Transparency in Drug Labeling Act

Today, I am joined by the junior Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell, in introducing the Travelers' Privacy Protection Act of 2008. This bill restores privacy for law-abiding Americans who, under current administration policy, may be required to give customs agents unfettered access to the contents of their laptop computers and other electronic devices when they return from overseas travel.

There is a compelling and immediate need for this legislation. Over the last two years, reports have surfaced that customs agents have been requiring American citizens and others lawfully residing in the U.S. to turn over their cell phones or give them the passwords to their laptops. The travelers have been forced to wait for hours while customs agents reviewed and sometimes copied the contents of the electronic devices. In some cases, the laptops or cell phones were confiscated, and returned weeks or even months later, with no explanation.

When the practice was challenged in court, the administration argued that it can search the contents of American travelers' laptops without any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever, because a laptop is no different than any other ``closed container.'' In other words, according to this administration, there is no difference between rifling through the contents of your suitcase, and logging on to your laptop, opening your files, and reviewing your photographs, medical records, financial records, e-mails, letters, journals, work product, or an electronic record of all the Web sites you have visited.

I am willing to bet that most Americans would disagree. Americans understand the importance of security at the borders, and the vast majority of them accept that the government is entitled to look through their suitcases when they are returning from an overseas trip. But I say to my colleagues: try asking your constituents whether the government has a right to open their laptops, read their documents and e-mails, look at their photographs, and examine the Web sites they have visited--all without any suspicion of wrongdoing--and see what they say. I think you'll hear the same thing that I have heard: ``Not in the United States of America.''

In June of this year, I held a hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee to examine this issue. At this hearing, we learned about the effect of suspicionless electronic border searches on American businesses. The Executive Director for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives testified that, in a survey of ACTE members, 7 out of 100 respondents had experienced seizures of their laptops or other electronic equipment. Many companies are now taking expensive and burdensome measures to protect their electronic information from forced disclosure at the border. The administration's intrusive border practices thus come with a hefty price tag for the American business sector, at a time when the economy can ill afford it.

We also heard disturbing evidence suggesting that Muslim Americans and Americans of Arab or South Asian descent are being targeted for these invasive searches. Many travelers from these backgrounds who have been subject to electronic searches have also been asked about their religious and political views, including why they chose to convert to Islam, what they think about Jews, and their views of the candidates in the upcoming election. This questioning is deeply disturbing in its own right. It also strongly suggests that some border searches are being based, at least in part, on impermissible factors.

At the same time it was claiming the right to look at all of the information Americans carry with them across the border, the administration was refusing to provide Americans or Congress with information about its policies for border searches. Requests by the public and members of Congress were steadfastly ignored. DHS declined my invitation to send a witness to the hearing, claiming that its preferred witness was unavailable on that day. But after the hearing sparked a flurry of press coverage and major newspapers criticized DHS for its secrecy, the agency made public a written policy for border searches dated July 16, 2008.

The DHS policy is truly alarming in the sweeping authority it claims. According to the policy, customs agents may ``analyze and review'' the information in Americans' laptops and other electronic devices ``absent individualized suspicion.'' As part of this search authority, customs agents may ``detain'' the electronic device for an unspecified period of time, take it off-site, make copies of its contents, and send the equipment or the copies to other agencies or even private individuals in some cases. Although the policy purports to require probable cause to ``seize'' a laptop, as opposed to merely searching it, this safeguard is almost meaningless given that DHS's definition of ``search'' includes the right to ``detain'' the laptop indefinitely. Moreover the policy exempts officers' written notes from any constraints, allowing customs agents to transcribe an electronic document verbatim and keep it forever without any level of suspicion.

Defenders of this policy outside the administration are hard to find. Major newspapers across the country, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a host of other national and local outlets, have published editorials condemning the policy and urging Congress to act. As USA Today put it: ``[T]he notion that the government can arbitrarily have a free crack at your e-mail, Web searches and other personal electronic data is chilling. Given the government's abysmal record of safeguarding private data, it's no wonder that business and civil liberties groups are protesting.'' In my home state of Wisconsin, the Green Bay Press-Gazette put it this way: ``[T]he fact that this policy exists . . . is an affront to the core values of the United States of America.''

In the fact of this public outcry, DHS has reacted like a traffic officer standing by a 20-car pile-up and telling onlookers ``Nothing to see here--move along.'' The agency claims that its July 16 policy spells out the practice followed by customs agents for years and across administration. But that just isn't true. The Customs Directive that governed border searches of documents through the end of the Clinton Administration stated that Customs agents could glance at documents-- but not read them--``to see if they appear to be merchandise.'' At that point, ``reasonable suspicion [was] required for read and continued detention'' of the documents. The reading of personal correspondence other than merchandise was expressly prohibited. This administration's policy authorizing ``review and analysis'' of any and all electronic documents without a shred of suspicion thus represents a 180 degree turnaround from previous policy.

DHS alternatively defends its policy by arguing that the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of Americans' laptops is necessary to capture terrorists and criminals. Yet the few specific examples DHS has seen fit to give have all been cases in which the search was anything but suspicionless. For example, in one instance DHS has cited, the laptop search took place after customs agents received a tip that the traveler was a smuggler and discovered $79,000 in unlawful U.S. currency in his belongings. Despite many opportunities to do so, DHS has yet to identify a single example in which a search that was conducted ``absent individualized suspicion'' resulted in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal or terrorist.

This brings me to my next point. Both Secretary Chertoff and the Deputy Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection have tried to downplay the extent of privacy violations by pointing out that DHS has limited resources for conducting electronic searches at the border. That may be true, but it hardly justifies suspicionless searches. To the contrary, the limited nature of these resources makes it all the more important to direct them toward people who actually do present some objective basis for suspicion. As the DHS examples confirm, these are the cases in which electronic searches are most likely to yield results. Using our limited resources to search the laptops of law- abiding Americans who present no basis for suspicion is frankly irresponsible.

This is not simply a matter of what the Constitution protects or allows. In fact, a few lower courts have agreed with the administration that the Fourth Amendment does not protect Americans against suspicionless searches of their laptops at the border. I happen to believe that these decisions incorrectly applied Supreme Court precedent, but ultimately, that is beside the point. Not everything that comports with the Constitution is sound policy. A government practice can satisfy minimum constitutional requirements and still violate Americans' expectations for what they want and deserve from their government. In those cases, it is up to Congress to act.

The bill I am introducing today would require DHS agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching the contents of laptops or other electronic equipment carried by U.S. citizens or other lawful residents of the U.S. ``Reasonable suspicion'' is a lower standard than ``probable cause''; it simply requires DHS to have an objective basis for suspecting that a particular person is engaged in illegal behavior. No less should be required when the government seeks to encroach on such a significant privacy interest.

Like the current DHS policy, the bill I am introducing requires probable cause in order for DHS agents to seize electronic equipment lent. Unlike the current policy, however, the bill defines ``seize'' in a manner than is consistent with both legal precedent and common sense. If DHS keeps your laptop or any of its contents for longer than 24 hours, there has clearly been a seizure, and the bill recognizes this. The bill also reinforces the probable cause requirement by requiring DHS to obtain a warrant, while allowing DHS to hold on to the equipment pending a ruling on the warrant application.

Most of the information DHS will review, even under a reasonable suspicion standard, will prove innocuous. Recognizing this, the bill contains provisions to protect law-abiding Americans' privacy by strictly limiting disclosure of information that DHS acquires through electronic border searches. The only disclosures that are permitted in the absence of warrant or court order are limited disclosures to other federal, state, or local government agencies. Those agencies in turn may apply for a warrant--or, if the laptop appears to contain foreign intelligence information, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Order--to seize the equipment.

If DHS damages the electronic equipment in the course of a search, the

agency must compensate the owner for any resulting economic loss. The bill requires DHS to establish an administrative claims process to that end. Awards will be paid from agency funds, ensuring that the bill is deficit-neutral.

The bill prohibits profiling based on race, ethnic, religion, or national origin. Profiling based on these characteristics has no place in our society. It is repugnant to our values as a pluralistic nation, and it is counterproductive as a matter of law enforcement. At the hearing I held on this issue, all of the witnesses, those invited by myself and those invited by Senator Brownback, agreed at that point.

Finally, the bill contains provisions to ensure that DHS provides the information about its policies and practices that Congress needs and that the public is entitled to have. The agency must provide Congress and the public with any past, existing, or future policies relating to electronic border searches, as well as information about the implementation of those policies. Our ability to know what DHS claims the right to do at the border should never depend on whether DHS chooses to send a witness to a congressional hearing.

Taken together, these provisions reverse this administration's departure from previous policy and, more importantly, bring the government's practices at the border back in line with the reasonable expectations of law-abiding Americans. Furthermore, they enhance the security of our borders by focusing the government's resources where they can do the most good. And they will enable all of us in this body to look our constituents in the eyes and say, ``You're right--that doesn't happen in the United States of America.''

Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues give this bill the enthusiastic support it deserves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in a democracy, no right is more important than the right to vote; in our democracy, no right has been so dearly won. This country was founded on the idea that a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a principle codified in the very first words of our Constitution: ``We the People of the United States.'' From the Civil War through the women's suffrage movement through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through the 26th Amendment, the continuing expansion of the franchise, a broadening of who ``we the people'' are, is one of our great American stories.

So today I will introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008. This bill will guarantee that citizens who are not incarcerated have the right to vote in Federal elections. I am pleased that the Senator from Rhode Island, Sen. Whitehouse, and the Senator from Maryland, Sen. Cardin, have agreed to be a cosponsor.

Once, only wealthy White men could vote in this country. Once, African Americans, ethnic minorities, women, young people, the poor, and the uneducated were all excluded. Today, we look back at those times and wonder how our country could have denied its citizens such a fundamental right for so long. And yet today, we continue to disenfranchise an estimated 4 million of our fellow citizens who were convicted of felonies but are no longer in prison. Two million of these people have fully served their sentences, and the other two million are on probation, parole, or supervised release. These people are living and working in the community, paying taxes, and contributing to society. But they cannot vote.

At this time, 10 states still strip people who have completed their sentence--who have paid their debt to society--of their right to vote. Some 35 States deny the vote to people on parole, and 30 of those States also deny the vote to people on probation. I believe that the practice of stripping our fellow citizens of their voting rights is un- American. It weakens our democracy. It is an anachronism, one of the last vestiges of a medieval jurisprudence that declared convicted criminals to be outlaws, irrevocably expelled from society.

This principle was called ``civil death'' and in medieval Europe, it was reserved for the worst crimes. Yet today, here, in the greatest democracy in the world, we continue to sentence 4 million people-- people who have served their time, people who are contributing members of society--to civil death.

One might ask how something as undemocratic as civil death could have survived to the present day. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the practice of disenfranchising people with felony convictions has an explicitly racist history. Like the grandfather clause, the literacy test, and the poll tax, civil death became a tool of Jim Crow.

Across the country, 13 percent of African-American men are disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. As of 2004, in 14 states, felony disenfranchisement provisions had stripped more than 10 percent of the entire African-American voting-age population of the right to vote. In 4 states, they had disenfranchise more than 20 percent of eligible African-American voters.

The architects of Jim Crow would be proud of their handiwork, and how it has lasted long after the rest of their evil system was dismantled. The rest of us should be ashamed, and yes, outraged. If we believe in redemption, we should be outraged. Because civil death has denied 4 million Americans a chance at redemption. If we believe in progress, we should be outraged. Because civil death keeps this country chained to the worst moments of our past. If we believe in democracy, we should be outraged. Because civil death strikes at the heart of our democracy.

There is a growing movement across the country to expand the franchise and restore voting rights to people coming out of prison and reentering the community. In the last decade, 16 States have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting rights restoration procedures. This bill continues that movement. It provides that the right to vote for candidates for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because a person has been convicted of a crime unless that person is actually in prison serving a felony sentence. It gives the Attorney General of the United States the power to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce that right. And it gives a person whose rights are being violated a right to go to court to get relief.

The bill also requires Federal and State officials to notify individuals of their right to vote once their sentences have been served. This is an important part of the bill, given the long history of these civil death provisions. Even after this bill passes, many ex- offenders may not know their rights, and we should take affirmative steps to make sure that they do. No one should be disenfranchised because of lack of information.

Upon signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said:

The vote is the powerful instrument ever devised by man for

breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls

which imprison men because they are different from other men.

When prisoners return to their communities after serving their sentences, we expect and hope that they will reintegrate themselves into society as productive citizens. Yet, without the right to vote, rehabilitated felons are already a step behind in regaining a sense of civic responsibility and commitment to their communities. If our country wants ex-offenders to succeed at becoming better citizens, who both abide by the law and act as responsible individuals, then we need to restore this most fundamental right. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security--the first comprehensive DHS authorization bill introduced in the Senate in the 5-year history of this agency created in response to the attacks of 9/11.

This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, ranking member Senator Susan Collins, who has long been one of the Senate's great leaders in our efforts to make our nation more secure.

I understand there is not time in this session for full consideration and passage of this legislation but we offer it as a blueprint for the next administration and the 111th Congress outlining key areas of improvement we think can make DHS more efficient and effective in its mission to safeguard our homeland.

Before I offer more detail on this bill, I would like to briefly review the history of the Department that has brought us to where we are today.

The attacks of 9/11 made it clear that oceans are no longer a defense against those who mean to harm our Nation. After a series of hearings, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee proposed legislation pulling more than 22 different agencies responsible for different areas of homeland defense into one Department whose overarching mission was the protection of the American people.

Success was not guaranteed. The administration and many in Congress at first opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. But we persevered in our mission and President Bush signed legislation creating the Department in January 2003.

We all knew at the time that creating a new Department with a single identity out of 22 different agencies would be difficult. Each agency came into the Department with its own culture--not to mention its own procurement, personnel and computer systems. In some cases, they came after having been neglected in other Departments where homeland security had been an afterthought. There was, and remains, much work to be done.

But over the past 5 years, the men and women who work at the Department, under the leadership first of Secretary Tom Ridge and now of Michael Chertoff, have worked hard, often under difficult circumstances, to systematically improve the Nation's security.

Our committee has also written and helped pass several pieces of important legislation to strengthen and guide DHS as it evolved into a more mature agency. I would like to briefly mention some of them because I am proud of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's work under former Chairman Susan Collins and during my own tenure as chairman, because we truly worked as partners across party lines.

In the 108th Congress, our committee led the effort to enact the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States--otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission--a Commission which, had been created through the Committee's work in the previous Congress. The resulting Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 implemented most of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including a number directed at the work of the new Department.

In the 109th Congress, in the wake of the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, our committee conducted a far-reaching investigation into the actions at all levels of government that contributed to the disastrous response to the hurricane.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held 22 hearings, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and issued a comprehensive, 700-page report on what went wrong.

The committee's findings on shortcomings at FEMA and DHS led us to draft the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which strengthened and elevated FEMA within the Department, brought together

into a single agency those charged with preparing for disasters with those responsible for responding to them; required planning for catastrophic events; and helped ensure that the resources of the whole Department would be available in a catastrophe.

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was signed into law in October 2006, and the results of that Act can be seen in the much improved--though admittedly still imperfect--Federal response to the series of recent tornadoes in the Midwest and devastating hurricanes that have hit the Gulf Coast.

In the 109th Congress, our Committee helped draft and pass the SAFE Ports Act, to strengthen the Department's port security efforts, and we passed legislation to provide DHS authority to better secure dangerous chemical facilities.

In this Congress, after many hearings and much hard work, legislation implementing the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was signed into law. This legislation addressed a diverse array of issues at DHS, from homeland security grants to information sharing to interoperable communications to transportation security.

So while we offer this authorization bill as DHS readies for its sixth year as a department--and its first Presidential transition--this committee has been working hard all along to give DHS both the support it needed and the oversight--sometimes harsh--to steadily improve its capacity to carry out its critical mission.

With this authorization act we continue that important work and I would like to touch on key portions of the bill.

This bill can be summarized under three major themes: integration, accountability, and effectiveness.

As I have already noted, we knew when we passed the Homeland Security Act that the process of creating a new, unified Department out of many diverse component agencies would be both challenging and time consuming--and the process is not yet complete. Therefore, a number of provisions of this bill would improve the integration of the Department. These provisions are collectively intended to help the Department to perform its missions at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts.

First, the bill would create an Under Secretary for Policy, to ensure that there is policy coordination across the Department.

The bill would also require the Secretary to develop and maintain the capability to coordinate operations and strategically plan across all of the component organizations of the Department. To this end, it permits the establishment of an Office of Operations Coordination and Planning within the Department, making it easier for the staffs of agencies such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and FEMA to work together on key operational activities, such as planning for the upcoming DHS transition.

The bill would enhance the statutory authorities of the Chief Information Officer, allowing for greater control over IT investments in the Department. It also gives the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs of DHS new authority to coordinate the international activities of the Department. The bill would establish the Office of the Chief Learning Officer, who would coordinate training and workforce development activities on a Department-wide basis.

Finally, the bill would require the establishment of a consolidated headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, which is long overdue. Currently, the Department is spread throughout 70 buildings and 40 sites across the National Capital Region making communication, coordination, and cooperation among DHS components a significant challenge. The deplorable condition of the present headquarters complex also makes it harder for DHS to recruit and retain talented professionals--directly affecting homeland security--and I will continue to push Congress and the administration to get the funding necessary for the headquarters consolidation to proceed.

The second major theme of the bill is accountability. The bill contains a number of provisions intended to enhance oversight and ensure that the Department is held accountable for the decisions that it makes.

The bill requires that DHS have certified program managers for all major acquisition programs, and directs the Department to report to Congress on its use of various contracting authorities and on task orders within two of its major acquisition vehicles.

The bill creates a statutory requirement for a formal investment review process within the Department, and for investments where there are significant technological challenges, requires a formal testing and evaluation process prior to investment. These provisions will help to ensure that the Department does not again move forward with costly acquisitions without first proving that the underlying technology will work.

The bill also requires reports to Congress on a number of other activities, including the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative and the Department's efforts to improve minority representation among its employees.

The third major theme of the bill is effectiveness. There are a number of homeland security mission areas where the Federal government needs new or expanded authorities to effectively address threats that face us.

For example, the bill addresses growing concerns about the cybersecurity threat by establishing a robust National Cyber Security Center with the mission of coordinating and enhancing Federal efforts to protect government networks, and by enhancing the statutory authorities of the National Cyber Security Division.

The bill would enhance our nation's border security by authorizing an increase in the number of CBP officers and ensuring that they receive sufficient and appropriate training. It also recognizes the essential work of the agriculture specialists at the border, who perform plant inspections and help protect against both devastating pests and potential bioterrorism events, authorizes an increase in the number of agriculture specialists and requires measures to improve their recruitment and retention.

The bill addresses the threat of improvised explosive devices, IEDs, by including provisions that would authorize the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention, OBP, as well as authorize an increase in its budget to $25 million. OBP would lead bombing prevention activities within DHS, and would coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that existing gaps in Federal bombing prevention efforts are filled.

Building upon changes already being implemented in the Post Katrina Act, the bill also seeks to continue improvement in the Nation's preparedness. It would require that DHS work with other Federal agencies to develop plans for responding to potential catastrophic scenarios, and would authorize a pilot program to assign National Guard planners to State emergency planning offices, to foster better State- Federal planning coordination. In addition, it would authorize the Metropolitan Medical Rescue System to assist States and localities prepare for mass casualty events. It would reauthorize the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program, which provides grants to States for mitigation measures designed to reduce losses in disasters.

Collectively the measures in this bill will improve the ability of the Department to carry out its missions and become a more mature and effective entity.

I believe that the reforms and enhancements contained in this legislation, along with continued, vigorous oversight, will make DHS a stronger agency in the years to come. And reform, not thoughtless reorganization, is the course future Ccngresses should follow when it comes to DHS. Five years into its mission, and ignoring some noticeable improvements in its performance, there are still those who believe DHS should be chopped up and its parts shipped off to other agencies.

I believe that is exactly the wrong course to take. It makes no sense to disrupt the development of the Department, and weaken the hand of the next Secretary, at a time when the challenges she or he must face, from preventing nuclear terrorism, to securing our borders, to ensuring more effective responses to catastropies of all kinds remain daunting. It took decades for the Department of Defense to become a

coherent whole, and its work is still not complete. Just as DHS and its component arts are beginning to gel into an effective organization ready to deal with disasters visited upon our nation by nature or terrorists, it makes no sense to plunge responsibility for our homeland back into the chaos that existed before 9/11.

This is a course I have fought and will fight in the years to come.

In their report to the nation, the 9/11 Commissioners wrote: ``The men and women of the World War II generation rose to the challenges of the 1940s and the 1950s. They restructured the government so it could protect the country. That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/11.''

The Department of Homeland Security was part of that response to the new dangers we face and must remain so.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that, in the midst of this devastating economic crisis, continues to plague more and more Americans every day--hunger. Although hunger in this country may not be as obvious as it is in other nations, it nonetheless exists and has devastating consequences for those it affects. It weakens the body, making it more susceptible to illness. It impedes child development and reduces a child's ability to learn. It saps valuable energy, resulting in lowered productivity and less earning potential. In short, hunger has a devastating effect on those it touches.

In 2006 alone, the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that when the figures for 2007 and 2008 are released, the number of Americans living with hunger will be even greater.

Unfortunately, for these millions of Americans facing hunger, the ability to afford the food they so desperately need has not become any easier over the past year. According to the Department of Labor, the cost of food at home rose 7.1 percent from July 2007 to July 2008. But, for the nearly 28 million Americans receiving food stamps, the effects of food price inflation during that time period were even more devastating. From July 2007 to July 2008, the cost of the ``Thrifty Food Plan''--the Government's estimate of what constitutes a nutritious, minimal cost meal plan--rose by 10 percent. As a result, the benefits currently provided to food stamp participants are not enough to even cover the cost of this minimally adequate diet.

Each summer, the United States Department of Agriculture sets new food stamp benefit levels based on the average of the previous year's food price inflation. However, these new benefit levels are not implemented until the first day of October each year, by which time they already lag behind current prices. For instance, when updated food stamp benefit levels were provided to an average family of four in October 2007, they were already lagging $12.20 behind the monthly cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. By July of this year, that same family of four was receiving $56 per month less than they needed to afford the cost of this minimal diet. for such low-income families, already facing rising home energy and transportation costs, and having non-negotiable expenditures like rent or mortgage payments and child care expenses needing to be paid, food purchases are often the only area of the monthly budget where cuts can be made.

But, food price inflation is not only affecting the price families are paying for food at home. It is also affecting the prices schools are paying for foods provided through child nutrition programs like school breakfasts, lunches, and after-school snack programs. While the Federal Government does reimburse schools for the costs of providing these programs to children from low-income families, with ever rising food prices, these reimbursements are not enough to cover the expenses of providing these meals.

Like food stamps, school meal reimbursement rates are updated every

summer to account for inflation. But, by the time the school year begins, these reimbursements already lag behind the true cost of producing the meal. In fact, a recent survey by the School Nutrition Association found that 88 percent of responding school districts indicated that Federal reimbursement rates were not sufficient to cover the costs of producing a meal during the 2007/08 school year. As a result, 73 percent of these school districts said they plan to increase the price other students pay for food services in this coming school year to make up for the increased costs.

Congress can and must do more to ensure that Federal nutrition assistance programs can adequately cover the costs of food for those most in need. That's why today I'm pleased to introduce the National Hunger Relief Act of 2008. This act will make critical changes needed to help low-income families and schools cover the costs of purchasing healthy, nutritious foods.

Under this act, when setting benefit levels for food stamps, Congress would anticipate the food price inflation that will occur in the coming fiscal year, and would act to offset it by setting a higher benefit rate for October 1 than is currently provided. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, recipients would receive 102 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. By fiscal year 2012, this benefit rate would be ramped up to 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. This change would be consistent with the way food stamp benefits were regularly adjusted for food price inflation for many years prior to 1996. By providing this higher benefit rate, food stamp benefits would be adequate to meet rising food prices over the course of the following year. As a result, low-income families participating in the food stamp program would have the necessary resources to purchase the foods their families need and be able to ensure that their families do not suffer from the adverse effects of hunger.

To solve the problem of inadequate reimbursement rates for certain child nutrition programs, this bill would provide for semi-annual reimbursement rate adjustments. In addition to the current annual update in July to reimbursement rates for school meal programs, reimbursement rates would also be adjusted for inflation each January. As a result of this change, reimbursement rates for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Special Milk Program, the Child and Adult Day Care Program, and the Summer Food Service Program would more accurately reflect the costs that schools or service providers incur to provide foods through these programs. This, in turn, would help to keep the prices charged for foods provided to other children at schools more in line with the costs of procuring and providing those foods.

I am introducing this legislation today because it is critically important to begin the dialogue on finding ways to ensure that our nutrition assistance programs can continue to prevent hunger by providing necessary nourishment to Americans of all ages. However, I also recognize that we have a challenge to ensure that these nutrition assistance programs can operate in the most efficient and cost- effective manner possible while adequately serving the more than 35.5 million Americans who continue to be plagued by the threat of hunger. Over the coming months, as we continue to work on ways to eradicate hunger in this Nation and begin to consider the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, I will continue seeking out ways to make reforms to this and other nutrition assistance legislation to ensure that--at the end of the day--these programs can continue to effectively reach those most in need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. Since 1984, Congressionally- designated National Heritage Areas have fostered partnerships between the public and private sectors for undertaking preservation, educational, and recreational initiatives in diverse regions throughout the country. Through these efforts, National Heritage Areas have helped to protect our Nation's natural and cultural resources while promoting local economic development. Today, I am proud to join my colleague from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to propose a bill that would grant national recognition to the Susquehanna Gateway region, an area that has played a key role in the development of our nation's cultural, political, and economic identity.

While the region boasts an impressive catalogue of historic and scenic resources, perhaps two examples in particular best underscore how the distinct traditions and natural landscape of the Susquehanna Gateway offer an insight into the broader American experience. For centuries, the Susquehanna River, which forms a natural border between Pennsylvania's York and Lancaster Counties and represents the heart of the proposed National Heritage Area, has been at the center of agricultural, industrial, and recreational activity in the Mid-Atlantic United States. The river provided colonial settlers with a trading route to Native American communities. It was an important shipping lane for timber, iron, coal, and agricultural products throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. With the decline of industry and commercial shipping in the region, the river today has assumed a new identity as a center of recreation for millions of boaters, fishermen, hunters, birders, and others. In tracing these developments, we recognize that the story of the Susquehanna River Valley reflects much of the American story. Passing the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act will allow more Americans to discover and better appreciate this narrative.

No less than in this tremendous natural resource, the Susquehanna Gateway region's national significance is rooted in its populace. As the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was founded in the spirit of providing refuge to those suffering religious and cultural persecution, so did York and Lancaster Counties offer a home to German Baptist immigrants who created Amish and Mennonite farming communities. By their example of humility, hard work, environmental stewardship, and respect for others, these ``Plain'' people continue to inspire millions of Americans. Designating the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area is the proper way to acknowledge their contributions to the story of American agriculture and its transformative influence on the natural landscape.

Finally, I would like to recognize the leadership of Mark Platts, President of the Lancaster-York Heritage Region, and his colleague Jonathan Pinkerton, Deputy Director. Through their tireless efforts, they have developed a feasibility study for the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area that meets the National Parks Service's ten interim criteria for designation of a National Heritage Area. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act soon so that the region can begin to play a national role in sharing America's story.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, earlier this year, while the Senate was resuming its business in a new Congress, two dozen families on the other side of the world were fleeing their homes. Ninety-four men and women, some young some old, grabbed whatever belongings they could carry and headed north along the eastern Burmese border to escape the torment of a brutal regime.

Human rights officials tell us what happened next. Late last month, these families were forced to move again. And as I stand here today, they are cramped inside the homes of other refugees. We are looking forward to summer vacations. They are looking ahead at the bitter work of building new homes in the rain, with their hands, in a remote corner of a stark, isolated wasteland the world seems to have forgotten.

Mr. President, I am here to report that the United States has not forgotten. We will continue to shine a light on the oppressive and illegitimate military regime that drove these families from their homes. And I will rise every year, as I do today, with my good friend the senior Senator from California, to reintroduce a bill that extends for another year a ban on imports from Burma.

Republicans and Democrats work together proudly on some things in the Senate. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act is one of them. I am pleased to say that even though the control of Congress has changed, its commitment to the people of Burma has not. Senator Feinstein and I are joined this year by 57 cosponsors, more than last year and the year before that. On the Republican side, for example, the people of Burma have no better friend than the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Support for the people of Burma is growing on Capitol Hill. Senator Feinstein and the senior Senator from Texas recently formed the Women's Caucus on Burma. The First Lady attended its first meeting last month, adding her voice to a growing chorus of those opposed to the Burmese regime. The voices are not just coming from Washington. But the words and actions of Washington are beginning to cause others to take note of this dire situation.

Last year, the United Nations Security Council agreed for the first time to put Burma on its agenda. In January, a U.N. Security Council resolution that enjoyed the support of a majority of the Council's member nations was unfortunately blocked by Russian and Chinese vetoes. We remain encouraged by the fact that nine countries agreed to hold the regime accountable. We urge Russia and China to reconsider their stance.

We know others are beginning to notice Burma because 3 years ago the Association of Southeast Asian nations called the sufferings in Burma ``an internal matter.'' Yet today ASEAN recognizes that the ``Burma problem'' is its problem, too.

Southeast Asian leaders have spoken out more frequently and forcefully over the last year in calling for democratic reforms. They join the United States and other freedom-loving people who have demanded for years that the military thugs who control Burma loosen their grip.

We know others are starting taking notice because earlier this year the United Nations Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon, urged the release of Burma's roughly 1,300 political prisoners, including the world's only imprisoned Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.

And we know others are starting to take notice because that effort was followed by a letter signed by 59 former heads of state.

The Burmese military regime, the State Peace and Development Council, is on notice: the wider international community, including its neighbors, are increasingly aware and increasingly outraged by its behavior.

Mr. President, The purpose of sanctions is to change behavior. And the changes we seek, in partnership with the Burmese people, are these: concrete, irreversible steps toward reconciliation and democratization that include the full, unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities; ending attacks on ethnic minorities; and the immediate, unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience, including Suu Kyi. The regime also needs to know that a sham constitutional process and token prisoner releases will not be regarded by anyone as progress toward these goals.

The argument against sanctions--that they are most harmful to those they are meant to help--is well known. But it does not apply to Burma. It has long been the policy of the NLD, the winner of Burma's last democratic election, to seek reform through sanctions against the current regime.

And for good reason. Burma's military junta has maintained an iron grip on every aspect of the country's economy. Its leaders flaunt and squander whatever wealth they can squeeze from Burmese workers, leaving the country's economy in ruins--but leaving enough aside for its current leader, GEN Than Shwe, to impulsively relocate the Burmese capital from Rangoon at a cost of millions, or to throw a wedding for his daughter that is reported to have cost millions more.

The military junta has complete control over the flow of goods and money in and out of Burma. And every dollar that is spent on Burmese products is money spent on financing the regime. It is the SPDC, not the allies of the Burmese people, who are responsible for Burma's economic woes.

As diplomatic pressure intensifies, as the rest of the international community undertakes the kind of change we have seen in ASEAN, the supporters of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act are confident this regime will be forced to change its ways.

The situation is urgent. Burma's military regime has become increasingly reckless. And the humanitarian situation is grave and deteriorating: the junta has intensified its abuse of minority groups through rape and forced labor. It continues to harass and detain a new generation of peaceful activists, activists like a young woman named Su Su Nway, who has inspired the world with her resolute defiance of forced labor practices.

In standing up to the Burmese regime, Su Su Nway drew inspiration from Suu Kyi. Now she is inspiring another generation of Burmese activists who are willing to defend their rights and, despite the danger to themselves, refuse to remain silent in the face of the abuses they see.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Su Su Nway was asked by a radio reporter last year whether she feared imprisonment. Her simple but eloquent response should give us hope in the determination of this new generation of

activists. ``I will stand for the truth,'' she said.

The crimes of the Burmese government are well documented. Here is what we know: nearly 70,000 children have been taken from their homes and forcibly conscripted--that's more children than live in all of Lexington, the second-largest city in my State.

Forced labor is a daily threat in the southeastern Karen State, where military personnel force villagers to build roads and shelters, without food or pay, and to leave their homes and farms to do the work. Some are used as human shields against democratic insurgents.

These are the lucky ones. Others are forced to walk ahead of military convoys to act as human minesweepers. If there is a landmine, they blow up. It is from diabolical thugs like these that desperate, exhausted families are fleeing their homes.

Drugs and disease are spreading across Burma's borders along with its people, and it is no secret why. According to the World Health Organization, Burma is home to one of the worst AIDS epidemics in Southeast Asia. Yet it spent just $137,000 last year on the care and treatment of people with HIV/AIDS, even as it spends countless millions on Chinese and Russian tanks and jets.

You can tell a lot about a man from the company he keeps. We could say the same about governments. In late April, Burma established diplomatic relations with the government of North Korea for the first time in two decades. It was reported last month that a North Korean cargo ship docked in Burma. This is a disturbing development to those of us on the outside looking in. It can only be discouraging to democratic reformers inside Burma.

News of North Korea's presence on the Burmese coast came shortly after another troubling piece of news. In early April, Burma's second in command led a delegation on the nation's first-ever high-level trip to Russia. And last month, the Burmese government announced an agreement with Russia to build a nuclear research reactor in Burma.

This should send a chill up the spine of every one of us. Even peaceful nations that lack the proper legal and regulatory framework should not be allowed to have a nuclear program. Those that torture and abuse their own people and consort with rogue regimes such as North Korea should not be allowed to even contemplate it.

And this is how this rogue regime has held onto its power: Internal efforts at reform are violently stamped out, as they were when thousands of peaceful prodemocracy protesters were slaughtered in 1988. In response to a national election in 1990, in which Suu Kyi's party, the NLD, won 80 percent of the seats in a new parliament, the regime simply threw out the results.

By refusing to accept imports from a regime that terrorizes people like Suu Kyi, Su Su Nway, and so many others, we are standing up and facing these tyrants at our own borders and turning them back--until they release these prisoners and begin the process of democratization and reconciliation. Every dollar we keep out of the hands of this junta is one less dollar it can use to fund the conscription of children, its nuclear program, and the war it has waged against its own people for nearly two decades.

Later this month, Suu Kyi will celebrate her 62nd birthday, alone. I urge my colleagues to stand with her as that day approaches. By denying support for those who imprison her, we will pressure them to change.

There are fresh signs that these sanctions have begun to do their work. But we need to keep the pressure on. So I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator Kerry, This comprehensive legislation strengthens and builds upon the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. Congress passed OPA 90 shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound, the largest spill in U.S, history. OPA 90 revolutionized oilspill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank or improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response.

It is important to recognize that we have come a long way since OPA 90. This is especially true in my home State of Washington. The Coast Guard's District 13 leads the Nation in oilspill prevention and works closely with the State of Washington, tribal governments, and industry.

While we recognize the good work that is already being carried out in Washington and elsewhere, we must also look to continually improve our

ability to prevent and respond to oilspills. While the probability of a major oilspill has been greatly reduced since OPA 90, the potential impact of such a spill is now greater than ever.

According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oilspills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In 1992, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil; in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons, and a significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. Furthermore, even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating.

Again, to use examples from Washington State: endangered species like salmon and southern resident orca whales are increasingly vulnerable to the acute and chronic impacts of an oilspill. We have a National Marine Sanctuary off our coast that demands stepped-up protection, and we must take care to hold up our trust obligations to treaty tribes whose usual and accustomed fishing grounds would be devastated by a major spill. This is all to say that we must factor the consequence major spill into our equations for risk. My colleagues from around the country can, I am sure, point to similar examples.

In August of 2005, I chaired a Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard field hearing in Seattle. This hearing focused on improving our oil pollution prevention and response capabilities. As a result of testimony from that hearing and conversations with the Coast Guard and other stakeholders, I introduced the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 last March.

The bill I introduce today, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007, updates that effort and includes additional provisions.

New provisions include a requirement that the Coast Guard notify States and tribal governments of maritime incidents in Federal waters that have the potential to impact state resources. The bill would also atlthorize the Coast Guard to train and work with qualified State vessel inspectors to bolster their existing ability to inspect vessels in port.

Other new provisions include a requirement for the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations allowing vessel owners to form nonprofit cooperatives to streamline their compliance with vessel response plan requirements. Also new is an authorization for an education and outreach grant program to prevent the frequency of small spills that occur from recreational vessels.

The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 retains key provisions from last year's bill that address a number of areas to improve prevention and response.

First, my bill directs the Coast Guard to finalize all rulemakings remaining from OPA 90 within 18 months. Remaining OPA 90 rules include the critical salvage and firefighting requirements, which would establish a national network of salvage and response vessels and equipment capable of assisting ships in distress. Implementation of the salvage and firefighting rule has been consistently pushed back, most recently in February of this year. It has been 17 years since the passage of OPA 90 and finalizing these rules in a timely manner will greatly improve our prevention and response capabilities.

Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oilspills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oilspills from vessels as well as ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high- risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. My bill would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oilspills from oil transfers. It would also make companies that knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts.

Of particular importance to my State, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay response tug, a key element of the oilspill prevention safety net for Washington State's Olympic coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port'' for Puget Sound to make westerly boundary begin at the entrance to the strait. This change would require oilspill response equipment to be stationed along the entire strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would require improved coordination with federally recognized tribes on oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response.

The bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the oilspill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Dalco Passage Oilspill, and provide $1 million annually to support the council's important work. Finally, this bill would reiterate an OPA 90 directive for the Coast Guard and Department of State to enter into negotiations with Canada to ensure tug escorts for all tank ships with a capacity greater than 40,000 dead weight tons in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Haro Strait.

The slow response to the oilspill in Daleo Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2007 would reinvigorate a Federal research program on oilspill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oilspills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations.

Oilspill prevention and response is timely for Congress to consider because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Hawaii, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, nontank vessels, and oil transfer operations.

One thing we have learned from these spills is that prevention is more cost-effective than cleaning up oil once it is released into the environment. We have also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oilspills.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oilspills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be