Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with Senator McCaskill, the Stop Unfair Practices in Credit Cards Act. Credit cards are a fixture of American family life today. People use them to buy groceries, to rent a car, shop on the Internet, pay college tuition, and even pay their taxes. In 2005, the average family had five credit cards. American households used nearly 700 million credit cards to buy goods and services worth $1.8 trillion. Credit cards fuel commerce, facilitate financial planning, help families deal with emergencies. But credit cards have also contributed to record amounts of household debt. Some credit card issuers have socked families with sky-high interest rates of 25 and 30 percent and higher. They have hit consumers with hefty fees for late payments, for exceeding a credit card limit, and other transactions. In too many cases, credit card issuers have made it all but impossible for working- class families to climb out of debt. That is why in 2005, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chaired, on which Senator McCaskill serves, initiated an in- depth investigation into unfair and abusive credit card industry practices. In the fall of 2006, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, released a report which I had requested, which for the first time in years provided a comprehensive examination of the interest rates and fees being charged by credit card companies. Following the release of that report, and continuing through today, the subcommittee has been deluged with calls and letters from Americans expressing anger and frustration at the way they have been treated by their credit card companies, and sharing stories of unfair and often abusive practices. The subcommittee has been examining those allegations of unfair treatment and has identified many troubling credit card industry practices which should be banned or restricted. Our first hearing in March focused on industry practices involving grace periods, interest rates, and fees. It revealed a number of unfair, often little-known, and sometimes abusive credit card practices, which prey upon families experiencing financial hardships, and squeezed even consumers who pay their credit card bills on time. The legislation we are introducing today is aimed at stopping abusive credit card practices that trap too many hard-working families in a downward spiral of debt. American families deserve to be treated honestly and fairly by their credit card companies. Our bill would help ensure that fair treatment. Here are a few things our bill would do. It would stop credit card companies from charging interest on debt that is paid on time. It would crack down on abusive fees, including repeated late fees and over-the-limit fees, and fees to pay your bill. It would also prohibit the charging of interest on those fees. It would establish guidelines on interest rate increases, including a cap on penalty interest rate hikes at no more than 7 percent. It would require that increased interest rates apply only to future credit card debt and not the debt already incurred. Our bill will be referred to the Senate Banking Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over credit card legislation, and which has been holding its own hearing on unfair credit card practices. Our friend, Senator Dodd, the committee chairman, has a long history of fighting credit card abuses. Senator Shelby, the ranking Republican, as well as many other members of the committee, has also expressed concern about a number of credit card problems. It is my hope our bill and the legislative record being compiled by our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will help the Banking Committee in its deliberations and help build momentum to enact legislation halting the unfair credit card practices that outrage American consumers. Credit card abuse is too harmful to American families, our economy, and our economic future to let these unfair practices continue. Let me describe the key provisions of our bill in more detail. The first section of the bill would put an end to an indefensible practice that imposes little known and unfair interest charges on many unsuspecting, responsible consumers. Most credit cards today offer what is called a grace period. Cardholders are told that, if they pay their monthly credit card bill during this grace period, they will not be charged interest on the debt for which they are being billed. What many cardholders do not realize, however, is that this grace period typically provides protection against interest charges only if their monthly credit card bill is paid in full. If the cardholder pays less than 100 percent of the monthly bill--even if the cardholder pays on time--he or she will be charged interest on the entire billed amount, including the portion that was paid by the specified due date. An example shows why this billing practice is unfair and should be stopped. Suppose a consumer who usually pays his or her credit card account in full and owes no money as of December 1 makes a lot of purchases in December. The consumer gets a credit card bill on January 1 for $5,020, due January 15. Suppose the consumer pays that bill on time, but pays $5,000 instead of the full amount owed. Most people assume that the next bill would be for the $20 in unpaid debt, plus interest on that $20. But that commonsense assumption is wrong. That is because current industry practice is to charge the consumer interest not only on the $20 that wasn't paid on time, but also on the $5,000 that was paid on time. Let me say that again. Industry practice is to force the consumer to pay interest on the portion of the debt that was paid on time. In other words, the consumer would pay interest on the entire $5,020 from the first day of the billing month, January 1, until the day the $5,000 payment was made on January 15, compounded daily. So much for a grace period. After that, the consumer would be charged interest on the $20 past due, compounded daily, from January 15 to the end of the month. The end result would be a February 1 bill that more than doubles the $20 debt. Using an interest rate of 17.99 percent, for example, in just one month, the $20 debt would rack up interest charges of more than $35. Charging $35 of interest over one month on a $20 credit card debt is indefensible, especially when applied to a consumer who paid over 90 percent of their credit card debt on time during the grace period. Our legislation would end this unfair billing practice by amending the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit the charging of interest on any portion of a credit card debt that is paid on time during a grace period. Using our example, this prohibition would bar the charging of interest on the $5,000 that was paid on time, and result in a February balance that reflects what a rational consumer would have expected: the $20 past due, plus interest on the $20 from January 1 to January 31. The second section of our bill would address a related unfair billing practice, which I call ``trailing interest.'' Charging trailing interest on credit card debt is another widespread, but little known industry practice that squeezes responsible and largely unsuspecting consumers for still more interest charges. Going back to our example, you might think that once the consumer gets gouged in February by receiving a bill for $55 on a $20 debt, and pays that bill on time and in full, without making any new purchase, that would be the end of that credit card debt for the consumer. But you would be wrong. It would not be the end. Even if, on February 15, the consumer paid the February 1 bill in full and on time--all $55--the next bill would likely have an additional interest charge related to the $20 debt. In this case, the charge would reflect interest that would have accumulated on the $55 from February 1 to 15, which is the time from when the bill was sent to the day it was paid. The total interest charge in our example would be about 38 cents. While some credit card issuers will waive trailing interest if the next month's bill is less than $1, a common industry practice is to fold the 38 cents into the next bill if a consumer makes a new purchase. Now 38 cents isn't much in the grand scheme of things. That may be why many consumers don't notice this extra interest charge or bother to fight it. Even if someone had questions about the amount of interest on a bill, most consumers would be hard pressed to understand how the amount was calculated, much less whether it was correct. But by nickel and diming tens of millions of consumer accounts with trailing interest charges, credit card issuers reap large profits. This little known billing practice, which squeezes consumers for a few more cents on the dollar, and targets responsible cardholders who pay their bills on time and in full, goes too far. If a consumer pays a credit card bill on time and in full--paying 100 percent of the amount specified by the date specified in the billing statement--it is unfair to charge that consumer still more interest on the debt that was just paid. Our legislation would put an end to trailing interest by prohibiting credit card issuers from adding interest charges to a credit card debt which the consumer paid on time and in full in response to a billing statement. A third problem examined by the subcommittee involves a widespread industry practice in which credit card issuers claim the right to unilaterally change the terms of a credit card agreement at any time for any reason with only a 15-day notice to the consumer under the Truth in Lending Act. As the National Consumer Law Center testified at our hearing, this practice means that smart shoppers who choose a credit card after comparing a variety of card options are continually vulnerable to a change-in-terms notice that alters the favorable terms they selected, and provides them with only 15 days to accept the changes or find an alternative. By asserting the right to make unilateral changes to credit card terms on short notice, credit card issuers undermine not only the bargaining power of individual consumers, but also principles of fair market competition. Such unilateral changes are particularly unfair when they alter material terms in a credit card agreement such as the interest rate applicable to extensions of credit. That is why our bill would impose two types of limits on credit card interest rate hikes. First, for consumers who comply with the terms of their credit card agreements, the bill would prohibit a credit card issuer from unilaterally hiking an interest rate that was represented to, and included in the disclosures provided, to a consumer under the Truth in Lending Act, unless the consumer affirmatively agreed in writing to the increase at the time it is proposed. This prohibition is intended to protect responsible consumers who play by the rules from a sudden hike in their interest rate for no apparent reason--a complaint that the subcommittee has heard all too often. Under our bill, issuers would no longer be able to unilaterally hike the interest rates of cardholders who play by the rules. The bill's second limit would apply to consumers who, for whatever reason, failed to comply with the terms of their credit card agreement, perhaps by paying late or exceeding the credit limit. In that circumstance, credit card issuers would be permitted to impose a penalty interest rate on the account, but the bill would place a cap on how high that penalty interest rate could go. Specifically, the bill would limit any such penalty rate hike to no more than a 7 percent increase above the interest rate in effect before the penalty rate was imposed. That means a 10 percent rate could rise no higher than 17 percent, and a 15 percent rate could not exceed 22 percent. This type of interest rate limit is comparable to the caps that today operate in many adjustable mortgages. The effect of the credit card cap would be to prohibit penalty interest rates from dramatically increasing the interest rate imposed on the cardholder, as happened in cases examined by the subcommittee where credit card interest rates jumped from 10 percent or 15 percent to as much as 32 percent. Penalty interest rate hikes that double or triple existing interest rates are simply unreasonable and unfair. If a credit card account were opened with a low introductory interest rate followed by a higher interest rate after a specified period of time, it is intended that the penalty rate cap proposed in the bill would apply to each of those disclosed rates individually. For example, suppose the credit card account had a 0 percent introductory rate for 6 months and a 12 percent rate after that. Suppose further that, during the 6-month introductory period, the cardholder exceeded the credit limit. The bill would allow the card issuer to impose a penalty interest rate of up to 7 percent for the rest of the 6 month period. Once the 6-month period ended, it is intended that the 12 percent rate would take effect. If the consumer were to again exceed the limit, it is intended that any penalty rate imposed upon the account be no greater than 19 percent. If a card issuer were to analyze an account and conclude that a penalty rate increase of up to 7 percent would be insufficient to protect against the risk of default on the account, the issuer could choose to reduce the credit limit on the account or cancel the account altogether. If the card issuer chose to cancel the account, it is intended that the consumer would retain the right to pay off any debt on the account using the interest rate that was in effect when the debt was incurred. The point of the bill's penalty interest rate cap is to stop penalty interest rate hikes which are disproportional; which too often stick families with sky-high interest rates of 25 percent, 30 percent, and even 32 percent; and which too often make it virtually impossible for working American families to climb out of debt. Still another troubling practice involving credit card interest rate hikes is the problem of retroactive application. Industry practice today is to apply an increased interest rate not only to new debt incurred by the cardholder, but also to previously incurred debt. Retroactive application of a higher interest rate means that pre- existing credit card debt suddenly costs a consumer much more to repay. Take, for example, a $3,000 credit card debt that a consumer was paying down each month with timely payments. Suddenly, the cardholder falls ill, misses a payment or pays it late, and the card issuer increases the interest rate from 15 percent to 22 percent. If applied to the existing $3,000 debt, that higher rate would require the cardholder to make a much steeper minimum monthly payment and pay much more interest than originally planned. That is often enough to sink a working family into a deepening spiral of debt from which they cannot recover. By making it a common practice to institute after-the-fact interest rate hikes for existing credit card debt--in effect unilaterally changing the terms of an existing loan--the credit card industry has unfairly positioned itself to reap greater profits at consumers' expense. Our bill would fight back by limiting the retroactive application of interest rate hikes to lessen the financial impact on American households. Specifically, our bill would provide that interest rate hikes could be applied only to future credit card debt and not to any credit card debt incurred prior to the rate increase. Instead, any earlier debt would continue to accrue interest at the rate previously in effect. The first set of provisions in our bill addresses unfair practices related to interest rates. The next set of provisions targets unfair practices related to fees imposed on cardholders by credit card companies. The need for proconsumer fee protections is illustrated by the story of Wes Wannemacher of Ohio, a witness featured at the subcommittee's March hearing. In 2001 and 2002, Mr. Wannemacher charged about $3,200 on a new Chase credit card to pay for expenses mostly related to his wedding. Over the next 6 years, he paid about $6,300 toward that debt, yet in February 2007, Chase said that he still owed them about $4,400. How could Mr. Wannemacher pay nearly double his original credit card debt and still owe $4,400? As he explained in his testimony, in addition to repaying the original debt of $3,200, Mr. Wannemacher was socked with $4,900 in interest charges, $1,100 in late fees, and 47 over-limit fees totaling $1,500, despite going over his $3,000 credit limit by a total of $200. These facts show that Mr. Wannemacher paid $2,600 in fees on a $3,200 debt. In addition, those fees were added to his outstanding credit card balance, and he was charged interest on the fee amounts, increasing his debt by hundreds if not thousands of additional dollars. There is something so wrong with this picture, that Chase didn't even defend its treatment of the account at the subcommittee hearing; instead, Chase forgave the $4,400 debt that it said was still owing on the Wannemacher credit card. It is no secret that credit card companies are making a great deal of money off the fees they are imposing on consumers. According to GAO, fee income now produces about 10 percent of all income obtained by credit card issuers. The GAO report which I commissioned on this subject identified a host of different fees that have become common practice, including fees for transferring balances, making a late payment, exceeding a credit limit, paying a bill by telephone, and exchanging foreign currency. According to GAO, late fees now average $34 per month and over-limit fees average $31 per month, with some of these fees climbing as high as $39 per month. As Mr. Wannemacher discovered, these hefty fees are not only added to the credit card's outstanding balance, they also incur interest. The higher the fees climb, the higher the balances owed, and the higher the interest charges on top of that. Charging interest on money borrowed is certainly justified, but squeezing additional dollars from consumers by charging interest on transaction fees goes too far. Steep fees already deepen household debt from credit cards; those fees should not also generate interest income for the credit card issuer. Our bill would ban this industrywide practice by prohibiting credit card issuers from charging or collecting interest on the fees imposed on consumers. Mr. Wannemacher exceeded the $3,000 limit on his credit card on three occasions in 2001 and 2002 for a total of $200. Over the following 6 years, however, he was charged over-the-limit fees on 47 occasions totaling about $1,500. In other words, Chase tried to collect over-the- limit fees from Mr. Wannemacher that were seven times larger than the amount he went over the limit. At our March hearing, Chase did not attempt to defend the 47 over- the-limit fees it imposed; instead, it announced that it was changing its policy and would join with others in the industry in imposing no more than three over-the-limit fees in a row on a credit card account with an outstanding balance that exceeded the credit limit. While Chase's voluntary change in policy is welcome, it doesn't go far enough in curbing abusive practices related to over-the-limit fees. First, if a credit card issuer approves the extension of credit that allows the cardholder to exceed the account's established credit limit, the issuer should be allowed to impose only one over-the-limit fee for that credit extension. One fee for one violation--especially when the card issuer facilitated the violation by approving the excess credit charge. Second, the fee should be imposed only if the account balance is over the credit limit at the end of the billing cycle. If a cardholder exceeds the limit in the middle of the billing cycle and then takes prompt action to reduce the balance below the limit, perhaps by making a payment or obtaining a credit for returning a purchase, there is no injury to the creditor and no justification for an over-the-limit fee. Third, a credit card issuer should impose an over-the-limit fee only when an action taken by the cardholder causes the credit limit to be exceeded, and not when a penalty imposed by the card issuer causes the excess charge. The card issuer should not be able to pile penalty upon penalty, such as by assessing a late fee on an account and then, if the late fee pushes the credit card balance over the credit limit, also imposing an over-the-limit fee. In addition, the bill would require credit card issuers to offer consumers the option of establishing a true credit limit on their account--a credit limit that could not be exceeded, because the account would be programmed to refuse approval of any extension of credit over the established limit. In too many cases, credit card issuers no longer provide consumers with the option of having a fixed credit limit, preferring instead to enable all of their cardholders to exceed their credit limits only to be penalized by a hefty fee, added interest, and, possibly, a penalty interest rate. There is more. Another unfair but common fee is what I call the ``pay-to-pay fee.'' It is the $5 to $15 fee that many issuers charge consumers to pay their credit card bill on time by using the telephone. To me, charging folks a fee to pay their bills is a travesty. My bill would prohibit a credit card issuer from charging a separate fee to allow a credit cardholder to pay all or part of a credit card balance. Another fee that has raised eyebrows is the one charged by credit card issuers to exchange dollars into or from a foreign currency. A number of issuers today charge an amount equal to 2 percent of the amount of currency being exchanged in addition to a 1-percent ``conversion fee'' charged by Visa or Master Card, for a total of 3 percent Our bill responds by requiring foreign currency exchange fees to reasonably reflect the actual costs incurred by the creditor to perform the currency exchange, and requiring regulators to ensure compliance with that standard. In addition to unfair practices involving interest rates and fees, the subcommittee investigation uncovered several unfair industry practices involving how credit cardholder payments are applied to satisfy finance charges and other credit card debt. One such practice that has caught the subcommittee's attention is the industrywide practice of applying consumer payments first to the balances with the lowest interest rates. Right now, a single credit card account often carries balances subject to multiple interest rates. Credit cards typically use one interest rate for purchases, another for cash advances, and a third for balance transfers. Many card issuers also offer new customers low introductory interest rates, such as 0 or 1 percent, but limit these ``come on'' rates to a short time period or to a balance transferred from another card. Moreover, many of these interest rates may vary over time, since it is a common practice to offer variable interest rates that rise and fall according to a specified rate or index. When a consumer payment is made, credit card issuers currently have complete discretion on how to apply that payment to the various balances bearing different interest rates. Consumers are typically given no option to direct where their payments are applied. Today, virtually all credit card issuers apply a consumer payment first to the balance with the lowest interest rate. After that balance is paid off, card issuers apply the payment to the balance with the next lowest interest rate, and so on. This payment practice clearly favors creditors over consumers. It allows the card issuers to direct payments first to the balances that provide them with the lowest returns, and minimize payments to the balances bearing the highest interest rates so those balances can accumulate more interest for a longer period. Consumers who want to pay off a cash advance bearing a 20 percent interest rate, for example, are told that they cannot make that payment until they first pay off all other balances with a lower interest rate. Our bill would replace this unfair industrywide practice with a proconsumer approach. Reversing current industry practice, the bill would require cardholder payments to be applied first to the balance bearing the highest interest rate, and then to each successive balance bearing the next highest rate, until the payment is used up. The bill would also require credit card issuers to apply cardholder payments in the most effective way to minimize the imposition of any fees or interest charges to the account. In addition, the bill would prohibit credit card issuers from imposing late fees on consumers if the issuer was itself responsible for the delay in crediting the payment. For example, if a card issuer changed the mailing address for payments, had to shut down its mail sorting equipment for repairs, or mistakenly routed a consumer payment to the wrong department, the issuer would not be allowed to assess a late fee on the cardholder for the resulting late payment. Instead, if the card issuer caused the late payment, it would be barred from assessing a late fee on the consumer. In addition to provisions to improve practices related to interest rates, fees, and consumer payments, the bill would add two new definitions to the Truth in Lending Act, intended to further address concerns related to unfair credit card practices. The first definition involves use of the term, ``prime rate.'' Many credit card issuers today use variable interest rates that are linked to the ``prime rate'' or ``prime interest rate'' and vary over time. For example, a disclosure may indicate that a credit card will bear an interest rate equal to the prime rate plus a specified number of percentage points. Since the 1950s, the term ``prime rate'' has been commonly understood to mean the lowest interest rate offered by U.S. banks to their most creditworthy borrowers. That is how the term is defined, for example, in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. The problem, however, is that no current statute or regulation defines the prime rate referenced in credit card disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act, and some card issuers have stated expressly that the prime rate used in credit card agreements does not necessarily match the lowest interest rates they provide to their most creditworthy borrowers. Litigation has also arisen between cardholders and card issuers as to what is meant by the term and whether cardholders are being misled. A cite is Lum v. Bank of America, 361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2004). To remedy this gap in the law, the bill would require credit card disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act that reference the prime rate to use the bank prime loan rate published by the Federal Reserve Board. This published rate is widely accepted in the financial community as an accurate depiction of the lowest interest rate offered by U.S. banks to their most creditworthy borrowers, and the rate is readily available to the public on the Federal Reserve Web site. By mandating use of this published rate, the bill will ensure that consumers are not deceived by a credit card issuer using a misleading definition of the commonly used term ``prime rate.'' The second definition added by the bill to the Truth in Lending Act involves specifying the ``primary federal regulator'' of a credit card issuer. Today, many credit card issuers are federally chartered or regulated banks subject to one or more Federal bank regulators. The bill would make it clear that when a card issuer is a Federal bank, its primary Federal regulator is the same primary regulator assigned to the bank under Federal banking law. The provision would also make it clear that the primary Federal regulator is responsible for overseeing the bank's credit card operations, ensuring compliance with credit card statutes and regulations, and enforcing the prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the Federal Trade Commission Act. Another provision in the bill would make it clear that Federal regulators are expected to conduct at least annual audits to ensure card issuer compliance with the statutes and regulations seeking to ensure fair and effective credit card operations. The next section of the bill would improve current credit card data collection efforts. Right now, credit card issuers file periodic reports with the Federal Reserve providing information about credit card interest rates and profits. This data plays a critical role in credit card oversight efforts, as well as financial and economic analyses related to consumer spending and household debt. The bill would strengthen current data collection efforts by requiring more specific information on interest rates and fees. For example, current data reports cannot be used to determine how many credit card accounts have interest rates of 25 percent or greater, what types of fees are imposed on consumers, or how many cardholders are affected by such interest rates and fees. The new bill would ensure that regulators, credit card users, and the public have the information needed to answer those basic questions. The bill would also require the development of credit card industrywide estimates of the approximate relative income derived from interest rates, fees imposed on cardholders, fees imposed on merchants, and any other material source of income. GAO provided this information for the first time in its 2006 report, estimating that the credit card industry now derives about 70 percent of its income from interest charges, 20 percent from interchange fees imposed on merchants, and 10 percent from fees imposed on consumers. This valuable information should continue to be collected so that regulators, credit card users, and the public gain a more informed understanding of the credit card industry. The bill's data collection requirements are largely modeled upon and intended to replicate key interest rate, fee, and revenue data presented by GAO in its 2006 report, ``Credit Cards: Increased Complexity in Rates and Fees Heightens Need for More Effective Disclosures to Consumers.'' Credit card experts were also consulted to determine what information would be most helpful to strengthen credit card oversight. The final provision in the bill would provide a 6-month transition period for credit card issuers to implement the bill's provisions. Credit card issuers like to say that they are engaged in a risky business, lending unsecured debt to millions of consumers, and that's why they have to set interest rates so high and impose so many fees. But the data shows that, typically, 95 to 97 percent of U.S. cardholders pay their bills. And it is clear that credit card operations are enormously profitable. For the last decade, credit card issuers have reported year after year of solid profits, maintained their position as the most profitable sector in the consumer lending field, and reported consistently higher rates of return than commercial banks. Credit card issuers make such a hefty profit that they sent out 8 billion pieces of mail last year soliciting people to sign up. With profits like those, credit card issuers can afford to stop treating American families unfairly. They can give up charging interest on debt that was paid on time, give up charging consumers a fee to pay their bills, give up hiking interest rates from 15 percent to 32 percent, and give up imposing repeated over-the-limit fees for a single over-the-limit purchase. As one Michigan businessman expressed it to the subcommittee, ``I don't blame the credit card issuers for putting me into debt, but I do blame them for keeping me there.'' Some argue that Congress doesn't need to ban unfair credit card practices; they contend that improved disclosure alone will empower consumers to seek out better deals. Sunlight can be a powerful disinfectant, which is why I have strongly urged the Federal Reserve Board to expedite its regulatory effort to strengthen credit card disclosure and help consumers understand and compare how various credit cards work. But credit cards have become such complex financial products that even improved disclosure will frequently not be enough to curb the abuses--first because some practices are so complex that consumers can't easily understand them, and second because better disclosure does not always lead to greater market competition, especially when virtually an entire industry is using and benefiting from practices that disadvantage consumers. So when we find credit card practices that are inherently unfair, consumers are often best served, not by greater disclosure, but by stopping the unfair practices that take advantage of them. Among those practices identified in this bill are unfair interest charges that squeeze consumers who pay their credit card debt on time; unilateral and retroactive interest rate hikes that deepen and prolong credit card debt; unreasonable fees; and payment allocation practices that prevent consumers from paying off the credit card debts bearing the highest interest rates first. Congress needs to enact proconsumer legislation that puts an end to unfair credit card practices. I am afraid that these practices are too entrenched, too profitable to the credit card companies, and too immune to consumer pressure for the companies to change them on their own. Our bill offers measures that would combat a host of unfair practices that plague consumers and unfairly deepen and prolong their debt. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in order to get a handle on today's gun violence among students, we must increase our awareness on the issue. Last week, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence released a report that draws attention to the gun lobby's efforts over the past few years to change college campus rules that prohibit firearms. The report details the gun lobby's efforts in multiple States to pressure colleges to allow the possession and use of firearms by students and others on campus. The report, ``No Gun Left Behind: The Gun Lobby's Campaign to Push Guns into Colleges and Schools,'' reveals a letter addressed to a Maine legislator from the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action on April 2, 2007, emphatically opposing legislation to ``allow any college or university to regulate the possession of firearms on the property of the college or university.'' It also describes the gun lobby's support for a law passed in Utah that expressly prohibits public school districts, public schools, and State institutions of higher education from keeping guns off campuses. Similar legislation was proposed in Virginia last year. ``Our schools should be sanctuaries, not armed camps,'' stated Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center. ``Institutions of higher education already have chosen policies either banning or tightly controlling guns on campus. That is as it should be. These institutions are responsible for the safety of their students and the security of their campuses and should continue to have the right to control firearms.'' No Gun Left Behind also details some of the reasons bringing guns onto campus increases the danger to students and faculty alike. Every year approximately 1,100 college students commit suicide, with an additional 24,000 attempting suicide. Roughly 90 percent of those who attempt suicide with a firearm are successful. And, there is a significant danger of guns being stolen in the dorm setting. As Congress considers sensible gun legislation, I urge my colleagues to read this important report.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, often discussions about combating gun violence center around preventing criminal access to dangerous firearms. Another important component of the issue is the ability of our children and teenagers to access firearms. Most fatal firearm incidences occur when children and teens discover loaded and unsecured firearms in their homes. Over the years, accidental shootings and suicides have claimed the lives of thousands of young people. Sadly, many of these tragedies could have been prevented through common sense gun legislation. On April 14, two 14-year-old boys were playing in one of their homes in Iosco Township, MI, when they found an unlocked .45-caliber handgun. After playing with it for a short time, the gun went off. The two boys were home alone, so no adult was aware of what happened until one of the boys called 911 and uttered the words, ``I shot him.'' The other boy was pronounced dead after being airlifted to the University of Michigan Medical Center. The very next day not far away in Battle Creek, MI, a 19-year-old accidentally shot and killed his 17-year-old best friend and cousin. The two were sitting on a couch in the living room, playing with an unregistered gun. They had removed the gun's clip but were not aware of the single bullet remaining in the chamber. These are two examples of the misery gun violence can inflict. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have released some staggering statistics on gun-related deaths among young people: In 2002 a child or teen was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide every 9 hours. On average, four children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents between 1999-2002. From 1997-2002, more than 1,324 children were killed in firearm accidents. In 2004, 13,846 kids were injured by a firearm. Over the last 10 years, an average of 1,213 kids committed suicide with a firearm each year; on average more than 135 each year were under the age of 15. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children under the age of 15 was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. As adults, parents and grandparents, we have a responsibility to protect our children from gun-related deaths. Trigger locks and other sensible gun safety measures can have a significant impact. I urge my colleagues to wait no longer to act on such measures.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues, Senator Coleman and Senator McCaskill, in introducing the Medicare Provider Accountability Act. This bill targets Medicare, a program which is indispensable to the health of our citizens, because some Medicare service providers are profiting from the program while abusing the federal tax system. The facts show that, while the vast majority of Medicare health care providers are honest, tax-paying citizens, others are getting paid with taxpayer dollars while, at the same time, failing to pay their taxes. Legislation to stop this abuse is a product of the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I serve as Chairman and Senator Coleman serves as the Ranking Member. On March 20, 2007, a Subcommittee hearing presented testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showing that about 21,000 Medicare Part B health care providers, including doctors, ambulance companies, and medical laboratories, collectively owe more than $1 billion in delinquent taxes. GAO also determined that, despite this pending tax debt, during the first 9 months of 2005 alone, these health care providers had received payments on Medicare claims totaling around $140 million. In other words, these providers were stuffing taxpayer dollars in their pockets at the same time they were stiffing Uncle Sam by not paying their taxes. Federal programs exist to stop this type of abuse. One key program is the Federal Payment Levy Program, which was established about ten years ago to enable the Federal government to identify federal payments being made to tax delinquents, and authorize the withholding of a portion of those taxpayer dollars to apply to the person's tax debt. That program has successfully collected taxes from federal payments made through the Treasury Department and by agencies like the Defense Department who screen their own payments to contractors through Treasury's Financial Management Service. As our March hearing demonstrated, however, despite a legal requirement to do so, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have never participated in the tax levy program with respect to Medicare Part A and B payments. This failure means that, year after year, as much as $300 billion in Federal Medicare payments have not been screened for unpaid taxes. The first substantive provision of our bill would redress this situation by mandating CMS to bring all Medicare part A and B payments into the Federal Payment Levy Program over the next two years. The second part of our bill would enable CMS to participate in a similar automated program, known as the Treasury Offset Program, to collect non-tax debt, such as unpaid student loans and child support. GAO has determined that certain Medicare health care providers collectively owe hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans, child support, and unpaid state taxes that could be collected through administrative offsets. The third and final part of our bill would eliminate a barrier to including a large part of IRS's uncollected tax assessments in the Federal Payment Levy Program for collection from Medicare provider payments, as well as other federal contractor payments. Right now, for a variety of legal and technical reasons, only 45 percent of the tax debt assessed but still uncollected in 2006 was actually made subject to levy under the federal program. In 2006, over half of this assessed tax debt--some $67 billion--was never ``turned on'' for actual collection under the tax levy program. Now, $67 billion is a big number, even by Washington standards. One key reason that this tax debt was not ``turned on'' for collection by levy is that many of the accounts had not reached the stage in their processing where the required notice of intent to levy had been sent to the taxpayer. Until that notice is sent and the taxpayer has exhausted all rights of appeal available under the tax law, the IRS is currently barred from placing a tax levy on the taxpayer's property. In the case of Medicare providers and other federal contractors, that means federal dollars continue to go into their pockets, without any withholding, despite their unpaid taxes. While it may be appropriate to delay tax levies on most types of taxpayer property until a taxpayer's appeals are exhausted, it makes no sense to keep sending taxpayer dollars to a tax delinquent Medicare provider or other federal contractor while they are appealing the tax assessment. Withholding should be allowed when it is taxpayer dollars that are being paid to the tax delinquent. That's why our bill would create a special rule for federal payments, allowing a tax levy to be initiated and continue in effect, while the taxpayer's appeal goes forward. The taxpayer would retain the same due process rights, but a tax levy would be allowed to begin earlier in the administrative process; it would no longer have to wait until all of the taxpayer's appeal rights were exhausted. For property other than federal payments, the bill would maintain the current system, requiring a pre-levy notice and exhausted appeal rights before the property could be levied. The vast majority of Medicare providers render valuable services to their patients, and they do so while paying their taxes. These honest health care providers are put at a competitive disadvantage by the Medicare tax cheats who reduce their operating costs by failing to pay taxes. Besides hurting honest businesses, this type of tax dodging hurts our country by undermining the fairness of our tax system and by forcing honest taxpayers to make up the shortfall needed to pay for basic federal protections--like health care. When these tax delinquents also receive large payments of federal funds, it adds insult to injury. We must force these tax dodgers to pay their tax debt, and a key tool is to subject any federal payments they receive to an effective tax levy program. The Medicare Providers Accountability Act would target those tax dodgers by strengthening the tax levy program and subjecting additional hundreds of billions of dollars in federal payments each year to screening for unpaid taxes. An improved tax levy program would, in turn, strengthen federal tax enforcement, take a load off the shoulders of honest taxpayers, and reduce the tax gap. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the bill's enactment. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks follow those of Senator Coleman in today's Congressional Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues, Senator Coleman and Senator McCaskill, in introducing the Medicare Provider Accountability Act. This bill targets Medicare, a program which is indispensable to the health of our citizens, because some Medicare service providers are profiting from the program while abusing the federal tax system. The facts show that, while the vast majority of Medicare health care providers are honest, tax-paying citizens, others are getting paid with taxpayer dollars while, at the same time, failing to pay their taxes. Legislation to stop this abuse is a product of the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I serve as Chairman and Senator Coleman serves as the Ranking Member. On March 20, 2007, a Subcommittee hearing presented testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showing that about 21,000 Medicare Part B health care providers, including doctors, ambulance companies, and medical laboratories, collectively owe more than $1 billion in delinquent taxes. GAO also determined that, despite this pending tax debt, during the first 9 months of 2005 alone, these health care providers had received payments on Medicare claims totaling around $140 million. In other words, these providers were stuffing taxpayer dollars in their pockets at the same time they were stiffing Uncle Sam by not paying their taxes. Federal programs exist to stop this type of abuse. One key program is the Federal Payment Levy Program, which was established about ten years ago to enable the Federal government to identify federal payments being made to tax delinquents, and authorize the withholding of a portion of those taxpayer dollars to apply to the person's tax debt. That program has successfully collected taxes from federal payments made through the Treasury Department and by agencies like the Defense Department who screen their own payments to contractors through Treasury's Financial Management Service. As our March hearing demonstrated, however, despite a legal requirement to do so, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have never participated in the tax levy program with respect to Medicare Part A and B payments. This failure means that, year after year, as much as $300 billion in Federal Medicare payments have not been screened for unpaid taxes. The first substantive provision of our bill would redress this situation by mandating CMS to bring all Medicare part A and B payments into the Federal Payment Levy Program over the next two years. The second part of our bill would enable CMS to participate in a similar automated program, known as the Treasury Offset Program, to collect non-tax debt, such as unpaid student loans and child support. GAO has determined that certain Medicare health care providers collectively owe hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans, child support, and unpaid state taxes that could be collected through administrative offsets. The third and final part of our bill would eliminate a barrier to including a large part of IRS's uncollected tax assessments in the Federal Payment Levy Program for collection from Medicare provider payments, as well as other federal contractor payments. Right now, for a variety of legal and technical reasons, only 45 percent of the tax debt assessed but still uncollected in 2006 was actually made subject to levy under the federal program. In 2006, over half of this assessed tax debt--some $67 billion--was never ``turned on'' for actual collection under the tax levy program. Now, $67 billion is a big number, even by Washington standards. One key reason that this tax debt was not ``turned on'' for collection by levy is that many of the accounts had not reached the stage in their processing where the required notice of intent to levy had been sent to the taxpayer. Until that notice is sent and the taxpayer has exhausted all rights of appeal available under the tax law, the IRS is currently barred from placing a tax levy on the taxpayer's property. In the case of Medicare providers and other federal contractors, that means federal dollars continue to go into their pockets, without any withholding, despite their unpaid taxes. While it may be appropriate to delay tax levies on most types of taxpayer property until a taxpayer's appeals are exhausted, it makes no sense to keep sending taxpayer dollars to a tax delinquent Medicare provider or other federal contractor while they are appealing the tax assessment. Withholding should be allowed when it is taxpayer dollars that are being paid to the tax delinquent. That's why our bill would create a special rule for federal payments, allowing a tax levy to be initiated and continue in effect, while the taxpayer's appeal goes forward. The taxpayer would retain the same due process rights, but a tax levy would be allowed to begin earlier in the administrative process; it would no longer have to wait until all of the taxpayer's appeal rights were exhausted. For property other than federal payments, the bill would maintain the current system, requiring a pre-levy notice and exhausted appeal rights before the property could be levied. The vast majority of Medicare providers render valuable services to their patients, and they do so while paying their taxes. These honest health care providers are put at a competitive disadvantage by the Medicare tax cheats who reduce their operating costs by failing to pay taxes. Besides hurting honest businesses, this type of tax dodging hurts our country by undermining the fairness of our tax system and by forcing honest taxpayers to make up the shortfall needed to pay for basic federal protections--like health care. When these tax delinquents also receive large payments of federal funds, it adds insult to injury. We must force these tax dodgers to pay their tax debt, and a key tool is to subject any federal payments they receive to an effective tax levy program. The Medicare Providers Accountability Act would target those tax dodgers by strengthening the tax levy program and subjecting additional hundreds of billions of dollars in federal payments each year to screening for unpaid taxes. An improved tax levy program would, in turn, strengthen federal tax enforcement, take a load off the shoulders of honest taxpayers, and reduce the tax gap. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the bill's enactment. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks follow those of Senator Coleman in today's Congressional Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, are we under controlled time at this point?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our opening prayer this morning was delivered by Rev. John Koski, an associate pastor at the Dearborn Assembly of God in Dearborn, MI. I am delighted that Chaplain Black was able to include him in our schedule of guest Chaplains. Reverend Koski has served as a pastor on a Native American reservation in Montana, as a Christian school administrator in Colorado, and as a Bible College professor in Louisiana. He has conducted a bicycling ministry for 4 years in southeast Asia, traveling 20,000 miles on his bicycle. I know my colleague Senator Stabenow joins me in thanking Reverend Koski for delivering our opening prayer this morning and wishing him all the best in his ministries in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, relative to the conference report that is before the Senate, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill includes $95 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is approximately $4 billion more than the President requested for the Department of Defense, including $2.2 billion above the President's request for health care for our service men and women and their families. When the military forces are in harm's way, it is our solemn duty to provide the equipment they need and the health care they deserve, and we are meeting that duty with this bill. We also owe it to our troops to give them the best chance to succeed. In the case of Iraq, a majority of the Members of the Congress and a majority of Americans believe a change in course in Iraq will provide the best chance of success. That is at the heart of the debate here in Washington. There is at least a broad, if not universal, consensus that the war in Iraq will not be won militarily and that a political settlement by the Iraqi leaders is required to end the sectarian violence and defeat the insurgency. General Petraeus made that point in a press conference in Baghdad on March 8 when he said: Any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like Iraq. Iraq's own Prime Minister Maliki noted 5 months ago that: The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi] politicians. The debate, then, is how best to bring about the political settlement that must take place. There are some who say security, particularly in Baghdad, is the key, and if Baghdad can be made secure, the Iraqi politicians will have breathing room to reach the agreements and pass the legislation that will lead to reconciliation. Others, including this Senator, believe the Iraqis must be pressured to take responsibility for their own future, and the best way to do that is to convince them our military presence is not open-ended. The emergency supplemental before us is designed to do just that. It forces the Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for their own country by ending the open-ended commitment to provide a U.S. security blanket. Instead, it would require the beginning of a partial reduction of U.S. troops, leaving time for the Iraqis to make the political compromises they promised to make months ago. The bill calls for a change in mission for our forces in Iraq, from policing a civil war to a limited support mission, so that the Iraqis can finally realize our military presence in Iraq is not open-ended; that the future of their country is in their hands, not ours. The present course in Iraq is failing. The Iraqis are no closer to political reconciliation today than they were when the surge began. Instead of Prime Minister Maliki's government becoming stronger, it appears it is weaker. Disagreements in the Government have prevented proposals for debaathification and oil revenue sharing legislation from even being forwarded to the Council of Representatives for consideration. The committee considering amendments to the Iraqi constitution appears to be as far from completing its work as it has always been. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Assembly is apparently planning to go on a 2-month recess at the end of June. Now, let me repeat that since it is so unbelievable. The Iraqi Council of Representatives is apparently planning to go on a 2-month recess at the end of June. Incredibly enough, a man named Hasan Suneid, who is a lawmaker and the adviser to Prime Minister Maliki, was quoted in the paper the other day as saying, ``Time is irrelevant.'' Well, time is plenty relevant to us, to our troops, and to their families. Baghdad is burning while the politicians in Iraq avoid responsibility for their own country's future. Even the detonation of a suicide bomb within the Green Zone killing Iraqi parliamentarians has failed to change the political situation. It appears the Iraqi factions are content to seek vengeance rather than reconciliation. Senior administration officials, including Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice, and Ambassador Khalilzad have, in fact, wisely used this debate in Congress in an attempt to pressure the Iraqis to achieve political reconciliation. Secretary Gates said the week before last in Jordan: The debate in Congress has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that it is not an open-ended commitment. Secretary Gates told a press conference just last Thursday: I think one of the ancillary benefits of the debate on the Hill is that the Iraqis have to know that this isn't an open- ended commitment. The President has said that our patience is not unlimited. I don't think we've been very stubborn in communicating these messages to the Iraqis. That is what Secretary Gates said: ``I don't think we've been very stubborn in communicating these messages to the Iraqis'' that our patience is not unlimited. Well, we need to change course in Iraq. We need to stubbornly communicate our message to the Iraqis. Voting for this bill will help to send that message. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, yesterday I voted to table Senator Coburn's sense-of-the-Senate amendment that would have called for a requirement that all newly authorized programs be offset by deauthorizing something else. I support eliminating programs which are wasteful or unneeded whether or not we are authorizing a new program. The Coburn amendment was offered to an authorization bill which spends no money. It targets the authorizing process, not the appropriations process by which Congress allocates funds and determines priorities among authorized programs. The Coburn amendment also fails to address tax cuts which dig us into a deeper and deeper deficit ditch. I support fiscal responsibility and have supported a number of strong budget tools this year like the provision which reestablishes a strong pay-go rule, which would require any new spending or tax cuts be paid for elsewhere in the budget or receive a supermajority of at least 60 votes in the Senate. The amendment offered by Senator Coburn takes the wrong approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I voted against Senator Coburn's amendment, No. 922, because it will place a difficult burden on grant activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. The amendment as drafted has disturbing privacy implications. The inspector general's audits must be posted on the Web within 60 days without any safeguards for proprietary information. Further, the amendment is drafted so broadly that some reasonable uses of grant awards would be jeopardized. Researchers might be restrained from attending peer conferences which are a part of the scientific process. NOAA awards grants throughout Michigan in order to protect and restore the Great Lakes, and I want to ensure that this amendment does not interfere with NOAA's mission in the Great Lakes and our Nation's waters. I support the goal of the amendment to provide for accountability and transparency, and I hope that my concerns with the amendment will be addressed in conference so that I can support the provision in the conference report. Nanotechnology in the Schools

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I had intended to call up amendment No. 969 which sets forth authorization levels for the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, to restore the ATP program to its historic funding levels. The Senate's defeat of the Coburn amendment expresses the will of the Senate to support the ATP program. I am also confident that the chairman and the committee can accomplish in conference what this amendment intended to do. Again, by defeating the Coburn amendment to repeal the authorization for the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, the Senate has again expressed its support for ATP. This body understands the importance of this program. In the past the Senate has, on numerous occasions, supported amendments to the budget resolution to provide for ATP. Every time we have had an appropriations vote on this program we have retained funding for ATP. We have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In the face of these losses and strong global economic competition, we should be doing all we can to promote programs that help create jobs and strengthen the technological innovation of American companies. The ATP is one of the key Federal programs available to help U.S. manufacturers remain competitive in a global economy. I have spoken with the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and I am confident he will support strong funding for the ATP program in conference.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Brady law requires prospective gun purchasers to undergo a criminal background check before they are able to obtain a firearm from a federally licensed firearm dealer. It was created to prevent felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons from gaining access to guns. However, there are significant holes in this legislation that permit exploitation by those who wish to avoid criminal background checks and still obtain guns. In 1993, President Clinton signed the Brady bill into law. This law required a waiting period for handgun sales until records were available to instantly check criminal background of prospective gun purchasers. Once the National Instant Check System, NICS, became operational in 1998, the Justice Department maintained background check records on approved purchases for 6 months in order to ensure that felons and other prohibited buyers were not mistakenly approved. In 2001, the Justice Department shortened this record retention period to 90 days, the actual amount of time it takes to ensure proper audits of NICS. Under the Bush administration, however, Attorney General John Ashcroft sought to require the records of approved purchasers to be destroyed within 24 hours. In July 2002, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the potential effects of next-day destruction of NICS background check records. It concluded that destroying these records within 24 hours would prevent the Government from auditing the NICS system to ensure its accuracy and ``would have public safety implications.'' The GAO warned that a corrupt dealer could provide the FBI with a different name than that of the actual buyer to obtain approval for the name of the false purchaser and then proceed with the sale to the actual prohibited buyer. Such a scheme would be nearly impossible to detect with background check records destroyed before the ATF could audit the dealer. Citing his concern about the privacy of gun owners, Attorney General Ashcroft ignored the GAO report and the 24-hour record-destruction provision went into effect. Another loophole in the law is that it applies only to sales by licensed gun dealers, not to private transfers between unlicensed persons. Approximately 40 percent of gun sales are between private persons, such as at gun shows. Only six States require background checks on all firearm sales. According to the ATF, almost one-third of trafficked guns are acquired at gun shows and flea markets. These gatherings present the perfect opportunity for unlicensed sellers to offer countless guns for sale with no questions asked. People who would not pass a background check in a licensed gun store are able to purchase as many guns as they wish at gun shows. Between the enactment in 1993 and 2005, the Brady Act has prevented approximately 1.4 million convicted felons and other prohibited persons from buying guns from licensed retail dealers. Without NICS records, law enforcement officers do not have the opportunity to retrieve a mistakenly sold gun in order to protect against its use in a crime. I urge my colleagues to pass commonsense gun regulations which would put an end to these gaping holes in our gun laws.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on Monday America was devastated by the deadliest shooting rampage in our Nation's history. A gunman using two semi-automatic handguns, shot and killed 32 students and teachers and injured several dozen others before turning one of his guns on himself. Witnesses described scenes of chaos and grief, with students jumping from second-story windows to escape gunfire, while others heroically blocked their classroom doors to shield them from the gunman. Many of us watched this tragedy unfold on the news, finding it difficult to grasp the true magnitude of it. Parents and grandparents across America were thinking about the horror of one's child being caught in the middle of such chaos. There is little that could be worse for a parent than sending a child off to college, only to lose them to a senseless act of gun violence. I express condolences to the family, friends, and community touched by the tragedy at Virginia Tech. I know I reflect the feelings of the people of Michigan when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with them in this hour of pain and grief.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Mr. Isakson has a very brief statement, perhaps 2 minutes. I wonder if he can be recognized for 2 minutes and then Senator Nelson for 2 minutes and then I be recognized for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July of 2004 fueled a debate about how our intelligence community should be restructured to better respond to the post-9/11 threat. In response to problems identified by the 9/11 Commission, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Most notably, that bill created the Director of National Intelligence, empowering the DNI with budget power and control over personnel in the intelligence community. The bill also created the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, with the authority to conduct strategic counterterrorism planning and to assign roles and responsibilities for counterterrorism activities. Passage of intelligence reform was a watershed moment in the drive to better organize our Government to deal with the threat of terrorism. On December 8, 2004, the same day the Senate passed the Intelligence reform bill, it passed the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. It is troubling that that day, December 8, 2004, was the last day this body passed an Intelligence authorization bill, and it underscores the importance of the Senate passing the bill before us. Since passage of the Intelligence reform bill in 2004, we learned a good deal about what additional changes to law might be needed to improve our intelligence community functions. In addition, as we have learned about such activities as the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, we have come to better appreciate the need for strong congressional oversight of the intelligence community. As a matter of fact, the 9/11 Commission said the following in its very lengthy and thoughtful report, ``Strengthen Congressional Oversight of Intelligence and Homeland Security.'' That is the heading of the section, and this is the one pungent sentence from that report which I hope will cause a lot of people to rethink their opposition to cloture on this bill: Of all of our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. Those words should have an impact on the vote that is coming up in about 40 minutes. More than 30 years ago, the Senate passed S. Res. 400, establishing the Select Committee on Intelligence, and charging that committee with providing ``vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.'' The legislation before us today takes significant steps toward reinvigorating our oversight responsibility. For example, effective oversight depends on Members of Congress having timely access to intelligence information. Unfortunately, too often that is not the case, as requests from Congress for intelligence information are stonewalled and slow walked. Section 108 of the bill before us requires the intelligence community to provide, upon request from the chairman or vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee or chairman or ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, timely access to existing intelligence assessments, reports, estimates, legal opinions, or other intelligence information. The bill before us also advances Congress's oversight of particular matters. For example, section 313 requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit a classified report on any clandestine detention facilities operated by the U.S. Government. This public law requirement reflects the Intelligence Committee's determination to undertake serious oversight of any intelligence community detention and interrogation practices. The bill before us also establishes within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence an inspector general of the intelligence community. That is a major reform. It is highly important, and it is long overdue. The creation of an inspector general of the intelligence community will strengthen accountability by permitting independent examinations of problems, abuses, or deficiencies. We should not let another year go by without an Intelligence authorization bill. We cannot defeat the threats this Nation faces without the strongest and most effective intelligence community which, in turn, requires strong oversight. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today is the day that millions of Americans across this country perform an important civic duty by paying their taxes. It is also a day when many Members of Congress take the time to reflect on the state of the Federal tax system and consider how we can strengthen it, simplify it, make it more fair, and, in a responsible way, ease the tax burden on our citizens. Earlier this year, I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, S. 681, to strengthen our tax system. That bipartisan bill, which I introduced with my colleagues, Senators Norm Coleman and Barack Obama, targets outrageous, offshore tax abuses that drain $100 billion each year from the U.S. Treasury at the expense of honest, hardworking American families who pay their fair share. Offshore tax abuses eat away at the foundations of our tax system, draining billions in tax revenue, diverting substantial IRS enforcement resources, and demoralizing honest taxpayers who play by the rules. S. 681 offers a host of provisions to stop offshore abuses, and I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at that legislation on this tax day. If enacted, it would make our tax system more effective, more fair, and more productive. It deserves to be enacted into law this year. Stopping offshore tax abuse, however, is far from the only tax problem that needs to be addressed if we are to achieve a fair and cost effective tax system. So today, I am introducing with Senator Coleman legislation offering a cure to a completely different tax problem. The target of this legislation is better administration of Federal tax liens. It has been 40 years since Congress made any significant changes to the laws regulating how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) files Federal tax liens and makes them public. Right now, outdated laws are forcing the IRS to waste taxpayer dollars on an old-fashioned, inefficient, and burdensome paper tax lien filing system that should be replaced by a modernized electronic filing system capable of operating at a fraction of the cost. It is time to bring the Federal tax lien system into the 21st century. That's why I am introducing today, along with Senator Coleman, the Tax Lien Simplification Act, which will simplify the process of recording tax liens at an estimated ten-year cost savings of over half a billion dollars, while at the same time improving taxpayer service by speeding up the release of liens after taxes are paid. Tax liens are a principal way to collect payment from persons who are delinquent in paying their taxes. By law, Federal tax liens arise automatically ten days after a taxpayer's failure to pay an assessed tax. The lien automatically attaches to the taxpayer's real and personal property and remains in effect until the tax is paid. However, the tax lien is not effective against other creditors owed money by the same taxpayer, until a notice of the Federal tax lien is publicly recorded. Generally, between competing creditors, the first to file notice has priority, so the filing of tax lien notices is very important to the government and to the taxpaying public if taxes are to be collected from persons who don't pay them. Current law requires the IRS to file public notices of Federal tax liens in State, county, or city recording offices around the country. There are currently more than 4,100 of these local recording offices, many of which have developed specific rules regulating how such liens must be formatted and filed in their jurisdictions. This patchwork system developed more by default than by plan, because those local offices were where documents affecting title to real property, judgments, and other lien and security interest documents had always been filed. In 1966, to help the IRS comply with a proliferating set of local filing rules for Federal tax liens, Congress passed the Tax Lien Act to standardize certain practices. This act provided, for example, that liens against real estate had to be filed where the property was located, and required each State to designate a single place to file Federal tax liens applicable to personal property. Most States subsequently adopted a version of the Uniform Tax Lien Filing Act, enabling the IRS to file a notice of tax lien in each locality where the taxpayer's real estate is located, and a single notice where the taxpayer resides to reach any personal property. For corporations, States typically require the IRS to file a notice to attach real estate in each locality where the real estate is located, and a separate notice, usually at the State level, to attach other types of property. There are often additional rules for trusts and partnerships. The end result of the law was to reduce some but not all of the multiple sets of rules regulating the local filing of Federal tax liens. In addition, in most cases, the IRS continued to have to physically file the tax lien in the appropriate local recording office. In most cases, that filing is accomplished by mail. Some jurisdictions also allow electronic filings, but those jurisdictions are few and far between. The same is true if a lien has to be corrected, or a related certificate of discharge, subordination, or nonattachment needs to be filed, or when a tax liability has been resolved and the IRS wants to release a lien. Each usually requires a paper filing in one or more local recording offices. If a paper filing is lost or misplaced, the IRS often has to send an employee in person to deal with the problem, adding travel costs to other administrative expenses. The paper filing system imposes similar burdens on other persons dealing with the tax lien system. Any person who is the subject of a tax lien, for example, or who is a creditor trying to locate a tax lien, is required to make a physical trip to one or more local recording offices to search the documents and see if a lien has been filed. Currently, there is no central database of locally filed tax liens that can be accessed by any member of the public or by any taxpayer that is the subject of a federal tax lien. Not even IRS personnel have access to such a tax lien database. It does not exist. The result is an inefficient, costly, and burdensome paper filing system that can and should be completely revamped. Businesses across the country learned long ago that electronic filing systems outperform paper; they save personnel costs, material costs, time, and client frustration. Government agencies have learned the same thing as they have moved to electronic databases and recordkeeping, including systems made available to the public on the Internet. Among the many examples of government-sponsored, Internet-based systems currently in operation are the contractor registry operated by the General Services Administration to allow persons to register to bid on federal contracts, the license registry operated by the Federal Communications Commission to allow the public to search radio licenses, and the registry operated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to allow the public to search currently registered patents and trademarks. Each of these systems has saved taxpayer money, while improving service to the public. Just as government agencies gave up the horse and buggy for the automobile, it is time for the IRS to move from a decentralized, paper- based tax lien filing system to an electronic national tax lien registry. But the IRS' hands are tied, until the Congress changes the laws holding back modernization of the federal tax lien filing system. The bill we are introducing today would make the changes necessary to enable the IRS to take immediate steps to simplify and modernize the Federal tax lien filing system. The operative provisions would require the IRS to create a national registry for the filing of tax lien notices as an electronic database that is Internet accessible and searchable by the public at no cost. It would mandate the use of this system in place of the existing system of local filings. It would establish the priority of Federal tax liens according to the date and time that the relevant notice was filed in the national registry, in the same way that priorities are currently established from the date and time of filing in local recording offices. The bill would also shorten the time allowed to release a tax lien, after the related tax liability has been resolved, from 30 days to 10 days. To establish this new electronic filing system, the bill would give the Treasury Secretary express authority to issue regulations or other guidance governing the establishment and maintenance of the registry. Among other obligations, Treasury would be required to ensure that the registry was secure and prevent data tampering. In addition, prior to the implementation of the national registry, the Treasury Secretary would be required to review the information currently included in public tax lien filings to determine whether any of that information should be excluded or protected from disclosure on the Internet. For example, the Treasury Secretary would be expected to prevent the disclosure of social security numbers that are currently included in many public tax lien filings, but if disclosed on the Internet, could facilitate identity theft. While such identifying information could continue to be included in a tax lien filing to ensure that the filing is directed toward the correct person, the registry could be constructed to prevent such information from being disclosed publicly and to instead provide such information only upon request from appropriate persons involved in the enforcement of the tax lien or collection of the tax debt. By requiring this information review prior to implementing the national tax lien registry, the bill is expected to provide greater protection of some taxpayer information than occurs in current tax lien filings. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to establish a functioning tax lien registry by January 1, 2009, but would also allow the IRS to continue to use the existing paper-based tax lien filing system, in parallel with the new system, for an appropriate period to ensure a smooth transition. The IRS has indicated that it would be able to establish an electronic tax lien filing system within the specified time period. Moving to a centralized, electronic tax lien filing system, an Internet-based National Registry of tax liens, would accomplish at least three objectives. It would save taxpayer dollars, speed the process for filing and releasing tax liens, and simplify the process for researching Federal tax liens for taxpayers and creditors. The IRS estimates that moving from a paper-based, locally filed tax lien system to an Internet-based, Federal tax lien filing system would save about $570 million over 10 years. That's half a billion dollars in cost savings. These savings would come from the elimination of State filing fees, IRS personnel costs, travel costs related to local filing problems, and the cost of lost taxes whenever the IRS makes an error or a tax lien filing is misplaced or delayed. Filing fees, for example, vary widely from state to state, but typically cost at least $10 per filing, and in some States cost as much as $150. If a taxpayer has real estate in multiple jurisdictions, those costs multiply. Personnel costs include the IRS service center staff that is currently charged with filing tax liens nationwide and complying with the myriad filing rules in effect in the 4,100 recording offices across the country. Additional anticipated savings would come from reduced mailing and travel costs. Electronic filing would not only save money, it would improve taxpayer service. Taxpayers who are the subject of a tax lien filing, for example, would benefit from a centralized registry in several ways. First, taxpayers would be able to review their liens as soon as they are filed online, without having to make a physical trip to one or more local recording offices. Second, taxpayers would have an easy way to look up their liens on multiple occasions, identify any problems, and correct any errors. Third, once the underlying tax liability was resolved, the IRS would be required to release the tax lien in 10 days, instead of the 30 days allowed under current law. The longer 30-day period is necessitated by the current complexities associated with filing a paper lien in one or more local offices, complexities that would be eliminated by the establishment of a centralized, electronic registry. Creditors who need to research Federal tax liens would also benefit from a centralized, electronic registry. Lenders, security holders and others, for example, would be able to use a simplified search process that could take place online and would not require physical trips to multiple locations. Simplifying the search process would also provide greater certainty that all tax liens were found. The ability to research Federal tax liens remotely and instantaneously should be of particular benefit to larger lenders and to creditors of taxpayers with widely distributed assets. Federal tax liens are not a topic that normally excites the public's interest. Sound tax administration, however, requires attention to administrative as well as enforcement concerns. Federal law is currently impeding development of a more efficient, cost effective tax lien filing system. Amending the law as indicated in the Tax Lien Simplification Act to streamline the tax lien filing system, moving it from a paper-based to an electronic-based system, would not only advance the more efficient, cost-effective tax system we all want, it would also save half a billion dollars in taxpayer money. At the same time, it would make the system work better for individual taxpayers by reducing the possibility for mistakes and speeding up the release of liens for taxpayers who have paid. Modernizing our tax lien filing system makes sense in every way. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Coleman and myself in enacting this bill into law this year. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record following these remarks a section-by-section analysis of the bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today is the day that millions of Americans across this country perform an important civic duty by paying their taxes. It is also a day when many Members of Congress take the time to reflect on the state of the Federal tax system and consider how we can strengthen it, simplify it, make it more fair, and, in a responsible way, ease the tax burden on our citizens. Earlier this year, I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, S. 681, to strengthen our tax system. That bipartisan bill, which I introduced with my colleagues, Senators Norm Coleman and Barack Obama, targets outrageous, offshore tax abuses that drain $100 billion each year from the U.S. Treasury at the expense of honest, hardworking American families who pay their fair share. Offshore tax abuses eat away at the foundations of our tax system, draining billions in tax revenue, diverting substantial IRS enforcement resources, and demoralizing honest taxpayers who play by the rules. S. 681 offers a host of provisions to stop offshore abuses, and I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at that legislation on this tax day. If enacted, it would make our tax system more effective, more fair, and more productive. It deserves to be enacted into law this year. Stopping offshore tax abuse, however, is far from the only tax problem that needs to be addressed if we are to achieve a fair and cost effective tax system. So today, I am introducing with Senator Coleman legislation offering a cure to a completely different tax problem. The target of this legislation is better administration of Federal tax liens. It has been 40 years since Congress made any significant changes to the laws regulating how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) files Federal tax liens and makes them public. Right now, outdated laws are forcing the IRS to waste taxpayer dollars on an old-fashioned, inefficient, and burdensome paper tax lien filing system that should be replaced by a modernized electronic filing system capable of operating at a fraction of the cost. It is time to bring the Federal tax lien system into the 21st century. That's why I am introducing today, along with Senator Coleman, the Tax Lien Simplification Act, which will simplify the process of recording tax liens at an estimated ten-year cost savings of over half a billion dollars, while at the same time improving taxpayer service by speeding up the release of liens after taxes are paid. Tax liens are a principal way to collect payment from persons who are delinquent in paying their taxes. By law, Federal tax liens arise automatically ten days after a taxpayer's failure to pay an assessed tax. The lien automatically attaches to the taxpayer's real and personal property and remains in effect until the tax is paid. However, the tax lien is not effective against other creditors owed money by the same taxpayer, until a notice of the Federal tax lien is publicly recorded. Generally, between competing creditors, the first to file notice has priority, so the filing of tax lien notices is very important to the government and to the taxpaying public if taxes are to be collected from persons who don't pay them. Current law requires the IRS to file public notices of Federal tax liens in State, county, or city recording offices around the country. There are currently more than 4,100 of these local recording offices, many of which have developed specific rules regulating how such liens must be formatted and filed in their jurisdictions. This patchwork system developed more by default than by plan, because those local offices were where documents affecting title to real property, judgments, and other lien and security interest documents had always been filed. In 1966, to help the IRS comply with a proliferating set of local filing rules for Federal tax liens, Congress passed the Tax Lien Act to standardize certain practices. This act provided, for example, that liens against real estate had to be filed where the property was located, and required each State to designate a single place to file Federal tax liens applicable to personal property. Most States subsequently adopted a version of the Uniform Tax Lien Filing Act, enabling the IRS to file a notice of tax lien in each locality where the taxpayer's real estate is located, and a single notice where the taxpayer resides to reach any personal property. For corporations, States typically require the IRS to file a notice to attach real estate in each locality where the real estate is located, and a separate notice, usually at the State level, to attach other types of property. There are often additional rules for trusts and partnerships. The end result of the law was to reduce some but not all of the multiple sets of rules regulating the local filing of Federal tax liens. In addition, in most cases, the IRS continued to have to physically file the tax lien in the appropriate local recording office. In most cases, that filing is accomplished by mail. Some jurisdictions also allow electronic filings, but those jurisdictions are few and far between. The same is true if a lien has to be corrected, or a related certificate of discharge, subordination, or nonattachment needs to be filed, or when a tax liability has been resolved and the IRS wants to release a lien. Each usually requires a paper filing in one or more local recording offices. If a paper filing is lost or misplaced, the IRS often has to send an employee in person to deal with the problem, adding travel costs to other administrative expenses. The paper filing system imposes similar burdens on other persons dealing with the tax lien system. Any person who is the subject of a tax lien, for example, or who is a creditor trying to locate a tax lien, is required to make a physical trip to one or more local recording offices to search the documents and see if a lien has been filed. Currently, there is no central database of locally filed tax liens that can be accessed by any member of the public or by any taxpayer that is the subject of a federal tax lien. Not even IRS personnel have access to such a tax lien database. It does not exist. The result is an inefficient, costly, and burdensome paper filing system that can and should be completely revamped. Businesses across the country learned long ago that electronic filing systems outperform paper; they save personnel costs, material costs, time, and client frustration. Government agencies have learned the same thing as they have moved to electronic databases and recordkeeping, including systems made available to the public on the Internet. Among the many examples of government-sponsored, Internet-based systems currently in operation are the contractor registry operated by the General Services Administration to allow persons to register to bid on federal contracts, the license registry operated by the Federal Communications Commission to allow the public to search radio licenses, and the registry operated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to allow the public to search currently registered patents and trademarks. Each of these systems has saved taxpayer money, while improving service to the public. Just as government agencies gave up the horse and buggy for the automobile, it is time for the IRS to move from a decentralized, paper- based tax lien filing system to an electronic national tax lien registry. But the IRS' hands are tied, until the Congress changes the laws holding back modernization of the federal tax lien filing system. The bill we are introducing today would make the changes necessary to enable the IRS to take immediate steps to simplify and modernize the Federal tax lien filing system. The operative provisions would require the IRS to create a national registry for the filing of tax lien notices as an electronic database that is Internet accessible and searchable by the public at no cost. It would mandate the use of this system in place of the existing system of local filings. It would establish the priority of Federal tax liens according to the date and time that the relevant notice was filed in the national registry, in the same way that priorities are currently established from the date and time of filing in local recording offices. The bill would also shorten the time allowed to release a tax lien, after the related tax liability has been resolved, from 30 days to 10 days. To establish this new electronic filing system, the bill would give the Treasury Secretary express authority to issue regulations or other guidance governing the establishment and maintenance of the registry. Among other obligations, Treasury would be required to ensure that the registry was secure and prevent data tampering. In addition, prior to the implementation of the national registry, the Treasury Secretary would be required to review the information currently included in public tax lien filings to determine whether any of that information should be excluded or protected from disclosure on the Internet. For example, the Treasury Secretary would be expected to prevent the disclosure of social security numbers that are currently included in many public tax lien filings, but if disclosed on the Internet, could facilitate identity theft. While such identifying information could continue to be included in a tax lien filing to ensure that the filing is directed toward the correct person, the registry could be constructed to prevent such information from being disclosed publicly and to instead provide such information only upon request from appropriate persons involved in the enforcement of the tax lien or collection of the tax debt. By requiring this information review prior to implementing the national tax lien registry, the bill is expected to provide greater protection of some taxpayer information than occurs in current tax lien filings. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to establish a functioning tax lien registry by January 1, 2009, but would also allow the IRS to continue to use the existing paper-based tax lien filing system, in parallel with the new system, for an appropriate period to ensure a smooth transition. The IRS has indicated that it would be able to establish an electronic tax lien filing system within the specified time period. Moving to a centralized, electronic tax lien filing system, an Internet-based National Registry of tax liens, would accomplish at least three objectives. It would save taxpayer dollars, speed the process for filing and releasing tax liens, and simplify the process for researching Federal tax liens for taxpayers and creditors. The IRS estimates that moving from a paper-based, locally filed tax lien system to an Internet-based, Federal tax lien filing system would save about $570 million over 10 years. That's half a billion dollars in cost savings. These savings would come from the elimination of State filing fees, IRS personnel costs, travel costs related to local filing problems, and the cost of lost taxes whenever the IRS makes an error or a tax lien filing is misplaced or delayed. Filing fees, for example, vary widely from state to state, but typically cost at least $10 per filing, and in some States cost as much as $150. If a taxpayer has real estate in multiple jurisdictions, those costs multiply. Personnel costs include the IRS service center staff that is currently charged with filing tax liens nationwide and complying with the myriad filing rules in effect in the 4,100 recording offices across the country. Additional anticipated savings would come from reduced mailing and travel costs. Electronic filing would not only save money, it would improve taxpayer service. Taxpayers who are the subject of a tax lien filing, for example, would benefit from a centralized registry in several ways. First, taxpayers would be able to review their liens as soon as they are filed online, without having to make a physical trip to one or more local recording offices. Second, taxpayers would have an easy way to look up their liens on multiple occasions, identify any problems, and correct any errors. Third, once the underlying tax liability was resolved, the IRS would be required to release the tax lien in 10 days, instead of the 30 days allowed under current law. The longer 30-day period is necessitated by the current complexities associated with filing a paper lien in one or more local offices, complexities that would be eliminated by the establishment of a centralized, electronic registry. Creditors who need to research Federal tax liens would also benefit from a centralized, electronic registry. Lenders, security holders and others, for example, would be able to use a simplified search process that could take place online and would not require physical trips to multiple locations. Simplifying the search process would also provide greater certainty that all tax liens were found. The ability to research Federal tax liens remotely and instantaneously should be of particular benefit to larger lenders and to creditors of taxpayers with widely distributed assets. Federal tax liens are not a topic that normally excites the public's interest. Sound tax administration, however, requires attention to administrative as well as enforcement concerns. Federal law is currently impeding development of a more efficient, cost effective tax lien filing system. Amending the law as indicated in the Tax Lien Simplification Act to streamline the tax lien filing system, moving it from a paper-based to an electronic-based system, would not only advance the more efficient, cost-effective tax system we all want, it would also save half a billion dollars in taxpayer money. At the same time, it would make the system work better for individual taxpayers by reducing the possibility for mistakes and speeding up the release of liens for taxpayers who have paid. Modernizing our tax lien filing system makes sense in every way. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Coleman and myself in enacting this bill into law this year. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record following these remarks a section-by-section analysis of the bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Transit Benefits: How Some Federal Employees Are Taking Uncle Sam For A Ride.'' In 2006, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at Senator Coleman's request, initiated an investigation into possible abuses of the Federal Transit Benefit Program. Under this program, the Federal Government provides qualified Federal employees with benefits for use on public transportation systems in order to reduce air pollution and decrease traffic congestion. For instance, employees living in the Washington, D.C. area receive a paper card, called a Metrochek or Metro Smartrip, with a magnetically encoded value that can be used on Metrorail or exchanged for an equivalent value in train or bus tickets. The April 24th Subcommittee hearing will examine whether transit benefits are being misused, program rules are being violated, and agency oversight requires strengthening. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the DOT Inspector General, the Department of Defense (DOD), as well as the DOD Inspector General. A final witness list will be available on Friday, April 20, 2007. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise J. Bean, of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--Revised

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I call attention to a development within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, that has resulted in the sale of carbon-monoxide-treated meat to American consumers. Allowing this can deceive American consumers and raises serious public health concerns since the consumers can no longer rely on the way the meat looks to indicate its freshness. The use of carbon monoxide turns beef a shade of red that mimics very fresh red meat. Mixing carbon monoxide into the pre-packaged, air-tight packaging of beef allows it to retain its red color long after the expiration date on the package. The meatpacking industry argues that beef is actually safe up to 20 days when refrigerated and much longer if it is frozen. They also argue that because untreated meat can begin to turn brown before its expiration date, it is not a true indication of the meat's freshness and consumers should not be relying on the color of the meat, but the expiration date on the package. That is a theoretical argument that fails in the real world. Consumers do rely on meat color and the industry knows that the only purpose of using carbon monoxide is to maintain the red color. Experiments with treated and untreated packages of beef compared how they age under refrigeration. After the expiration date, untreated meat begins to turn brown, while meat was still rosy pink if treated with carbon monoxide. Even though the treated beef looked fresh, it was in fact contaminated with E. coli bacterium and salmonella. The FDA has had longstanding rules against color alteration of meats but, inexplicably, the FDA has allowed carbon-monoxide-treated packaging to move forward. I asked the Food and Drug Administration for an explanation of this change. In their response, the FDA claims that adding carbon monoxide to the packaging meets their standard of ``generally recognized as safe,'' and no further FDA approval is required. Relying on the procedures for substances that are ``generally recognized as safe'' is inappropriate for color additives and surely that should include any substance added to food whose purpose is to change its color. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA is required to issue, through notice and comment rulemaking, the permissible conditions of use in regulations ``listing'' the color additive. The color additive ``listing'' procedure is a transparent process in which the public is engaged. Consumers have the opportunity to comment on the safety and deception risks that are presented. For the FDA to allow the use of carbon monoxide for color alteration under the ``generally recognized as safe'' notification procedure ignores the well established listing requirements for public engagement in the policy development process. Since there are currently no requirements for the meatpacking industry to label which meats have been packed in carbon monoxide and which have not, it is especially important for consumers to look for the expiration date printed on all meat package labels and not just at the color of the beef. Even if the meat is purchased before the expiration date, consumers still need to be aware that beef packaged in carbon monoxide can spoil at home yet still look fresh. If consumers judge the freshness of beef by its red color without checking the expiration date on the package, they risk their health. Prepackaged beef should not be treated with carbon monoxide, but at a minimum, meat that has been treated with carbon monoxide should be clearly labeled so that consumers know what they are buying. Six consumer groups recently sent a letter to Senators asking that Congress take action on this important health issue. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, militaries around the world use .50 caliber sniper rifles which are noted for their powerful and destructive capabilities. In the hands of a terrorist, these weapons could inflict devastating results. The fact that terrorists can legally obtain weapons in the United States with such destructive capabilities puts us all at great risk. In 1985, a previously classified National War College strategic study report, written by a former Deputy Assistant Director of the U.S. Secret Service, warned of the growing threat from large caliber sniper rifles, specifically .50 caliber rifles. These ``long range weapons pose a significant threat for U.S. National Command Authority figures if used by terrorists or other assailants,'' the Secret Service warned. ``These weapons are more accurate than shoulder fired antitank rockets and, if used against aircraft, [are] immune to electronic counter measures.'' Ten years later the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit global policy think tank, issued a report identifying .50 caliber sniper rifles as a serious threat to the security of U.S. Air Force bases. After noting the success of Barrett sniper rifles against light armored vehicles in the 1991 gulf war, the report noted, ``Such weapons also give light forces a portable and quite deadly option against parked aircraft. These rifles are effective against man-sized targets up to 1,600 meters away and could hit aircraft sized targets at even greater ranges.'' It further states that, ``it seems only a matter of time before these or similar weapons find their way into the arsenals of potential adversaries, if they have not already done so.'' The August 2003 U.S. Army Intelligence training handbook, ``A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century,'' specifically identified large caliber sniper rifles as an attractive weapon for terrorists to use for an assassination. It noted that .50 caliber sniper rifles are of particular interest because they can engage attacks on ``targets that are difficult to get close enough for other weapons,'' yet ``can also effectively engage light armored vehicles.'' A 2004 report on security at Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, specifically warned of snipers using .50 caliber rifles to fire at parked or taxiing aircraft among a list of potential terrorist attack tactics. The RAND Corporation compiled this list by considering information gathered by intelligence organizations based on the historical tendencies and capabilities of terrorist organizations. The analysis however was not able to identify ``any truly satisfactory'' security improvement options to protect against such sniper attacks. In November 2004, the Homeland Security Center at the University of Southern California, funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, identified .50 caliber sniper rifles as an imminent threat to civil aviation. A risk analysis prepared by the center stated that the range and power of .50 caliber sniper rifles enable them to ``target fuel tanks, passengers, pilots, and down aircraft in the worst case.'' It also noted that al Qaida has acquired and used these rifles against coalition forces in Iraq. These destructive weapons are currently subject to only minimal Federal regulation. Buyers need to only be 18 years old, rather than the 21 years of age which is required for handgun purchases. There is no minimum age requirement for the possession of a .50 caliber weapon and no regulation on second hand sales. Congress must do more to help keep military style firearms out of the hands of terrorists.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, are we operating under a UC at the moment?

Mr. LEVIN. I have been authorized to yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the previous Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives voted resoundingly to lift the President's burdensome restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The President, however, used the first--and so far only--veto of his administration to reject this potentially life-giving research which is supported by a clear majority of the American people. We are here today to try again to give our scientists the tools they need as they work to cure some of the most debilitating and dreaded diseases. We will not--and we should not--yield until we remove the obstacles the President has put in their way. This fight is critical, because embryonic stem cell research could hold the key to curing diseases that no other research could cure. As best we know now, an embryonic stem cell is unique in nature. It alone can develop into any other type of cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells--and embryonic stem cells alone--can become a nerve cell, a muscle cell, or any of the more than 200 types of cells in the body. The promise of this unique ability is clear: If scientists could replace diseased cells with healthy cells created from embryonic stem cells, it could save an untold number of lives. For example, Parkinson's disease is a motor system disorder that results from a loss of brain cells that produce dopamine. Individuals with Parkinson's disease often experience a trembling in the hands, arms, or face, and impaired balance and coordination. As the disease develops, it can become difficult to walk, talk, and complete other basic tasks. With research, scientists may be able to coax embryonic stem cells into becoming healthy neurons that produce the desperately- needed dopamine. If those neurons can be successfully transplanted into a patient with Parkinson's disease, that person could be cured. The list of diseases that could benefit from stem cell research is long--Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and many others. Stem cell research could offer the millions of Americans suffering from these diseases not just hope but cures. Supporters of stem cell research understand that these breakthroughs will not be easy or inevitable. But the President's policy makes them far less likely. On August 21, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order that the Federal Government would only fund embryonic stem cell research on stem cell lines created before that date. ``Stem cell line'' is the name given to constantly-dividing cells that continue to be derived from a single embryo. Most independent experts estimated at the time of the President's executive order that about 80 stem cell lines--a woefully inadequate amount--would be available for Federal research. Most of those lines were later determined to be polluted and unusable, leaving only about 20 stem cell lines available. Last month, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni was asked during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education whether ``scientists have a better chance of finding new cures [and] new interventions for diseases if the current restriction on embryonic stem cell research were lifted.'' Dr. Zerhouni responded: ``these cell lines will not be sufficient to do all the research we need to do . . . these cell lines have exhibited instability from the genetic standpoint and it's not possible for me to see how we can continue the momentum of science in stem cell research with the cell lines that we have currently at NIH that can be funded. It is clear today that American science would be better served and the nation would be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines.'' In issuing his executive order and in vetoing the bill we passed last year, the President did not question the scientific possibilities of stem cell research. In fact, he said the opposite. He stated in 2001: Scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases. The President's objection is to using embryos for research. But the key fact--and one that opponents refuse to deal with--is that any embryo not used for stem cell research is going to be destroyed anyway. The embryos created by fertilization clinics that are not going to be used for implantation will be destroyed. Why not give them a life- giving use then? No answer has been forthcoming from the President. RAND Health conducted a study in 2003 that found there were approximately 400,000 embryos in storage in the United States and some of these embryos will never be used because parents either had a successful pregnancy and no longer need them or because treatments were unsuccessful. In addition, the study found that only 2 percent of these embryos will be used to create pregnancies in unrelated mothers. Many will be discarded. Last year, the Detroit News editorialized against a Michigan law restricting embryonic stem cell research and used words that apply equally well to the President's policy. The News wrote: The justification for this law is to protect human embryos, but the fact that fertility clinics can simply discard them means that the research ban is pointless. Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology and one of the country's leading stem cell researchers, agrees. In an article in the Ann Arbor News last month, Dr. Morrison stated: The thing about that that's crazy is human embryos are discarded all the time by fertility clinics . . .So it's legal to throw them away, but it's not legal to use them to try to help somebody. Embryonic stem cell research is truly a life-giving process because of the extraordinary potential for healing living, breathing human beings, human beings with names and faces and families. Members of the House of Representatives have now passed the bipartisan Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 3. After we debate the companion bill, S. 5, I hope we too will again adopt it and remove the President's arbitrary prohibition against funding stem cell research on embryos. It will pave the way for hundreds or thousands of additional stem cell lines to be made available. This bill has the strong support of the American Medical Association, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Association of American Universities, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Parkinson's Action Network, and more than 500 additional organizations. More importantly, it has the overwhelming support of the American people. If the President again vetoes this bill, I hope Congress will override that veto. As part of the unanimous consent agreement to consider this legislation, we are considering an additional bill as well. Senators Coleman and Isakson introduced a bill that promotes stem cell research limited to those stem cells obtained from ``naturally dead'' embryos. These embryos are called ``naturally dead'' because they are unable to divide and reproduce like other embryos. While we should pursue all types of research, I do not believe we should limit stem cell research to stem cells that may be flawed, as indicated by their inability to reproduce and divide. Embryonic stem cell research holds enormous promise for healing and saving individuals who suffer from debilitating diseases and injuries. It is our responsibility to pursue those cures and treatments in an ethical manner. In order for our scientists to do quality research and make advances in medicine, they must have access to embryonic stem cells that are uncontaminated and viable for research, especially since they will otherwise be destroyed. S. 5 will allow our scientists to move forward to a new generation of potentially life-saving cures. It deserves the support of this body. I yield the floor.