vacancy occurring in Hawaii after
October 2004 cannot be filled. The District of Hawaii will be left with
only 3 Federal judge positions upon a judge vacating his or her
position. The loss of a judgeship will severely impact Hawaii's
judicial system.
In March 2007, the Judicial Conference recommended that Congress
convert 5 temporary judgeships, one of which is in the District of
Hawaii, to permanent status. Their recommendation is largely based on
the significant increase in weighted filings that would occur if a
judgeship is lost. The Conference projects that the current weighted
filing of 380 per judgeship would climb to 507 per judgeship, which is
18 percent above the Conference standard, should the District of Hawaii
lose a judgeship.
In addition, the Conference reported that the median time from filing
to disposition for criminal cases in Hawaii has continued to increase
from 1999 to 2005, making Hawaii's case processing times the second
slowest in the nation. Since 2001, the District Court of Hawaii has
completed an average of 50 trials per year, significantly less than the
national average. Although Hawaii has 4 judgeships, 2 are senior judges
[[Page S5660]]
who only handle a small number of civil cases. The limited assistance
provided by these senior judges is likely to decline further in the
near future. These judges are not able to retire due to the constraints
put forth by the loss of the temporary judgeship seat, should one of
the current judges decide to leave. Furthermore, receiving assistance
from visiting judges is made difficult by the high cost of travel to
Hawaii. For these, and many other reasons, the Judicial Council of the
Ninth Circuit supports the Judicial Conference's recommendation to
convert this temporary judgeship to a permanent position.
I share the concern of many in Hawaii's legal community that the lack
of a fourth permanent position will delay the timely issuance of
justice in matters pending before the U.S. District Court, District of
Hawaii. This is a disservice to all. The economic impact of extending
trials and prolonging time spent in jail will burden Hawaii's
taxpayers. Moreover, the lack of timely judicial review will have
negative social impacts by prolonging the disruption in individuals'
families and lives. The bill we introduce today would ensure 4 Federal
judgeships remain active in Hawaii to address the needs of the District
Court of Hawaii and the people of Hawaii.
______
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Obama (for himself and Mr. Harkin)):
S. 1324. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we heard from a panel of top climate change
experts from around the world earlier this year that global warming is
a certainty and that most of the temperature increase is very likely
due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Reducing America's
dependence on oil should be one of our top priorities, but any policy
that affects our production and consumption of fuel must also address
the pressing problem of global warming. Because the oil used in the
U.S. transportation sector accounts for about one-third of our nation's
emissions of greenhouse gases, we must adopt a policy that curtails
these emissions in an effective manner.
Today, along with Senator Harkin, I am introducing the National Low-
Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007, which calls for a reduction in the
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in
the U.S. of 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. These reductions
can play an important role in stemming the dangerous transformation of
our climate.
According to one estimate, the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard,
NLCFS, would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180
million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30
million cars off the road. If enacted in conjunction with the bill I
introduced earlier this year to raise fuel efficiency standards, the
NLCFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 530 million metric
tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking over 50 million cars off the
road.
The effect on our oil imports would also be dramatic. By making
greater use of home-grown, renewable fuels, the NLCFS could reduce the
annual consumption of gasoline derived from foreign oil imports by
about 30 billion gallons in 2020.
The NLCFS will greatly expand the market for domestic renewable fuels
such as corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. By one
estimate, the NLCFS will create a market for over 40 billion gallons of
biofuels by 2020. To provide near-term demand certainty for renewable
fuel producers, the bill expands the Renewable Fuel Standard
established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 15 billion
gallons of renewable fuel by 2012.
The bill also contains a minimum requirement for fuels with lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions that are 50 and 75 percent lower than
gasoline. This requirement signals to investors that there will be a
market for advanced fuels with ultra-low carbon emissions, but still
allows significant leeway for fuel blenders to choose the optimal mix
of fuels to meet their overall greenhouse gas emissions targets.
Because the NLCFS will encourage a rapid expansion of our domestic
renewable fuels production capacity, the bill contains provisions that
protect sensitive areas like national wildlife refuges, national parks,
old-growth forests, national grasslands, and national forests. The bill
calls for an assessment of the impacts of the expansion compared to the
business-as-usual scenario of continued reliance on petroleum-based
transportation fuels, and the development of standards by 2012 to
protect air, land, and water quality. This approach strikes a balance
between the need to rapidly expand our domestic renewable fuel
production capacity and the need to ensure sustainability and
environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support the National
Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act.
____________________