[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11388-11391]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1315. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance 
life insurance benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Disabled Veterans 
Insurance Improvement Act of 2007.
  The purpose of this legislation is to make certain improvements in 
the insurance programs available to service-connected disabled 
veterans. It has two main components.
  First, this legislation would increase the maximum amount of Veterans 
Mortgage Life Insurance, VMLI, that a service-connected disabled 
veteran may purchase from the current maximum of $90,000 to $200,000. 
The VMLI program was established in 1971 and is available to those 
service-connected disabled veterans who have received specially adapted 
housing grants from VA. In the event of the veteran's death, the 
veteran's family is protected because the Department of Veterans 
Affairs will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum 
amount of insurance purchased.
  The need for this increase is obvious in today's housing market 
where, during February, the median sale price of a home in the United 
States was estimated by the Bureau of Census to be $250,000. My 
legislation would ensure that this important benefit, which helps 
secure the financial future of many veterans and their families, keeps 
pace with changes in the economy.
  My bill would also establish a new program of insurance for service-
connected disabled veterans that would provide up to a maximum of 
$50,000 in level premium term life insurance coverage. This new program 
would be available to service-connected disabled veterans who are less 
than 65 years of age at the time of application.
  Under the new program, eligible service-connected veterans would be 
able to purchase, in increments of $10,000, up to a maximum amount of 
$50,000 in insurance. Importantly, unlike existing life insurance 
programs, the premium rates for this program would be based on the 2001 
Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality rather than 
the 1941 mortality table that the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, 
S-DVI, program is based upon.
  When an insured veteran reaches age 70, two things would occur under 
this new program of insurance. First, the amount of insurance would be 
reduced to 20 percent of the amount of insurance in force prior to the 
veteran's 70th birthday. Second, the veteran would cease making premium 
payments. This means that during those years where the family's 
financial obligations would be commensurately higher because of 
children, mortgages, and the potential impact of any loss of income, 
the veteran's family would be able to purchase the maximum amount of 
term life insurance. At age 70, when resources are likely to be most 
restricted and the need for substantial insurance to take care of a 
family's needs after the veteran's death have lessened, the veteran 
would no longer have an obligation to continue to pay any insurance 
premiums.

[[Page 11389]]

  My proposal provides that application for this insurance would need 
to be submitted by an eligible veteran within 2 years from the date on 
which VA establishes a service-connected disability to exist but not 
later than 10 years after a veteran's release from active duty. It 
would further provide that during the first year of the program, any 
eligible veteran who is presently insured under the S-DVI program could 
convert that insurance to a policy under this new program.
  Both of the proposals contained in the legislation I am introducing 
today are compatible with the provisions of S. 643, the proposed 
Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007, which I introduced on February 
15 of this year.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1315

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Disabled Veterans Insurance 
     Improvement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. ENHANCEMENT OF VETERANS' MORTGAGE LIFE INSURANCE.

       Section 2106(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``$90,000'' and inserting ``$200,000''.

     SEC. 3. LEVEL-PREMIUM TERM LIFE INSURANCE FOR VETERANS WITH 
                   SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 19 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1922A the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans 
       with service-connected disabilities

       ``(a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of 
     this section, the Secretary shall grant insurance to each 
     eligible veteran who seeks such insurance against the death 
     of such veteran occurring while such insurance is in force.
       ``(b) Eligible Veterans.--For purposes of this section, an 
     eligible veteran is any veteran less than 65 years of age who 
     has a service-connected disability.
       ``(c) Amount of Insurance.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), 
     the amount of insurance granted an eligible veteran under 
     this section shall be $50,000 or such lesser amount as the 
     veteran shall elect. The amount of insurance so elected shall 
     be evenly divisible by $10,000.
       ``(2) The aggregate amount of insurance of an eligible 
     veteran under this section, section 1922 of this title, and 
     section 1922A of this title may not exceed $50,000.
       ``(d) Reduced Amount for Veterans Age 70 or Older.--In the 
     case of a veteran insured under this section who turns age 
     70, the amount of insurance of such veteran under this 
     section after the date such veteran turns age 70 shall be the 
     amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of insurance of the 
     veteran under this section as of the day before such date.
       ``(e) Premiums.--(1) Premium rates for insurance under this 
     section shall be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard 
     Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of 
     4.5 per centum per annum.
       ``(2) The amount of the premium charged a veteran for 
     insurance under this section may not increase while such 
     insurance is in force for such veteran.
       ``(3) The Secretary may not charge a premium for insurance 
     under this section for a veteran as follows:
       ``(A) A veteran who has a service-connected disability 
     rated as total and is eligible for a waiver of premiums under 
     section 1912 of this title.
       ``(B) A veteran who is 70 years of age or older.
       ``(4) Insurance granted under this section shall be on a 
     nonparticipating basis and all premiums and other collections 
     therefor shall be credited directly to a revolving fund in 
     the Treasury of the United States, and any payments on such 
     insurance shall be made directly from such fund. 
     Appropriations to such fund are hereby authorized.
       ``(5) Administrative costs to the Government for the costs 
     of the program of insurance under this section shall be paid 
     from premiums credited to the fund under paragraph (4), and 
     payments for claims against the fund under paragraph (4) for 
     amounts in excess of amounts credited to such fund under that 
     paragraph (after such administrative costs have been paid) 
     shall be paid from appropriations to the fund.
       ``(f) Application Required.--An eligible veteran seeking 
     insurance under this section shall file with the Secretary an 
     application therefor. Such application shall be filed not 
     later than the earlier of--
       ``(1) the end of the two-year period beginning on the date 
     on which the Secretary notifies the veteran that the veteran 
     has a service-connected disability; and
       ``(2) the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date 
     of the separation of the veteran from the Armed Forces, 
     whichever is earlier.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 19 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item related to section 1922A the following new 
     item:

``1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with service-
              connected disabilities.''.

       (c) Exchange of Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance.--
     During the one-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, any veteran insured under section 1922 
     of title 38, United States Code, who is eligible for 
     insurance under section 1922B of title 38, United States Code 
     (as added by subsection (a)), may exchange insurance coverage 
     under such section 1922 for insurance coverage under such 
     section 1922B.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS' 
                   INSURANCE.

       Section 1922(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``date of such insurance'' and inserting ``date 
     of such insurance; (5) administrative costs to the Government 
     for the costs of the program of insurance under this section 
     shall be paid from premiums credited to the fund under 
     paragraph (4), and payments for claims against the fund under 
     paragraph (4) for amounts in excess of amounts credited to 
     such fund under that paragraph (after such administrative 
     costs have been paid) shall be paid from appropriations to 
     the fund''.

     SEC. 5. MODIFICATION OF SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 
                   COVERAGE.

       (a) Expansion of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance to 
     Include Certain Members of Individual Ready Reserve.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1)(C) of section 1967(a) of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``section 1965(5)(B) of this title'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 1965(5) of this title''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (5)(C) of such section 
     1967(a) is amended by striking ``section 1965(5)(B) of this 
     title'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 
     1965(5) of this title''.
       (b) Reduction in Period of Coverage for Dependents After 
     Member Separates.--Section 1968(a)(5)(B)(ii) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``120 days after''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Kennedy)
  S. 1316. A bill to establish and clarify that Congress does not 
authorize persons convicted of dangerous crimes in foreign courts to 
freely possess firearms in the United States; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with 
Senators Durbin and Kennedy in introducing the Firearms by Foreign 
Convicts Clarification Act. This bill would close a loophole that 
exists in current law, by stating that people convicted of foreign 
felonies and domestic violence, just like people convicted of similar 
American crimes, cannot possess firearms in the United States.
  I imagine that most Americans may be surprised, as I was, to learn 
that foreign felons actually have greater gun rights than American 
citizens who have been convicted of felonies and domestic violence in 
our own courts. Our country has been trying to keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals for at least the last 40 years, since the landmark 
Gun Control Act of 1968. Unfortunately, in 2005 the Supreme Court 
created a gaping loophole in this longstanding felon-in-possession law.
  That happened in the case of Small v. United States, where a majority 
of the Court essentially held that foreign convictions don't count for 
the purpose of being a felon in possession of a firearm. This was not 
because the Justices somehow thought that exempting foreign convictions 
from our felon-in-possession laws was wise public policy. In fact, as 
Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation 
permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, 
terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the 
United States.''
  The problem in Small was that a majority of the Court felt that our 
1968 law had not been written clearly enough. Although Congress had 
said that a person convicted of a felony ``in any court'' could not 
possess a firearm, the majority said that this phrase, ``any court,'' 
might have been meant to apply only to ``any American court'' rather 
than what the legislation actually said--``any court.''
  The Federal felon-in-possession law had already been applied to 
foreign felons in several prosecutions since 1968,

[[Page 11390]]

but the Court found unpersuasive both this history and the statute's 
express language. Dissenting Justices Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy 
accused the majority of creating a novel canon of legal construction 
that will ``wreak havoc'' with established rules of extraterritorial 
construction. But whatever we may think of the Court's analysis, there 
is no doubt that the Small decision is now the law of the land. And if 
we want to close this legal loophole, it is clear that we need to pass 
some clarifying legislation. The bill I introduce today would do just 
that.
  Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18, the definitions section, 
would be amended to state clearly that ``[t]he term `any court' 
includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would 
be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act, where there are 
references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law, the 
bill would expand these terms to include convictions of foreign 
offenses and offenses under foreign law.
  In other words, the bill would make clear that if someone is 
convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified 
him from possessing a gun if that conviction had been handed down in 
the U.S., the same laws relating to gun possession will be applied. The 
only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction 
entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid.
  In that situation, this bill would create an exemption, allowing a 
person convicted in a foreign jurisdiction to challenge its validity. 
Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a 
``conviction'' for purposes of the felon-in-possession laws, if the 
foreign conviction either (1) resulted from a denial of fundamental 
fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United 
States, or (2) if the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based 
would be legal if committed in the United States.
  I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill 
does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to 
anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. And in any event, it is 
clear that we should not keep in place a policy in which the tail wags 
the dog. The current state of the law is that we essentially treat 
every foreign conviction as invalid. And that is simply illogical.
  An example of why we need to fix this law occurred in 2001, when U.S. 
agents with bulletproof vests raided the New York hotel room of suspect 
Rohan Ingram. Ingram was found with 13 firearms and had an extensive 
criminal background, including at least 18 convictions for crimes such 
as assault and use of firearms during crimes. Law enforcement had 
flagged him as ``armed and dangerous.'' But because all of his 
convictions had occurred in foreign courts, his felon-in-possession 
charge was eventually thrown out of court. That is simply not a 
tolerable state of affairs in a post- 9/11 world.
  Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign-
convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists an unlimited right to 
buy firearms in the United States, including even assault weapons that 
they might try to send to colleagues abroad, or use to develop a cache 
of weapons to use to kill our citizens within the United States. 
American citizens convicted of identical crimes at home are denied the 
ability to buy and possess such firearms, and the time has come to fix 
this loophole so that foreign convicts are placed in the same category.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1316

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Firearms by Foreign Convicts 
     Clarification Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Courts.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) The term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or 
     foreign court.''.
       (b) Exclusion of Certain Felonies.--Section 921(a)(20) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``any Federal or State 
     offenses'' and inserting ``any Federal, State, or foreign 
     offenses'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``any State offense 
     classified by the laws of the State'' and inserting ``any 
     State or foreign offense classified by the laws of that 
     jurisdiction''; and
       (3) in the matter following subparagraph (B), in the first 
     sentence, by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     except that a foreign conviction shall not constitute a 
     conviction of such a crime if the convicted person 
     establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from a 
     denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process 
     if committed in the United States or from conduct that would 
     be legal if committed in the United States''.
       (c) Domestic Violence Crimes.--Section 921(a)(33) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``subparagraph (C)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (B)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``if the 
     conviction has'' and inserting the following: ``if the 
     conviction--
       ``(I) occurred in a foreign jurisdiction and the convicted 
     person establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from 
     a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due 
     process if committed in the United States or from conduct 
     that would be legal if committed in the United States; or
       ``(II) has''.

     SEC. 3. PENALTIES.

       Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``an offense under State law'' and 
     inserting ``an offense under State or foreign law''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     except that a foreign conviction shall not constitute a 
     conviction of such a crime if the convicted person 
     establishes that the foreign conviction resulted from a 
     denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process 
     if committed in the United States or from conduct that would 
     be legal if committed in the United States''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1319. A bill to provide for the conversion of a temporary 
judgeship for the district of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this bill 
addressing the need for a fourth permanent judgeship for the District 
of Hawaii.
  Hawaii currently has four active District Court judges. However, if 
any of its four active judges either accepts senior status and retires, 
or becomes otherwise unable to serve, the District of Hawaii will not 
be able to replace that vacancy with another active judge. This will 
pose a problem for not only the active judges, as their workload will 
increase, but also for the public because an unfilled vacancy may have 
a disastrous effect on our court's caseloads. This bill ensures the 
continued efficiency of Hawaii's District court system.
  Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share with you the 
importance of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1319

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO PERMANENT 
                   JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII.

       (a) In General.--The existing judgeship for the district of 
     Hawaii authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial 
     Improvements Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public Law 101-
     650; 104 Stat. 5089) shall, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, be authorized under section 133 of title 28, United 
     States Code, and the incumbent in that office shall hold the 
     office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as 
     amended by this Act.
       (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     133(a) of title 28, United States Code, will reflect the 
     change in the total number of permanent district judgeships 
     authorized as a result of subsection (a) of this section, the 
     item relating to Hawaii is amended to read as follows:

``Hawaii...........................................................4''.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Hawaii, 
Senator Daniel Inouye, to introduce

[[Page 11391]]

legislation to convert a temporary judgeship for the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Hawaii to a permanent position.
  There are currently 3 permanent Federal judgeships and one temporary 
Federal judgeship in the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. The 
Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 101-650 created the temporary 
position and mandates that the first vacancy occurring in Hawaii after 
October 2004 cannot be filled. The District of Hawaii will be left with 
only 3 Federal judge positions upon a judge vacating his or her 
position. The loss of a judgeship will severely impact Hawaii's 
judicial system.
  In March 2007, the Judicial Conference recommended that Congress 
convert 5 temporary judgeships, one of which is in the District of 
Hawaii, to permanent status. Their recommendation is largely based on 
the significant increase in weighted filings that would occur if a 
judgeship is lost. The Conference projects that the current weighted 
filing of 380 per judgeship would climb to 507 per judgeship, which is 
18 percent above the Conference standard, should the District of Hawaii 
lose a judgeship.
  In addition, the Conference reported that the median time from filing 
to disposition for criminal cases in Hawaii has continued to increase 
from 1999 to 2005, making Hawaii's case processing times the second 
slowest in the nation. Since 2001, the District Court of Hawaii has 
completed an average of 50 trials per year, significantly less than the 
national average. Although Hawaii has 4 judgeships, 2 are senior judges 
who only handle a small number of civil cases. The limited assistance 
provided by these senior judges is likely to decline further in the 
near future. These judges are not able to retire due to the constraints 
put forth by the loss of the temporary judgeship seat, should one of 
the current judges decide to leave. Furthermore, receiving assistance 
from visiting judges is made difficult by the high cost of travel to 
Hawaii. For these, and many other reasons, the Judicial Council of the 
Ninth Circuit supports the Judicial Conference's recommendation to 
convert this temporary judgeship to a permanent position.
  I share the concern of many in Hawaii's legal community that the lack 
of a fourth permanent position will delay the timely issuance of 
justice in matters pending before the U.S. District Court, District of 
Hawaii. This is a disservice to all. The economic impact of extending 
trials and prolonging time spent in jail will burden Hawaii's 
taxpayers. Moreover, the lack of timely judicial review will have 
negative social impacts by prolonging the disruption in individuals' 
families and lives. The bill we introduce today would ensure 4 Federal 
judgeships remain active in Hawaii to address the needs of the District 
Court of Hawaii and the people of Hawaii.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mr. Obama (for himself and Mr. Harkin)):
  S. 1324. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we heard from a panel of top climate change 
experts from around the world earlier this year that global warming is 
a certainty and that most of the temperature increase is very likely 
due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Reducing America's 
dependence on oil should be one of our top priorities, but any policy 
that affects our production and consumption of fuel must also address 
the pressing problem of global warming. Because the oil used in the 
U.S. transportation sector accounts for about one-third of our nation's 
emissions of greenhouse gases, we must adopt a policy that curtails 
these emissions in an effective manner.
  Today, along with Senator Harkin, I am introducing the National Low-
Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007, which calls for a reduction in the 
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in 
the U.S. of 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. These reductions 
can play an important role in stemming the dangerous transformation of 
our climate.
  According to one estimate, the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, 
NLCFS, would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 
million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30 
million cars off the road. If enacted in conjunction with the bill I 
introduced earlier this year to raise fuel efficiency standards, the 
NLCFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 530 million metric 
tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking over 50 million cars off the 
road.
  The effect on our oil imports would also be dramatic. By making 
greater use of home-grown, renewable fuels, the NLCFS could reduce the 
annual consumption of gasoline derived from foreign oil imports by 
about 30 billion gallons in 2020.
  The NLCFS will greatly expand the market for domestic renewable fuels 
such as corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. By one 
estimate, the NLCFS will create a market for over 40 billion gallons of 
biofuels by 2020. To provide near-term demand certainty for renewable 
fuel producers, the bill expands the Renewable Fuel Standard 
established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 15 billion 
gallons of renewable fuel by 2012.
  The bill also contains a minimum requirement for fuels with lifecycle 
greenhouse gas emissions that are 50 and 75 percent lower than 
gasoline. This requirement signals to investors that there will be a 
market for advanced fuels with ultra-low carbon emissions, but still 
allows significant leeway for fuel blenders to choose the optimal mix 
of fuels to meet their overall greenhouse gas emissions targets.
  Because the NLCFS will encourage a rapid expansion of our domestic 
renewable fuels production capacity, the bill contains provisions that 
protect sensitive areas like national wildlife refuges, national parks, 
old-growth forests, national grasslands, and national forests. The bill 
calls for an assessment of the impacts of the expansion compared to the 
business-as-usual scenario of continued reliance on petroleum-based 
transportation fuels, and the development of standards by 2012 to 
protect air, land, and water quality. This approach strikes a balance 
between the need to rapidly expand our domestic renewable fuel 
production capacity and the need to ensure sustainability and 
environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support the National 
Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act.

                          ____________________