[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10972-10983]
[From the U.S. 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 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:

[[Page 10973]]

       ``(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--
       ``(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;

[[Page 10974]]

       ``(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 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:

[[Page 10975]]



                                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 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

[[Page 10976]]

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
       (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

[[Page 10977]]

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.
  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

[[Page 10978]]

``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 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 
Neighborhood Watch Program. 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 facilitates 
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

[[Page 10979]]

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.
  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

[[Page 10980]]

     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 
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.

[[Page 10981]]

       ``(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 
     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

[[Page 10982]]

     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 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;

[[Page 10983]]

       (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.

                          ____________________