Floor Statements

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

I have been authorized to yield myself 10 minutes.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melanie Roberts, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the pendency of S. 5 and S. 30.

Mr. President, I am happy to join with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Debbie Stabenow, in supporting this resolution, which recognizes the Spartans hard work, grit and determination in winning Michigan State University's third NCAA Men's Hockey championship. The Spartans secured the 2007 National Title in dramatic fashion by overcoming a 1 to 0 deficit to defeat Boston College 3 to 1 in the NCAA Men's Championship Final. This victory is a

great source of pride for all those affiliated with Michigan State University and for the entire state of Michigan.

Championships are won by doing all the little things right, by not giving up, and by trusting one another regardless of the obstacles. All of these traits were on display Saturday night when, in the waning moments of the championship game, the Spartans mounted a final charge to capture the 2007 NCAA Title. The Spartans scored 3 goals in the final 10 minutes of play. The game was tied until the last minute of regulation, when Justin Abdelkader scored the go-ahead goal with 18.9 seconds remaining. The Spartans solidified this hard-fought victory by scoring an empty netter set up by an Eagle team that desperately fought to tie the game.

The Spartans upset victory before a record setting crowd of 19,432 at the Scottrade Center in St. Louis completed a highly entertaining and rewarding season. MSU Hockey's third NCAA title is being celebrated today in East Lansing, Michigan. The members of the championship team are being honored with a parade followed by a rally at Munn Ice Arena. This is a victory for the Spartan team and MSU community, as well as for the many fans, friends, and family whose strong and unwavering support was exhibited throughout the Spartans' memorable championship season.

Each member of the MSU team made important contributions to the Spartans' success, including players Justin Abdelkader, Tim Crowder, Jeff Dunne, Tyler Howells, Brandon Gentile, Ethan Graham, Bobby Jarosz, Justin Johnston, Tim Kennedy, Kurt Kivisto, Chris Lawrence, Bryan Lerg, Jeff Lerg, Zak McClellan, Jim McKenzie, Steve Mnich, Chris Mueller, Michael Ratchuk, Matt Schepke, Chris Snavely, Jay Sprague, Daniel Sturges, Nick Sucharski, Ryan Turek, Daniel Vukovic, Brandon Warner, Head Coach Rick Comley, Assistant Coaches Tom Newton and Brian Renfrew, and Athletic Trainer Dave Carrier.

MSU Spartans' Head Coach Rick Comley, who was named a 2007 National Coach of the Year finalist, became the third coach in college hockey history to win national titles at two institutions, the first with Northern Michigan University. Coach Comley recorded his 714th career victory on Saturday. He currently holds the distinction of being the third winningest coach amongst active hockey coaches and fifth winningest in NCAA Hockey history. He has continued the successful Spartan Hockey tradition established by Ron Mason, the Spartans' former head coach, current athletic director, and the all-time winningest NCAA Hockey coach.

Throughout the 2007 championship season, the MSU men's hockey team has demonstrated a commitment to unselfish play, always placing team success ahead of individual accomplishments. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the outstanding individual effort displayed by sophomore goal tender Jeff Lerg, whose instrumental play throughout the season helped to secure the title and earned him both NCAA Midwest Regional MVP honors and a place on the Frozen Four All Tournament team.

I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in congratulating Coach Comley and the 2007 Michigan State University Spartans on their NCAA Men's Hockey National Championship.

Mr. President, the increase in gun violence that affects towns, cities, and rural areas across this Nation takes a particularly heavy toll on our most precious resource, our children and grandchildren. Since 1979, over 101,000 children and teenagers have been killed by firearms. This staggering figure clearly illustrates the inadequacy of Congress's efforts to address the issue of gun violence.

On March 7, 2007, in the small city of Midland, MI, a 17-year-old male shot a 17-year-old female student before turning the gun on himself, committing suicide in the young girl's high school parking lot. Reports indicate the male drove to the school to talk with the female student. After arranging to meet her in the school parking lot, he shot her four times, while her mother watched in horror. He then turned the gun on himself. The very same day, in Greenville, TX, a city of only 26,000 people, a 16-year-old student fatally shot himself inside his high school's hallway.

These are just two examples of the misery gun violence inflicts. According to data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every day, on average, nearly eight children or teens are killed by gun violence in America. In 2004, 58 preschoolers were killed by firearms. Furthermore, for every child or teen death caused by a gun, there are nearly five nonfatal injuries. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the average cost per gunshot victim, excluding rehabilitation and long-term care, is $45,000. A single year's worth of gunshot injuries adds up to approximately $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs, half of which is paid for by taxpayers.

The Children's Defense Fund, in their 2007 report on gun violence, makes a number of recommendations to protect children from gun violence. Among other things, the CDF recommends parents remove guns from their homes, schools provide nonviolent conflict resolution courses for all students, and communities create positive activities for children and teenagers to reduce the influence of gangs and drugs. Congress must also take an active role. We should pass commonsense gun safety legislation, support law enforcement and community programs, and help focus media and public attention on causes and consequences of gun violence.

I am hopeful the 110th Congress will work to break the cycle of gun violence that plagues so many of our communities and our children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, commonly referred to as the Grand River Bands, has been in some form indigenous to the State of Michigan for over 200 years. The Grand River Bands consists of the 19 bands of Indians who occupied the territory along the Grand River in what is now southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids and Muskegon. The members of the Grand River Bands are the descendants and political successors to signatories of the 1821 Treaty of Chicago and the 1836 Treaty of Washington. They are also one of six tribes which is an original signatory of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. However, the Grand River Bands is the only one of those tribes which is not recognized by the Federal Government.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced a bill, with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, which would direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior to make a recognition determination, for the Grand River Bands, in a timely manner. I am pleased to re-introduce that bill now. I would also like to affirm that this bill does not federally recognize the tribe nor does it address the issue of gaming. Furthermore, I would like to stress the timely manner in which this determination must be made.

If federally recognized, the Grand River Bands is eligible for funds set aside for them from a Federal consent judgment. These funds are expected to be distributed this year. In order for the Grand River Bands to receive their portion of this fund, they must be federally recognized before this money is distributed. They have completed all of the necessary items for a determination to be made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the Bureau has failed to act on the petition for the past ten years.

I hope that this legislation will help to provide a timely remedy so that the Grand River Bands can receive funds that are currently set aside for them, and enjoy the full benefits and status of Federal recognition.

Mr. President, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, commonly referred to as the Grand River Bands, has been in some form indigenous to the State of Michigan for over 200 years. The Grand River Bands consists of the 19 bands of Indians who occupied the territory along the Grand River in what is now southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids and Muskegon. The members of the Grand River Bands are the descendants and political successors to signatories of the 1821 Treaty of Chicago and the 1836 Treaty of Washington. They are also one of six tribes which is an original signatory of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. However, the Grand River Bands is the only one of those tribes which is not recognized by the Federal Government.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced a bill, with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, which would direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior to make a recognition determination, for the Grand River Bands, in a timely manner. I am pleased to re-introduce that bill now. I would also like to affirm that this bill does not federally recognize the tribe nor does it address the issue of gaming. Furthermore, I would like to stress the timely manner in which this determination must be made.

If federally recognized, the Grand River Bands is eligible for funds set aside for them from a Federal consent judgment. These funds are expected to be distributed this year. In order for the Grand River Bands to receive their portion of this fund, they must be federally recognized before this money is distributed. They have completed all of the necessary items for a determination to be made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the Bureau has failed to act on the petition for the past ten years.

I hope that this legislation will help to provide a timely remedy so that the Grand River Bands can receive funds that are currently set aside for them, and enjoy the full benefits and status of Federal recognition.

Will the Senator from Nebraska yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment, the Hagel-Webb amendment, or the Webb-Hagel. The amendment speaks with real power about what we need to do. They have worked very hard on it. I wish we could adopt it. I know they are going to speak on it now. I just want to indicate my support for their tremendous effort. I ask to be a cosponsor of their amendment.

I think all of us would join in Senator Reid's comments. They were eloquent and powerful, and we thank him for them.

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. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership and floor management.

The Cochran amendment would strike the heart of the provision relating to Iraq from this supplemental appropriations bill. The main point of our provision is a requirement that the President commence a reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after enactment. Not included in the reduction would be those forces that are essential for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

This language is essential because nothing else has been successful in convincing the Iraqis that they have to take responsibility for their own country and that they must make the political compromises that are necessary to end the sectarian violence and defeat the insurgency in Iraq. Only when the Iraqis realize the mission of U.S. forces is going to change and that we are going to reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq will they realize we cannot save them from themselves, and that they need to act to meet the commitments they made to themselves and to us.

Commitments are only words unless they are fulfilled. Last month, during our debate on Iraq, I put in the Record Secretary Rice's letter to me of January 2007 which had an enclosure of the listing of the political commitments and the timelines the Iraqis themselves had established. Virtually none of those commitments has been met, despite the fact most of them were to have been fulfilled last year, and all but one were to have been accomplished prior to this month. They committed themselves to approve a provincial elections law and they set a date for a provincial elections law by October of 2006. They set a date to approve militias and other armed formations by December 2006. They set a date for the constitutional review committee to complete its work by January 2007. They made a commitment to conduct a referendum on constitutional amendments which was to have been accomplished by this month. They violated every single one of those commitments.

We need to retain this language. We need to retain the language that we begin to reduce the number of American forces in Iraq beginning in 4 months because that reduction is the action-forcing mechanism--the sign to the Iraqi leaders we cannot save them from themselves, and their future is in their hands, not our hands.

The most graphic demonstration of the importance of our provision is the fact that even our senior leaders in this administration, while opposing our position, have used the growing support for our position to try to impress upon the Iraqi leaders they have to move promptly to settle their differences and to meet their commitments.

Last month while in Baghdad, Secretary Rice used the restiveness in Washington to emphasize to the Iraqi leaders the growth of American frustration with the absence of a political settlement in Iraq. She said she had ``made clear that some of the debate in Washington is indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects for success'' if Iraq's leaders do not quickly take the steps needed to ensure longer-term stability.

Ambassador Khalilzad, in a television interview on March 9, said the debate in Congress:

Sends a message to the Iraqis that the patience of the

American people is running out. And--

He said, Ambassador Khalilzad said--

that is helpful to my diplomacy.

The Iraqi Study Group said:

The open-ended commitment of American forces does not

provide the Iraqi government with the incentive that it needs

to take political actions that give Iraq the best chance of

quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an

incentive--

The Iraq Study Group said--

in the absence of ending the open-ended commitment that has

been made to Iraq, the Iraqi government might continue to

delay taking those difficult actions.

I think perhaps General Casey said it best:

The longer U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of

Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of

Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation in

dealing with the militias.

General Casey had it right. Let us not sustain the Cochran amendment. Let's keep this critically important action-forcing mechanism in the bill where it will do some good to force those Iraqi leaders to finally recognize their future is in their hands, not ours.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.