[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 103 (Monday, June 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8358-S8364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Specter):
S. 1685. A bill to reduce the sentencing disparity between powder and
crack cocaine violations, and to provide increased emphasis on
aggravating factors relating to the seriousness of the offense and the
culpability of the offender; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1685, the
Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007. I am joined in this effort by
my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Specter. This
bipartisan, balanced effort will adjust the existing statutory ratio
for cocaine sentencing to craft a more rational and effective
sentencing policy. I must underscore that this bill continues to offer
significant penalties for drug dealers and ensures that those who
continue to peddle dangerous substances in our communities will endure
harsh consequences for their destructive choices; at the same time,
though, S. 1685 rectifies a longstanding disparity in cocaine
sentencing that should have been fixed two decades ago.
Some background might be appropriate for my colleagues at this point.
In 1986, Congress enacted the anti-drug abuse law to address the
growing problem of drug use in our country. This legislation created
the basic framework of statutory mandatory minimum penalties which are
currently applicable to Federal drug trafficking offenses.
The law differentiated between powder and crack cocaine by
establishing significantly higher penalties for crack cocaine offenses.
It is likely this was done based on assumptions that crack cocaine was
considered more dangerous and had increased levels of violence
associated with its usage. Based on these assumptions, the law provided
for quantity-based penalties which differed dramatically between the
two forms of cocaine. Under that law, the current law, it takes 100
times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same 5- and
10-year mandatory minimum sentences. This penalty structure is referred
to as the ``100 to 1 drug ratio.''
Over the last decade, public officials, lawmakers, interest groups,
criminal justice practitioners, and judges have all criticized and
questioned the fairness and practicality of the Federal sentencing
policy for cocaine offenses created by the 1986 law. This 100-to-1
ratio is widely viewed as an unjustifiable disparity. Crack and powder
cocaine are pharmacologically the same drug, and although the level of
violence associated with crack is higher, it does not warrant such an
extreme sentencing disparity.
It should also be noted that during the negotiations in 1986 that
produced the 100-to-1 ratio law, a bill was introduced at the request
of President Reagan which represented the Reagan administration's views
on drug policy. This bill was described as the ``culmination'' of
President Reagan's efforts in his commitment to fight drug abuse. The
Reagan legislation utilized the same quantity of crack cocaine
necessary to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum as what is called for
in the legislation we are introducing today, reducing the sentencing
disparity to a 20-to-1 ratio.
While many individuals can disagree on what the appropriate ratio
should be, I am completely comfortable recommending the same amount
previously requested by President Reagan. I supported his proposed 20-
to-1 ratio in 1986, and I support this same ratio today.
Many organizations share our concern, and the U.S. Sentencing
Commission has advocated that Congress reduce the sentencing disparity
on four different occasions between 1995 and 2007. The Commission has
conducted a voluminous amount of research on this topic. This research
has led to many conclusions by the Commission, including that the
current penalties exaggerate the relative harmfulness of crack, sweep
too broadly and apply most often to lower level offenders, and fail to
provide adequate proportionality.
The Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act continues to recognize that crack
and powder cocaine are not coequal in their destructive effects. On the
contrary, the five-fold reduction in the crack-powder ratio corrects
the unjustifiable disparity, while appropriately reflecting the greater
harm to our citizens and communities posed by crack cocaine.
This legislation also seeks to emphasize the defendant's role in the
crime and will require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to examine
sentencing enhancements for all Federal drug violations, including
methamphetamine. The Commission's examination should include
appropriate sentencing enhancements for offenders who brandished a
weapon, sold to minors or pregnant women, sold drugs near schools, were
involved in the importation of the illegal drugs into our country, or
have previous felony drug trafficking convictions.
Finding ways to reduce drug crime is not and should not be a partisan
issue. All individuals involved in this process have tried to design a
blueprint to curb the spread of drug trafficking and abuse. An easy,
straightforward blueprint has unfortunately proven to be elusive. Since
the 1970s, Congress has been working to improve Federal sentencing
policy and has routinely made necessary changes to make our sentencing
structure more just and effective. The bill we introduce today seeks to
remedy mistakes of the past and will provide a rational and just
sentencing schedule while continuing to reflect the fundamental and
befitting goals of the criminal justice system.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in
support of this important legislation to reduce the difference in
sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. It is important to
ameliorate harsh drug laws that have discriminatory consequences.
The Sentencing Reform Act was enacted over 20 years ago to reduce
unwarranted disparities and assure proportionality in punishment.
Instead, the severity of crack-cocaine sentencing has had a harsh
impact on low-income and African-American communities and has
undermined public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice
system. Unfair sentencing feeds the perception that the criminal
justice system unjustly targets the poor and minority communities.
[[Page S8359]]
The crack powder laws were intended to punish those at the highest
levels of the illegal drug trade, such as traffickers and kingpins. But
the low amount needed to trigger the harsh sentences is not associated
with high-level drug dealing. As the Sentencing Commission reported in
2005, only 15 percent of Federal cocaine traffickers were high-level
dealers. The overwhelming majority of defendants were low-level
participants, such as street dealers, lookouts, or couriers. Harsh
sentencing in such cases has only a limited impact on the drug trade
because they involve low level offenders who are not at the top of the
drug chain. The mass incarceration resulting from these sentences has
done nothing to decrease drug use. Recent data indicate that such use
has actually increased over time.
When these laws were enacted, there was widespread belief in the
extraordinary dangers of crack cocaine. It was viewed as highly
addictive and likely to cause violent behavior. We know much more about
crack cocaine now than we did 20 years ago. The rationale that crack is
more dangerous or more addictive than powder is not supported by
research. In fact, research has demonstrated that the effects of crack
cocaine are much like the effects of powder cocaine.
Medical experts have determined that the pharmacological effects of
crack were overstated. They found that crack use doesn't incite violent
behavior. As with other drugs, the violence is related to the
distribution of the drug.
Changes in the drug market have also called the 100-to-1 ratio into
question. Demand for crack cocaine by new users has decreased
significantly, and the violence associated with crack cocaine has
declined. How can Congress continue to support a policy it knows is
flawed? Changes are long overdue and will be an important step in
reducing the disparity that plagues drug sentencing policies.
Under the current sentencing laws, the statutory ratio for powder and
crack cocaine is 100 to 1. One gram of crack cocaine triggers the same
penalty as 100 grams of powder cocaine. Possession of 5 grams of crack
triggers a 5-year mandatory minimum penalty. It is the only drug with a
mandatory prison sentence for a first-time possession offense. This
disparity results from an early attempt by the Commission to
incorporate congressionally mandated minimum penalties into the
guidelines, even though such harsh mandatory minimums are completely
inconsistent with the structure and goals of the Sentencing Reform Act.
Judges, experts, and practitioners in the Federal criminal justice
system have long opposed mandatory minimums on the ground that they
undermine the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act by creating
unwarranted disparities, subjecting defendants with different levels of
culpability to the same punishment, and adding another unnecessary
layer of complexity to the sentencing process.
In its 2002 report, as well as an updated report to Congress in May,
the commission has repeatedly recognized that the 100-to-1 ratio
exaggerates the relative harm of crack cocaine and creates unwarranted
disparities that are correlated with race and class. With a new sense
of urgency, the Commission continues to call on Congress to eliminate
the 100-to-1 ratio.
Senator Hatch's legislation takes two important steps toward this
goal. It reduces the ratio from 100-to-1 to 20-to-1, and it eliminates
the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for first-time possession.
Under the new sentencing scheme proposed by this legislation, the
amount of crack cocaine triggering a mandatory minimum sentence would
be raised from 5 grams to 25 grams, an amount that targets the more
serious traffickers. This change will make cocaine laws more consistent
with the penalty structure for other types of drugs that require much
greater amounts to trigger a mandatory minimum. For heroin and
marijuana, it is 100 grams. Even for methamphetamine, the triggering
amount is 10 grams. Congress must take action to support the
recommendations of the Sentencing Commission.
Changing the ratio will also provide important benefits to the
criminal justice system as a whole. The Sentencing Commission estimates
that the 20-to-1 ratio could save over 3,000 prison beds in the Federal
system over a 5-year period, with millions of dollars in savings each
year. Resources for prosecution could also be redirected toward more
serious drug offenders, whose prosecution may actually make a
difference in drug trafficking. Adjusting the ratio will also help to
restore public confidence and fairness in the criminal justice system.
Currently, 5,000 people are convicted under the Federal crack cocaine
laws every year. The Sentencing Commission recently proposed amended
guidelines for crack cocaine by reducing sentencing ranges, a change
that will affect 78 percent of Federal defendants. The commission's
proposed amendment to the guideline will result in an average sentence
reduction of 16 months.
Drug abuse and addiction are increasingly being recognized as public
health issues, not just as crime problems. More resources must be
directed at breaking the cycle of drug addiction, which often leads to
involvement in crimes. More resources must also be directed toward drug
courts, which provide nonviolent drug offenders with treatment, not
punishment. We are currently working to reauthorize SAMSHA to improve
substance abuse treatment, since punishment and incarceration only
address one part of the overall drug problem.
The commission recognizes, however, that its efforts are only a
partial step to eliminate unwarranted disparities in the Federal crack
powder laws. It has strongly urged Congress to address the problems
with the 100-to-1 ratio. It is important for us to move forward on this
issue without any effort to raise penalties for powder cocaine. Current
law provides for 5-year and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for
offenses involving, respectively, 500 and 5000 grams of powder cocaine.
There is no evidence that existing powder-cocaine penalties are too
low.
Our goal is to return to the original intent of these laws and direct
our limited resources to arresting and prosecuting high level drug
traffickers. Our harshest punishments should be reserved for those who
truly deserve them.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Casey):
S. 1687. A bill to provide for global pathogen surveillance and
response; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, many have called the 20th Century ``the
American century.'' The 21st Century will be one, too, provided that we
understand and act on a new reality: that global interactions make each
country, even the U.S., more dependent upon others. Nowhere is this
more striking than in our battle against emerging infectious diseases
and bioterrorism. Whether we like it or not, the very security of our
Nation depends upon the capability of nations in remote regions to
contain epidemics before they spread.
Today, I am introducing the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2007.
I am very pleased to have as original cosponsors Senator Hagel, who is
an esteemed colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator
Kennedy, who chairs the HELP Committee. Each of these gentlemen also
cosponsored earlier versions of this bill. Also cosponsoring this bill
is one of my fine new colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee,
Senator Casey.
Our action today is timely, as there is still time to prevent
bioterrorist attacks on the U.S. It is urgent, because the disease
surveillance capabilities in foreign countries that this act will
promote are vitally needed to protect our country against not only
bioterrorism, but also natural diseases such as avian influenza, which
threatens to become the greatest pandemic since at least 1918. And it
is long overdue, as this bill was first passed by the Senate in 2001
and was again passed in 2005. All of us hope that the third time will
be the charm.
The purpose of this bill is to bolster the ability of developing
countries to detect, identify and report disease outbreaks, with
particular attention to outbreaks that could be the result of terrorist
activity. My concern, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, is that today, the many deficiencies in the capability of
[[Page S8360]]
developing nations to track and contain disease epidemics are the
equivalent of cracks in a levee. Right now, when the epidemiological
``big one'' hits, whether it is a natural outbreak or a terrorist
attack, the world simply won't be able to respond in time.
The odds of a major bioterrorism event are very low, but they are
hardly zero. In 2001, the American news media, the U.S. Postal Service
and this United States Senate learned first-hand what it is like to
receive deadly pathogens in the mail. To this day, we do not know
whether the murderous anthrax letters were just a criminal act or
actually a bioterrorist attack. But we surely know that neither our
military power nor our economic wealth or geographical distance affords
us immunity from the risk that a deranged person or group will visit
biological destruction upon us.
The odds of a major outbreak of a new, but natural, disease are much
higher, and the possible consequences, while variable, are truly
frightening. At the high end, an avian flu pandemic similar to the
Spanish flu of 1918 could kill many millions of people and threaten
social cohesion everywhere, including in the U.S. Viruses and other
pathogens respect no borders. Increased contact between humans and
animals, coupled with vastly increased travel of goods and people, has
made it possible for a new and distant outbreak to become a sudden
threat to every continent.
The SARS epidemic was a good example of this. Now the world watches
nervously as avian flu spreads westward from Asia, occasionally
striking poultry flocks in Europe and Africa. We wonder when it will
reach the Western Hemisphere and whether, or when, it will mutate into
a disease that is readily transmitted between humans, who lack any
immunity to it.
Last month, a man with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, or
XDRTB, flew across one ocean, twice, and drove across several national
borders, reminding us how readily a disease can be spread in the modern
world. We dodged a bullet this time; XDRTB is especially difficult to
treat, but does not spread as readily as influenza or some other
diseases. Authorities knew who the disease vector was, moreover, and
they knew what he had. The risk with avian flu or a bioterrorism attack
is heightened by the likelihood that the disease will spread before
anybody even knows it's here.
As if that were not enough, recent advances in biotechnology that
open the door to new cures for diseases could also lead to the
development of new diseases, or new strains of old ones, with much
greater virulence than in the past or with the ability to resist our
current vaccines or medicines. Such man-made diseases have already been
developed by accident, and there is a clear risk of their being
developed on purpose.
The U.S., and this Senate, have acted to address the twin threats of
bioterrorism and new pathogens. We enacted the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, introduced by
Senators Frist and Kennedy, to buttress the ability of U.S. public
health institutions to deal with a bioterrorism emergency. In 2004 we
enacted the Project BioShield Act to spur the development of new
vaccines and medicines.
The Centers for Disease Control has a program to put electronic
surveillance systems in 8 American cities as the cornerstone of an
eventual national network. Delaware is developing the first State-wide,
electronic reporting system for infectious diseases, which will serve
as a prototype for other States. And the Department of Health and Human
Services funded a 3-year, $5.4 million program, early warning
infectious disease surveillance, to assist the Government of Mexico to
improve its disease surveillance capabilities near the U.S. border.
Other funds were provided to U.S. States on the Mexican border.
But these efforts, as vital as they are, address the threats of
disease and bioterrorism only when they are inside our house or on our
doorstep. We must lift our eyes and look farther, to the places around
the world where diseases and terrorism so often breed. We must battle
bioterrorism not just at home, but also in those countries where lax
governance and the lack of public health resources could permit both
strange groups and stranger diseases to get a foothold and to get out
of hand. We must not treat the threat of a massive biological pandemic
the way we treated the threat of a category 5 hurricane striking New
Orleans. If we do not prepare to combat realistic, once-in-a-century
threats, then we will be left again to pick up the pieces after
enduring massive physical and social harm.
There are precedents in current programs, moreover, for promoting
disease surveillance as a means to lessen the risk of bioterrorism. For
example, our programs to find useful careers for former Soviet
biological weapons scientists, under the leadership of the State
Department's Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction, currently fund the
disease surveillance activities of anti-plague institutes in six states
of the former Soviet Union, which had a major pathogen surveillance
program ever since tsarist days. The Department of Defense also has
programs with former Soviet scientists, as well as overseas
laboratories that work with doctors in developing countries.
We need to build on those programs. We must create a world-wide
disease surveillance capability that matches that of the old anti-
plague institutes. We must help the rest of the world gain the
capability to detect, contain, and report on disease outbreaks in a
timely manner, and especially to spot outbreaks that may be the result
of biological terrorism.
Part of the answer to the threat of new natural diseases is to
stockpile vaccines and medicines, and the means to deliver them
quickly. But rapid detection and identification of an outbreak is
equally necessary, wherever it occurs. Only disease surveillance can
give us the lead time to manufacture vaccines and enable the world
community to help control a disease outbreak where it initially occurs.
In 2005, two sets of researchers reported in the journals Nature and
Science that, based on computer simulations, if an outbreak of human-
to-human-transmitted avian flu occurred in a rural part of Southeast
Asia, it might be possible to stem that dangerous epidemic by using
anti-viral drugs to treat the tens of thousands of people who might
have been exposed in the initial outbreak. One key requirement,
however, was that the outbreak would have to be discovered, identified
and reported very quickly; in one study, the assumption was that
countermeasures were instituted when only 30 people had observable
symptoms. That is a tall order for any country's disease surveillance
system, let alone a poorly equipped one.
The National Intelligence Council, NIC, reported in January 2000 that
developing nations in Africa and Asia have only rudimentary systems, at
best, for disease surveillance. They lack sufficient trained personnel
and laboratory equipment, and especially the modern communications
equipment that is needed for speedy analysis and reporting of disease
outbreaks. The NIC estimated that it would take at least a decade to
create an effective world-wide disease surveillance system.
According to an August 2001 report by the General Accounting Office,
World Health Organization officials said that more than 60 percent of
laboratory equipment in developing countries was either outdated or
nonfunctioning, and that the vast majority of national personnel were
not familiar with quality assurance principles for handling and
analyzing biological samples. Deficiencies in training and equipment
meant that many public health units in Africa and Asia were simply
unable to perform accurate and timely disease surveillance.
The poor sanitary conditions, poverty, close contact between people
and animals, and weak medical infrastructure make developing countries
ideal breeding grounds for epidemics.
So it is vital to give these countries the capability to track
epidemics and to feed that information into international surveillance
networks. Disease surveillance is a systematic approach that requires
trained public health personnel, proper diagnostic equipment to
identify viruses and pathogens, and prompt transmission of data from
the doctor or clinic level all the way to national governments and the
World Health Organization, Who.
The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will offer such help to those
countries that agree to give the United
[[Page S8361]]
States or the World Health Organization prompt access to disease
outbreaks, so that we can help determine their origin. Recipients of
this training will also be able to learn to spot diseases that might be
used in a bioterrorist attack.
In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the Department of
Defense and others, which have all supported the underlying goals of
the bill. We also accepted several suggestions for improving the bill
from the State Department and, in 2005, from the HELP Committee, all of
which contributed to making this a better bill.
This bill targets U.S. assistance to developing nations in the
following areas: Training of public health personnel in epidemiology;
aquisition of laboratory and diagnostic equipment; Acquisition of
communications technology to quickly transmit data on disease patterns
and pathogen diagnoses to national public health authorities and to
international institutions like the WHO; expansion of overseas CDC and
Department of Defense laboratories engaged in infectious disease
research and disease surveillance, which expansion could take the form
of additional laboratories, enlargement of existing facilities,
increases in the number of personnel, and/or expanding the scope of
their activities; and expanded assistance to WHO and regional disease
surveillance efforts, including expansion of U.S.-administered foreign
epidemiology training programs.
Two years ago the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, expressed
her strong backing for this legislation:
We believe that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will
indeed help strengthen developing countries' abilities to
identify and track pathogens that could be indicators of
dangerous disease outbreaks--either naturally-occurring or
deliberately-released. Improved disease surveillance and
communication among nations are critical defenses against
both bioterrorism and natural outbreaks. We look forward to
working with you in support of the Global Pathogen
Surveillance Act.
Secretary Rice went on to make clear that she shares the sense of
urgency that Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Casey and I feel on this subject:
One of the true ``nightmare'' scenarios--of a bioterrorist
attack or a naturally-occurring disease--involves a
contagious biological agent moving swiftly through a crowded
urban area of a densely populated developing nation. Thus, we
believe that it is critical to increase efforts to strengthen
the public health and scientific infrastructure necessary to
identify and quickly respond to infectious disease
outbreaks--and that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will
provide valuable support in these efforts.
The WHO also shares our concern. During the SARS epidemic, Dr.
Michael Heymann, who was the highest-ranking American in the WHO,
stated: ``it is clear that the best defense against the spread of
emerging infections such as SARS is strong national public health,
national disease detection and response capacities that can identify
new diseases and contain them before they spread internationally.'' He
went on to highlight the important role that disease surveillance plays
in combating both natural and terrorist outbreaks:
Global partnerships to combat global microbial threats make
good sense as a defense strategy that brings immediate
benefits in terms of strengthened pubic health and
surveillance systems. The resulting infectious disease
intelligence brings dual benefits in terms of protecting
populations against both naturally occurring and potentially
deliberately caused outbreaks. As SARS has so vividly
demonstrated, the need is urgent and of critical importance
to the health of economies as well as populations.
Support to developing countries such as proposed in the
Global Pathogen Surveillance Act . . . will help strengthen
capacity of public health professionals and epidemiologists,
laboratory and other disease detection systems, and outbreak
response mechanisms for naturally occurring infectious
diseases such as SARS. This in turn will strengthen WHO and
the world's safety net for outbreak detection and response,
of which the United States is a major partner. And finally,
strengthening this global safety net to detect and contain
naturally occurring infectious diseases will strengthen the
world's capacity to detect and respond to infectious diseases
that may be deliberately caused.
The purpose of the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act is precisely to
build these partnerships. And today, with the global war on terrorism
an ever-present concern and with the threat of avian flu on the
horizon, we have no time to waste. I urge my Senate colleagues to once
again pass this bill and, with new leadership in the other body and
with the support of Secretary Rice, I look forward to its speedy
enactment.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 1689. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
from gross income amounts received on account of claims based on
certain unlawful discrimination and to allow income averaging for
backpay and frontpay awards received on account of such claims, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Civil Rights Tax
Relief Act of 2007, which I joined Senator Bingaman in introducing
today.
The primary purpose of this bill is to continue our efforts to remedy
an unintended consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996, which made damage awards that are not based on ``physical
injuries or physical sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income.
Because most acts of employment discrimination and civil rights
violations do not cause physical injuries, this provision means that
plaintiffs who succeed in proving that they have suffered employment
discrimination or other intentional violations of their civil rights
are taxed on the compensation they receive.
Until a few years ago, this problem was compounded by the fact that
attorneys' fees awarded in successful civil rights actions were treated
as the plaintiff's taxable income, despite the fact that these fees
were paid over to the plaintiff's attorney, who was also taxed on the
money. Back in the 108th Congress, I joined with Senator Bingaman in
offering legislation to correct this inequity, and I am glad to say
that this double taxation of attorneys' fees was eliminated as part of
the JOBS Act we passed in 2004.
But more remains to be done. Plaintiffs who are successful in
employment discrimination or civil rights cases often receive a lump-
sum award meant to compensate them for years of employment.
Unfortunately, these awards are then taxed at the highest marginal tax
rates, as if the award reflected the plaintiff's normal annual salary.
As if that were not bad enough, successful plaintiffs can also find
themselves subject to alternative minimum tax.
Let me explain how our bill eliminates this unfair taxation. First,
the bill excludes from gross income amounts awarded other than for
punitive damages and compensation attributable to services that were to
be performed, known as ``backpay,'' or that would have been performed
but for a claimed violation of law by the employer, known as
``frontpay.'' Second, award amounts for frontpay or backpay would be
included in income, but would be eligible for income averaging
according to the time period covered by the award. This correction
would allow individuals to pay taxes at the same marginal rates that
would have applied to them had they not suffered discrimination. Our
bill also ensures that these awards do not trigger the AMT.
The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement
of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination
claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to
settle claims based on the damages suffered, not on the excessive taxes
that are now levied.
This bill is a ``win-win'' for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant
businesses. I invite my colleagues to join in support of this
commonsense legislation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Bennett):
S. 1690. A bill to establish a 4-year pilot program to provide
information and educational materials to small business concerns
regarding health insurance options, including coverage options within
the small group market; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is
my responsibility and the duty of this chamber to help small
businesses, as they are the driver of this Nation's economy,
responsible for generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs
each year.
Today, I rise with Senators Kerry and Bennett to introduce
legislation
[[Page S8362]]
that would address the crisis that faces small businesses when it comes
to purchasing quality, affordable health insurance. This is not a new
crisis. Over 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. We have now
experienced double digit percentage increases in health insurance
premiums in 4 of the past 6 years. Small businesses face difficult
choices in seeking to provide affordable health insurance to their
employees. The time to act is now.
Study after study tells us that the smallest businesses are the ones
least likely to offer insurance and most in need of assistance.
According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working
uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our Nation's uninsured population,
60.6 percent either work for a small business with fewer than 100
employees or are self-employed. Furthermore, many of the small
businesses whom we meet with tell us how they feel like the cost and
complexity of the health care system has moved health insurance far
beyond their reach.
That is why today we introduce the Small Business Health Insurance
Options Act of 2007. This bipartisan measure would establish a pilot,
competitive matching-grant program for Small Business Development
Centers, SBDCs, to provide educational resources and materials to small
businesses designed to increase awareness regarding health insurance
options available in their areas. Recent research conducted by the
Healthcare Leadership Council has found that following a brief
education and counseling session, small businesses are up to 33 percent
more likely to offer health insurance to their employees.
Our bill capitalizes on the well-established national SBDC framework.
SBDCs are one of the greatest business assistance and entrepreneurial
development resources provided to small businesses that are seeking to
start, grow, and flourish. Currently, there are over 1,100 service
locations in every State and territory delivering management and
technical counseling to prospective and existing small business owners.
Our legislation would require the Small Business Administration to
provide up to 20 matching grants to qualified SBDCs across the country.
No more than two SBDCs, one per State, would be chosen from each of the
SBA's 10 regions. The grants shall be more than $150,000, but less than
$300,000, and shall be consistent with the matching requirement under
current law. In creating the materials for their grant programs,
participating SBDCs should evaluate and incorporate relevant portions
of existing health insurance options, including materials created by
the Healthcare Leadership Council, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Enacting this legislation is an important step in the right direction
towards assisting small businesses as they work to strengthen
themselves, remain competitive against larger businesses that are able
to offer affordable health insurance, and in turn bolster the entire
economy.
We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill, and
to continue to work to address the issues facing the small business
community.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1690
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Health
Insurance Options Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS INFORMATION FOR SMALL
BUSINESS CONCERNS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
Small Business Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Administration.
(3) Association.--The term ``association'' means an
association established under section 21(a)(3)(A) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(3)(A)) representing a
majority of small business development centers.
(4) Participating small business development center.--The
term ``participating small business development center''
means a small business development center described in
section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648) that--
(A) is accredited under section 21(k)(2) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(k)(2)); and
(B) receives a grant under the pilot program.
(5) Pilot program.--The term ``pilot program'' means the
small business health insurance information pilot program
established under this section.
(6) Small business concern.--The term ``small business
concern'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and Guam.
(b) Small Business Health Insurance Information Pilot
Program.--The Administrator shall establish a pilot program
to make grants to small business development centers to
provide neutral and objective information and educational
materials regarding health insurance options, including
coverage options within the small group market, to small
business concerns.
(c) Applications.--
(1) Posting of information.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
post on the website of the Administration and publish in the
Federal Register a guidance document describing--
(A) the requirements of an application for a grant under
the pilot program; and
(B) the types of informational and educational materials
regarding health insurance options to be created under the
pilot program, including by referencing materials and
resources developed by the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the
Healthcare Leadership Council.
(2) Submission.--A small business development center
desiring a grant under the pilot program shall submit an
application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Administrator may reasonably require.
(d) Selection of Participating Small Business Development
Centers.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall select not more
than 20 small business development centers to receive a grant
under the pilot program.
(2) Selection of programs.--In selecting small business
development centers under paragraph (1), the Administrator
may not select--
(A) more than 2 programs from each of the groups of States
described in paragraph (3); and
(B) more than 1 program in any State.
(3) Groupings.--The groups of States described in this
paragraph are the following:
(A) Group 1.--Group 1 shall consist of Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode
Island.
(B) Group 2.--Group 2 shall consist of New York, New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
(C) Group 3.--Group 3 shall consist of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, the District of Columbia,
and Delaware.
(D) Group 4.--Group 4 shall consist of Georgia, Alabama,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida,
Kentucky, and Tennessee.
(E) Group 5.--Group 5 shall consist of Illinois, Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
(F) Group 6.--Group 6 shall consist of Texas, New Mexico,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
(G) Group 7.--Group 7 shall consist of Missouri, Iowa,
Nebraska, and Kansas.
(H) Group 8.--Group 8 shall consist of Colorado, Wyoming,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Utah.
(I) Group 9.--Group 9 shall consist of California, Guam,
American Samoa, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona.
(J) Group 10.--Group 10 shall consist of Washington,
Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon.
(4) Deadline for selection.--The Administrator shall make
selections under this subsection not later than 6 months
after the later of the date on which the information
described in subsection (c)(1) is posted on the website of
the Administration and the date on which the information
described in subsection (c)(1) is published in the Federal
Register.
(e) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A participating small business development
center shall use funds provided under the pilot program to--
(A) create and distribute informational materials; and
(B) conduct training and educational activities.
(2) Content of materials.--
(A) In general.--In creating materials under the pilot
program, a participating small business development center
shall evaluate and incorporate relevant portions of existing
informational materials regarding health insurance options,
including materials and resources developed by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, the Kaiser Family
Foundation, and the Healthcare Leadership Council.
(B) Health insurance options.--In incorporating information
regarding health insurance options under subparagraph (A), a
participating small business development center shall provide
neutral and objective information regarding health insurance
options in the geographic area served by the participating
small business development center,
[[Page S8363]]
including traditional employer sponsored health insurance for
the group insurance market, such as the health insurance
options defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91) or section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, and Federal and State health insurance
programs.
(f) Grant Amounts.--Each participating small business
development center program shall receive a grant in an amount
equal to--
(1) not less than $150,000 per fiscal year; and
(2) not more than $300,000 per fiscal year.
(g) Matching Requirement.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 21(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(a)(4)) shall apply to assistance made available under the
pilot program.
(h) Reports.--Each participating small business development
center shall transmit to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives, a quarterly report
that includes--
(1) a summary of the information and educational materials
regarding health insurance options provided by the
participating small business development center under the
pilot program; and
(2) the number of small business concerns assisted under
the pilot program.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section--
(A) $5,000,000 for the first fiscal year beginning after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) $5,000,000 for each of the 3 fiscal years following the
fiscal year described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Limitation on use of other funds.--The Administrator
may carry out the pilot program only with amounts
appropriated in advance specifically to carry out this
section.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Isakson,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Ms.
Murkowski, and Mr. Vitter):
S. 1692. A bill to grant a Federal charter to Korean War Veterans
Association, Incorporated; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today, on the 57th anniversary of
the start of the Korean war, to introduce legislation to help honor
American veterans who served our Nation during that war by granting a
Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, KWVA, a
nonprofit fraternal veterans' organization. A companion measure is
being introduced in the House by the distinguished majority leader,
Steny Hoyer, and Representative Sam Johnson, who have led this effort
in previous Congresses along with my predecessor, Senator Paul
Sarbanes.
The Korean war is sometimes referred to as the ``Forgotten War,''
because it has been overshadowed by World War II and the Vietnam war,
and its importance has often been overlooked in American history. But
for the nearly 1.2 million American veterans of the Korean war still
alive today, the war is anything but forgotten. During the 3-year
course of the war, some 5.7 million Americans were called to serve,
under some of the most adverse and trying circumstances ever faced in
wartime, for the cause of freedom. Alongside Korean and United Nations
allies, our forces fought with extraordinary courage and valor. By the
time the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953, more than
36,000 Americans had died, 103,284 had been wounded, 7,140 were
captured, and 664 were missing.
Granting a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association
would give our Nation an opportunity to honor veterans who served in
that war, as well as those who have served subsequently in defense of
the Republic of Korea. The KWVA is the only fraternal veterans'
organization in the United States devoted exclusively to Korean war
veterans and the only U.S. member of the International Federation of
Korean War Veterans Associations.
Incorporated in 1985, the 20,000-member charitable association is
also one of the few veterans' service organizations in America that has
not been recognized with a Federal charter. These veterans are a source
of strength and pride for our country. While we cannot repay the debt
we owe them for the sacrifices they made, we can and should acknowledge
and commemorate their service and help the association to expand its
mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes.
This recognition for the KWVA is long overdue, and I am hopeful that
this year, Congress will act swiftly to approve this measure. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1692
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GRANT OF FEDERAL CHARTER TO KOREAN WAR VETERANS
ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED.
(a) Grant of Charter.--Part B of subtitle II of title 36,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the following:
``CHAPTER 1201--[RESERVED]'';
and
(2) by inserting after chapter 1103 the following new
chapter:
``CHAPTER 1201--KOREAN WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
``Sec.
``120101. Organization.
``120102. Purposes.
``120103. Membership.
``120104. Governing body.
``120105. Powers.
``120106. Restrictions.
``120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of charter.
``120108. Records and inspection.
``120109. Service of process.
``120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents.
``120111. Annual report.
``120112. Definition.
``Sec. 120101. Organization
``(a) Federal Charter.--Korean War Veterans Association,
Incorporated (in this chapter, the `corporation'), a
nonprofit organization that meets the requirements for a
veterans service organization under section 501(c)(19) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that is organized under the
laws of the State of New York, is a federally chartered
corporation.
``(b) Expiration of Charter.--If the corporation does not
comply with the provisions of this chapter, the charter
granted by subsection (a) shall expire.
``Sec. 120102. Purposes
``The purposes of the corporation are those provided in the
articles of incorporation of the corporation and shall
include the following:
``(1) To organize as a veterans service organization in
order to maintain a continuing interest in the welfare of
veterans of the Korean War, and rehabilitation of the
disabled veterans of the Korean War to include all that
served during active hostilities and subsequently in defense
of the Republic of Korea, and their families.
``(2) To establish facilities for the assistance of all
veterans and to represent them in their claims before the
Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations
without charge.
``(3) To perpetuate and preserve the comradeship and
friendships born on the field of battle and nurtured by the
common experience of service to the United States during the
time of war and peace.
``(4) To honor the memory of the men and women who gave
their lives so that the United States and the world might be
free and live by the creation of living memorial, monuments,
and other forms of additional educational, cultural, and
recreational facilities.
``(5) To preserve for the people of the United States and
posterity of such people the great and basic truths and
enduring principles upon which the United States was founded.
``Sec. 120103. Membership
``Eligibility for membership in the corporation, and the
rights and privileges of members of the corporation, are as
provided in the bylaws of the corporation.
``Sec. 120104. Governing body
``(a) Board of Directors.--The composition of the board of
directors of the corporation, and the responsibilities of the
board, are as provided in the articles of incorporation of
the corporation.
``(b) Officers.--The positions of officers of the
corporation, and the election of the officers, are as
provided in the articles of incorporation.
``Sec. 120105. Powers
``The corporation has only those powers provided in its
bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in each State in
which it is incorporated.
``Sec. 120106. Restrictions
``(a) Stock and Dividends.--The corporation may not issue
stock or declare or pay a dividend.
``(b) Political Activities.--The corporation, or a director
or officer of the corporation as such, may not contribute to,
support, or participate in any political activity or in any
manner attempt to influence legislation.
``(c) Loan.--The corporation may not make a loan to a
director, officer, or employee of the corporation.
``(d) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authority.--The
corporation may not claim
[[Page S8364]]
congressional approval, or the authority of the United
States, for any activity of the corporation.
``(e) Corporate Status.--The corporation shall maintain its
status as a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York.
``Sec. 120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of
charter
``If the corporation fails to maintain its status as an
organization exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, the charter granted under this chapter shall
terminate.
``Sec. 120108. Records and inspection
``(a) Records.--The corporation shall keep--
``(1) correct and complete records of account;
``(2) minutes of the proceedings of the members, board of
directors, and committees of the corporation having any of
the authority of the board of directors of the corporation;
and
``(3) at the principal office of the corporation, a record
of the names and addresses of the members of the corporation
entitled to vote on matters relating to the corporation.
``(b) Inspection.--A member entitled to vote on any matter
relating to the corporation, or an agent or attorney of the
member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any
proper purpose, at any reasonable time.
``Sec. 120109. Service of process
``The corporation shall have a designated agent in the
District of Columbia to receive service of process for the
corporation. Notice to or service on the agent is notice to
or service on the corporation.
``Sec. 120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents
``The corporation is liable for any act of any officer or
agent of the corporation acting within the scope of the
authority of the corporation.
``Sec. 120111. Annual report
``The corporation shall submit to Congress an annual report
on the activities of the corporation during the preceding
fiscal year. The report shall be submitted at the same time
as the report of the audit required by section 10101(b) of
this title. The report may not be printed as a public
document.
``Sec. 120112. Definition
``For purposes of this chapter, the term `State' includes
the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions
of the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to chapter 1201
in the table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle II of
title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
120101''.ean War Veterans Association, Incorporated..................
____________________