[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 106 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8693-S8714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. McCASKILL:
  S. 1723. A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to enhance 
the independence of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the 
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about something great 
Congress did 30 years ago. They passed the Inspector General Act. That 
act has provided a layer of accountability in our Government that is 
very important. Unfortunately, there are still times that the inspector 
generals in our Government are not given the respect and deference they 
deserve. That is why today I am introducing the Improving Government 
Accountability Act.
  If one thinks about the inspector generals, what they are is a first 
line of defense on behalf of taxpayers and against Government waste and 
inefficiency. They are the first line of defense because they are 
inside Federal agencies. Let's be honest, inspector generals inside 
Federal agencies are facing mountains of waste and inefficiency. If 
they are to do their jobs the way Congress intended, they must be 
independent, and their work must be immediately accessible to the 
public.
  We have had some troubling incidents over the last several years as 
it relates to the independence, the qualifications and, frankly, the 
integrity of our inspector generals. That is why this legislation is 
necessary. That is why this legislation is so important.
  The legislation will do several things. First, all inspector generals 
will be appointed for terms of 7 years. That will make sure they cannot 
arbitrarily be removed from their position by a department head who is 
getting nervous about information they are providing to the public in 
terms of accountability.
  Second, Congress must be notified of the removal of any inspector 
general and, very importantly, the reasons for the removal before they 
can be removed from office.
  Third, all inspector generals will have their own legal counsel to 
avoid using the agency counsel. This is important because if they are 
going to have independence, they must have independent legal advice 
about their ability to do their job.
  Fourth, no inspector general can accept a bonus. The bonuses are 
given by the heads of the agencies. That is an inherent conflict. If 
you know that you please the head of your agency and you get more 
money, what kind of shortcuts are you going to take? What are you going 
to be willing to gloss over in order not to embarrass the head of that 
agency with information you have discovered about waste and 
inefficiency?
  Fifth, in the event of a vacancy, the Council on Integrity and 
Efficiency will recommend to the appointing authority three possible 
replacements. They will not have the ability to dictate the replacement 
for the IG, but it will provide the appointing authority with three 
qualified people to take

[[Page S8694]]

over the important function of inspector general.
  Also key in this legislation is that instead of making their annual 
budget requests to the agencies they oversee, the IG budget requests 
will go straight to the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, that 
sends the President's budget request to Congress.
  Next, all inspector general Web sites must be directly accessible 
from the home page of the agency. I asked my staff to take a tour 
through Government agency Web sites to see how easy it was to find out 
what the IGs had been up to in those agencies. It was remarkably 
difficult. In many instances we couldn't even find the inspector 
general's information on the home page of that agency. The public ought 
to be able to go on the page of any Federal agency and immediately 
click on the last inspector general report, find out what that 
inspector general found and, frankly, ought to be able to ask the 
question, what has been done about it. There will be a way for the 
public to anonymously send allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse 
directly to the IG offices.
  Our office found that only three of 27 sampled Federal agencies have 
an obvious direct link from their home page to the IG's Web site. 
Clearly, we are not focused on making this information available to the 
public. Frankly, all the auditors in the world, all the inspector 
generals in the world do no good if the public can't learn the 
information. Because if the public doesn't know about it, it isn't 
going to have the cleansing effect it should. Only six of the 27 
sampled IGs have an obvious direct link on their home page to report 
waste, fraud, and abuse. That is very important.
  I give credit to Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee who has been 
working on this legislation in the House. I am excited to join him in 
this effort. Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have some of these 
provisions in their Accountability in Government Contracting Act, of 
which I am also proud to be a cosponsor.
  There have been specific examples that have occurred recently. I 
won't go into them other than to say, we had one Commerce IG who 
refused to resign after an investigation showed that he had committed 
malfeasance in office. However, after much pressure from Congress, he 
finally did step down. We have another inspector general who has been 
accused of trying to block the serving of a search warrant at NASA. 
Think about that, trying to block the serving of a search warrant that 
had been issued by a court of law. We have another IG who was not 
reappointed by President Bush and said publicly it was because at the 
Department of Homeland Security, he was seen as a traitor, and he was 
intimidated about not issuing reports that might reflect badly on the 
agency.
  Bottom line, we should protect inspector generals. They are precious. 
They are important to what we do. We can talk all we want about 
oversight, but if we can't get the information from inside these 
agencies, frankly, we are not going to be effective in Congress with 
any kind of oversight. The information the inspector generals provide 
is crucial to Congress and crucial to the public. This legislation 
would make sure that they are qualified, protected, independent, and 
the public knows what they are up to.
  I urge my colleagues to get excited about this legislation and maybe, 
uncharacteristically, move it quickly through the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 1726. A bill to regulate certain State taxation of interstate 
commerce, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to speak about the bill I am 
introducing today with Senator Crapo, the Business Activity Tax 
Simplification Act of 2007. Our bill tries to address a very important 
question: How should States tax businesses that locate their operations 
in a few States, but have customers and earn income in many States? 
This issue has grown in importance in recent years, and the Supreme 
Court's decision last week not to get involved in the issue raises the 
stakes even further.
  The crux of the issue is this: A majority of States impose corporate 
income and other so-called ``business activity taxes'' only when 
companies have ``physical presence,'' such as employees or property, in 
their States. However, some States contend that the mere presence of a 
business's customers, or an ``economic presence,'' is all that is 
necessary to impose a business activity tax. These companies are facing 
a confusing and costly assortment of State and local tax rules, some 
enacted by legislatures and others imposed upon them by State revenue 
authorities and upheld by State courts.
  Senator Crapo and I introduced similar legislation in the 109th 
Congress to try to address this problem of double taxation and tax 
practices that vary from State to State. That bill came close to 
passing the House, but some last-minute objections were raised. Now, 
the need for legislation and congressional action has taken on new 
urgency, and we have revised the bill to address many of the concerns 
expressed last year.
  Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases 
that challenged the constitutionality of State taxation of out-of-State 
companies with no physical presence in a State. The States involved in 
these cases, West Virginia and New Jersey, asserted theories of 
economic nexus to tax out-of-State corporations. They claimed that 
because some customers of such corporations reside in the State, even 
though the corporation is not physically present, they are subject to 
business activity taxes.
  The first case involves a credit card company headquartered in 
Delaware. The bank issued credit cards nationwide, including credit 
cards issued to West Virginia customers. The bank had no property or 
employees, no office or any other physical presence, in the State. The 
second case involves a Delaware holding company that licensed 
intellectual property trademarks and trade names to a customer that 
does business in New Jersey. The holding company itself had no offices, 
employees, or property in New Jersey, and did not otherwise have a 
physical presence in the State. In both cases, the State courts ruled 
that the out-of-State corporation was taxable.
  What is so disappointing about the Supreme Court's silence on this 
issue is the fact that these State court decisions conflict with an 
earlier Supreme Court ruling. In 1992, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 
the Supreme Court prohibited States from forcing out-of-State 
corporations from collecting sales and use tax, unless the corporation 
has a physical presence in the taxing State. However, some State courts 
have held that the physical presence test established by Quill creates 
no such limitations on the imposition of business activity taxes.

  Currently, 19 States take the position that a State has the right to 
tax a business merely because it has a customer within the State, even 
if the business has no physical presence in the State whatsoever.
  These States' actions in pursuing these taxes have caused uncertainty 
and widespread litigation, so much so that it has created a chilling 
effect on foreign and interstate commerce. I have spoken out against 
double taxation on many issues in the past, and the double tax in these 
cases, while not as large, is just as wrong.
  Let me be clear about this: I know that several Governors and State 
revenue commissioners have spoken out against the legislation because 
they don't like the Federal Government telling them what they can and 
cannot tax. They are also concerned about any revenue they might lose 
as a result. But if the States are collecting a tax they shouldn't be 
collecting in the first place, the fact that they might lose a small 
amount of revenue is not the most persuasive argument, in my view.
  I believe Congress has a responsibility to create a uniform nexus 
standard for tax purposes so that goods and services can flow freely 
between the States. Firm guidance on what activities can be conducted 
within a State will provide certainty to tax administrators and 
businesses, reduce multiple taxation or the same income, and will 
reduce compliance and enforcement costs for States and businesses 
alike.
  The last time Congress acted on this issue was in 1959, when Public 
Law 86-272 was enacted to prohibit States from imposing ``income 
taxes'' on sales of ``tangible personal property'' by a business whose 
sole activity within a State

[[Page S8695]]

was soliciting sales. No one can deny that in the almost 50 years 
since, interstate commerce has taken on a whole new character. New 
technologies allow companies headquartered in one State to provide 
services to consumers across the country. The Internet is replacing 
bricks-and-mortar stores. Companies and consumers are increasingly 
linked across State lines.
  The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007 addresses these 
changes over the last 48 years both modernizing Public Law 86-272 and 
codifying the physical presence standard. Our bill extends the 
protections of the 1959 law to include solicitation activities 
performed in connection with all sales and transactions, not just sales 
of tangible personal property. The bill protects the free flow of 
information, including broadcast signals from outside the State, from 
becoming the basis for taxation of out-of-State businesses.
  BATSA also protects activities where the business is a consumer in 
the State. It makes little sense to impose tax on out-of-State 
businesses that purchases goods or services from an in-State company. 
Obviously, in this very common scenario, the out-of-State business is 
not using these goods or services to generate any revenue in the State. 
Why should they be subject to tax?
  Most importantly, BATSA codifies the physical presence standard. 
States and localities can only impose business activity taxes on 
businesses within their jurisdiction that have employees in the State, 
or real or tangible personal property that is either leased or owned. 
It is consistent with current law and sound tax policy, which holds 
that a tax should not be imposed by a State unless that State provides 
benefits or protections to the taxpayer. Further, the physical presence 
standard is the basis for each and every one of our treaties with 
foreign nations--adoption of a more nebulous standard by the States 
undermines these international treaties.
  We need to act now. Already, State legislatures are interpreting the 
court's denial of cert as an affirmation of their position that they 
are free to enact whatever policies affecting interstate commerce that 
are beneficial to their particular State revenue needs, regardless of 
the national impact. Because the court will not review their nexus 
standard and Congress has not acted, States now have an ideal 
opportunity to raise revenues from out-of-State corporations regardless 
of the national impact.
  Only 3 days after the Supreme Court denied cert, the New Hampshire 
Assembly added an amendment to the State budget at 3:40 a.m. to allow 
the State to collect revenue from out-of-State businesses. The denial 
of cert thereby resulted almost immediately in a $10 million to $100 
million windfall for New Hampshire. No one can deny that this was an 
extremely aggressive action; why else would the legislature have taken 
such drastic measures to tack on this amendment it? the wee hours of 
the morning?
  States are clearly overreaching in their efforts to collect these 
taxes, and it creates a difficult situation for businesses. It is 
laughable to think that a company would decide to cut off all 
transactions with individuals within a certain State to avoid similar 
laws. And so they will have to start paying taxes to States where they 
start generating no revenue, hiring no employees, and contributing 
nothing to the State's economy from their phantom presence aside from 
these taxes. But these companies are not going to stand idly by and be 
double-taxed; they will simply declare less income in their home States 
as a result.
  I know that my legislation with Senator Crapo has raised concerns in 
the past. The States have argued that BAT legislation represents an 
intrusion into their authority to govern. But I believe the contrary: A 
fundamental aspect of American federalism is that Congress has the 
authority and responsibility under the commerce clause to ensure that 
interstate commerce is not burdened by State actions.
  In fact, the exercise of such congressional power is necessary in 
order to prevent excessive burdens from being placed on businesses 
engaged on interstate activity by virtue of their customer's residing 
in a particular State. Congress must act to ensure certainty, 
predictability, and fairness of taxation of multistate corporations. 
The lack of a bright-line physical presence standard encourages each 
State to act in its own self interest by taking action to maximize its 
revenues, regardless of the potential double taxation that results.
  Let me address a few concerns that have been raised about the bill. 
Opponents claim that BATSA includes so many exceptions to the physical 
presence standard that large, multistate companies will utilize the 
legislation to ensure they pay minimum State tax nationwide. But our 
bill explicitly States that it preserves States' authority to adopt or 
continue to use their own tax compliance tools.
  In response to those who say that this legislation will be a huge hit 
to State budgets, the figures just don't add up. There have been a 
number of studies done, but even the highest revenue estimate 
represents only a very small percentage of the total amount of business 
activity taxes collected by the States. The studies leave out one 
important fact, however: Companies affected by double-taxation are 
going to declare less income in their home States, if they have to pay 
taxes on that same income to another State.
  Let me cite just one example from a company in my State. In 2005, 
Citigroup paid 63 percent of all it State and local taxes to New York 
State and New York City, all based on physical presence in the State 
and the city. As more States follow the lead of New Hampshire, the city 
and State of New York will be getting less from Citibank, one way or 
another, as they won't want to be double taxed, once by New York 
because of our physical presence and again in New Hampshire and other 
States because they have customers in those States. This is why any 
revenue loss estimates from any city or State are overblown.
  In short, this is no longer a theoretical discussion. Federal 
legislation is required to stop this food fight.
  I believe that Congress has a duty to prevent some States from 
impeding the free flow and development of interstate commerce and to 
prevent double taxation. That is why I am asking my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, including the chairman and ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, to carefully consider this legislation.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from New 
York, Senator Schumer, for the work he has done on this bill. He shares 
my grave concerns about the devastating impact that legal 
interpretations of Public Law 86-272 are having on foreign and 
interstate commerce. I'm pleased that we can work together in a 
bipartisan effort to make changes to a law that is in serious need of 
updating and clarification in view of the more service-oriented economy 
we have today driven in large part by modern technology's profound 
transformation of business transactions. This is why we are introducing 
the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007, or BATSA, today.
  Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to ensure that 
interstate commerce is not unduly burdened by State actions, including 
unfair and burdensome taxation of such commerce. Public Law 86-272 was 
enacted almost 50 years ago, for just these purposes. Ways of 
conducting multi-state business have changed, and, in the absence of 
any clarifying legislation, some state courts have interpreted taxation 
activity under an ``economic presence'' approach. This approach does 
not reflect the intent or spirit of the Commerce Clause of the 
Constitution; furthermore, it creates a climate of uncertainty that 
inhibits business expansion and innovation. Businesses have to take 
into account the very real possibility that they will be taxed multiple 
times for the same business activity. These ``business activity taxes'' 
are certainly appropriate when a business has a physical presence in a 
State; these taxes are inappropriate when imposed by a State where that 
business's customer happens to reside, but in which the business has no 
physical presence.
  States' efforts to impose improper business activity taxes have been 
furthered by the Supreme Court's recent silence on this issue. Recent 
State court rulings are in conflict with the high Court's ruling in 
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota in 1992. In that ruling,

[[Page S8696]]

the Supreme Court prohibited States from forcing out-of-state 
corporations to collect sales and use taxes unless such corporation had 
a physical presence in the taxing State. As my colleague from New York 
pointed out a few minutes ago, State courts in both New Jersey and West 
Virginia have held that the physical presence test in Quill only 
applies to sales and use taxes, not business activity taxes. I share my 
colleague's deep concern with the fact that the appeals of these two 
cases to the Supreme Court were denied certiorari just last week. This 
denial underscores the urgency of BATSA.
  This effort by a large number of States to impose business activity 
taxes based on economic presence has the potential to open a Pandora's 
Box of negative implications for businesses. Without clarification by 
Congress, States will be free to enact revenue-raising nexus 
legislation and policies that, by definition, will not and cannot take 
into account the national impact of such activities. The eleventh-hour 
enactment of economic nexus legislation by the New Hampshire State 
Legislature just days after the Supreme Court denial of certiorari in 
the New Jersey and West Virginia cases is a sign of things to come. For 
many businesses, this will serve as a death knell for growth and 
expansion.
  BATSA will help clarify the intent of Public Law 86-272. BATSA 
codifies the ``physical presence'' standard and will eliminate 
confusion for State tax administrators and businesses alike. It's 
consistent with current law and the notion that a tax should not be 
imposed by a State unless that State provides benefits or protections 
to the taxpayer. BATSA clarifies that an out-of-state business must 
have nexus under both the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. 
This standard is also consistent with the standards we have in place 
with regard to our trading partners abroad.
  BATSA modernizes Public Law 86-272 by extending the protections under 
that law to include solicitation activities performed in connection 
with all sales and transactions, not just tangible personal property. 
BATSA applies to all business activity taxes, not just net income 
taxes. This includes gross receipts taxes, gross profits taxes, single 
business taxes, franchise taxes, capital stock taxes and business and 
occupation taxes. It does not apply to transaction taxes such as sales 
and use taxes.
  BATSA protects the free flow of information, critical in our modern 
era of Internet business and protects the activities where the business 
is a consumer in that State. And, as my colleague, Senator Schumer, 
rightly pointed out, it is counterintuitive to impose taxes on an out-
of-state company purchasing goods or services from an in-State company, 
since the out-of-state company isn't generating any revenue for the 
State.
  BATSA upholds the approach of disregarding certain de minimus 
activities codified in Public Law 86-272.
  States have argued that BATSA will result in substantial lost State 
tax revenue. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
projected total loss of revenue to states from BATSA in year one of 
enactment represents just 0.2 percent of all State and local taxes paid 
by businesses in 2005. And the CBO cost estimate is actually less than 
the cost claimed by the National Governor's Association in its own 
revenue estimates.
  I will tell you what BATSA does not do. BATSA does not help large 
companies avoid paying their fair share of State taxes, stating 
explicitly that States retain the authority to adopt or continue to use 
anti-tax avoidance compliance tools. It expressly endorses statutory 
and regulatory tools at States' disposal to combat tax abuse. Industry 
and activity-specific safe harbors included in prior bills do not exist 
in this legislation.
  In the glaring absence of Supreme Court clarification on Quill Corp. 
v. North Dakota, and in the presence of confusing state court 
interpretations of that decision and ongoing, and legally-creative 
revenue-raising schemes by States, it's imperative that Congress act 
now to preserve the free flow of commerce between States. The Business 
Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007 provides that clarification. 
BATSA ensures that one standard of taxation applies for taxing multi-
state companies, so that companies are not unjustly taxed multiple 
times by different States on the same income. I hope that our 
colleagues here in the Senate will support this important legislation 
that will protect the business expansion in our country that keeps our 
economy competitive and thriving.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. 
        Voinovich):
  S. 1727. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for a credit against income tax for certain educator expenses, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friends, 
Senators Warner, Chambliss, Snowe, Isakson, Lugar, Cornyn, Coleman, and 
Voinovich, to introduce the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007.
  As we approach the end of the school year, it is appropriate once 
again to consider tax relief to help cover the out-of-pocket expenses 
our Nation's teachers incur to improve the education of our children.
  Many times in the past, we have come to the floor to offer 
legislation on this subject. In 2001, Senator Warner and I offered 
legislation which resulted in the enactment of the existing $250 
teacher tax deduction. That deduction expires at the end of this year. 
Earlier this session, Senator Warner and I offered legislation to make 
that deduction permanent, raise it to $400, and expand it to cover 
professional development expenses.
  Today, we introduce legislation that would provide teachers with an 
alternative tax credit for books, supplies, and equipment they purchase 
for their students, as well as for professional development expenses. 
The tax credit would be set at 50 percent of such expenditures so that 
teachers would receive 50 cents of tax relief for every dollar of their 
own money they spend, up to $300.
  Our rationale in proposing a tax credit as an alternative to the 
existing deduction is simple, deductions only reduce tax liability 
indirectly, by reducing taxable income. The value of the deduction is 
equal to the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, or what we call their tax 
``bracket.'' For example, for teachers in the 25 percent tax bracket, a 
$100 deduction would reduce their tax liability by 25 percent, or $25.
  By contrast, the tax credit we are proposing would reduce the amount 
of taxes paid by a teacher by 50 percent for each dollar that a teacher 
spends on school supplies or professional development expenses, 
regardless of the tax bracket the teacher is in. A teacher who took the 
maximum credit amount of $300 would save 50 percent of that amount--
$150--in taxes.
  We have made an effort to ensure that the tax benefit we are 
proposing will make all teachers who use it better off, relative to the 
current deduction. Let me take a moment to explain how we have done 
this: first, the tax credit is structured as an alternative teachers 
can choose either the deduction or the credit, whichever works best for 
their tax situation. Second, the level of the credit, if adopted in its 
present form, would provide a net after-tax benefit of $150. This is 
significantly higher than the net after-tax benefit that most teachers 
can receive using the current $250 deduction.
  It is even higher than the net after-tax benefit that would result 
from the $400 deduction Senator Warner and I proposed earlier this 
year. Teachers in the 25 percent tax bracket would get a net after-tax 
benefit of $100 from a $400 deduction, so they will see an increase of 
$50 under the credit system that we are proposing today. Even teachers 
in the highest tax bracket, which is currently set at 35 percent, would 
see a small increase in the net benefit they would receive under this 
credit, compared to a $400 deduction.
  I should also note that some teachers make so little they do not even 
have the tax liability to offset this credit. To make sure these 
teachers are also compensated for the money they spend on classroom 
supplies and professional development, the credit Senator Warner and I 
are proposing is fully refundable.
  It is remarkable how much the average teacher spends every year out 
of

[[Page S8697]]

his or her own pocket to buy supplies and other materials for their 
students. Many of us are familiar with a survey of the National 
Education Association that found that teachers spend, on average, $443 
a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show that they are spending 
even more than that.
  The NEA's data also shows that the average teacher in the U.S. still 
does not make $50,000, and in many States, including Maine, they 
average less than $40,000. When you realize that the average teacher is 
not particularly well paid, it speaks volumes about their dedication 
that they are willing to make that kind of investment to support the 
teaching they provide to their students.
  Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell 
me they routinely spend far in excess of the $300 credit limit on 
materials they use in their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find 
teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational 
experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies. Year 
after year, these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin 
boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, 
stamps and inkpads. For example, Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, 
elementary school teachers from Augusta, Maine, purchase books for 
their students to have as a classroom library as well as workbooks and 
sight cards. They also purchase special prizes for positive 
reinforcement for students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends $800 
to $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning fun and 
to create a stimulating learning experience.
  It is important that this credit also be available to teachers who 
incur expenses for professional development. While this tax relief 
provides modest assistance to educators, it is my view that students 
are its ultimate beneficiaries. Studies consistently show that well-
qualified teachers, and involved parents, are the most important 
contributors to student success. Educators themselves understand just 
how important professional development is to their ability to make a 
positive impact in the classroom. Teachers in Maine repeatedly tell me 
that they need, and want, more professional development. But tight 
school budgets often make funds to support this development impossible 
to get. By providing a credit for professional development expenses, 
this amendment will help teachers take that additional course or pursue 
that advanced degree that will make them even better at what they love 
to do.
  Our bill makes it a priority to reimburse educators for just a small 
part of what they invest in our children's future. It is both sound 
education policy and sensible tax policy. I hope our colleagues will 
join us in support of this important initiative.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Education Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2007.
     Senator Susan Collins,
     Senator John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Warner: On behalf of the National 
     Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we would 
     like to express our strong support for your proposal to 
     create a tax credit for educators' classroom supply and 
     professional development expenses. We thank you for your 
     continued leadership and advocacy on this important issue.
       As you know, educators across the country make considerable 
     financial sacrifices as they reach into their own pockets to 
     purchase classroom supplies. Studies show that teachers spend 
     more of their own funds each year to supply their classrooms, 
     including purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, 
     scissors, and facial tissues. For example, NEA's 2003 report 
     Status of the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001 found 
     that teachers spent an average of $443 a year on classroom 
     supplies. More recently, the National School Supply and 
     Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators 
     spent out of their own pockets an average of $826.00 for 
     supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials, 
     for a total of $1,752.
       By creating a tax credit, your legislation would reduce the 
     amount of taxes paid by a teacher by 50 percent for each 
     dollar he or she spends on school supplies. Thus, a teacher 
     taking the maximum credit of $300 would save $150 in taxes, 
     regardless of his or her tax bracket. As a result, your bill 
     will make a real difference for many educators, who often 
     must sacrifice other personal needs in order to pay for 
     classroom supplies.
       NEA also strongly supports your proposal to cover out-of-
     pocket professional development expenses under the tax 
     credit. Teacher quality is the single most critical factor in 
     maximizing student achievement. Ongoing professional 
     development is essential to ensure that educators stay up-to-
     date on the skills and knowledge necessary to prepare 
     students for the challenges of the 21st century. Your bill 
     will make a critical difference in helping educators access 
     quality training.
       We thank you again for your work on this important 
     legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you 
     to support our nation's educators.
           Sincerely,
     Diane Shust,
       Director of Government Relations.
     Randall Moody,
       Manager of Federal Advocacy.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of 
America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the 
Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. Other original cosponsors of this bill 
include Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Cornyn, Isakson, Lugar, Snowe, and 
Voinovich.
  Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in 
support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in 
recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of 
their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in 
providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage 
of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.
  This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, 
included the Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions 
that provided a $250 above-the-line deduction for educators who incur 
out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to 
better the education of their students. These important provisions 
provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers 
all across America in 2002 and 2003.
  In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the 
provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 
109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 
2006 and 2007.
  While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's 
teachers, our work is not yet complete.
  It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their 
own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, 
pencils, and books. First-year teachers spend even more. Why do they do 
this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs 
of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the 
education of America's youth.
  Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom 
supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket 
on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, 
books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers 
become even better instructors.
  The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial 
burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving 
the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a 
teacher shortage.
  Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take 
another step forward by introducing legislation today that creates a 
refundable tax credit for teachers. The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 
will simply provide a refundable tax credit up to $150 for classroom 
expenses and professional development expenses.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of 
my statement the attached letter from the National Education 
Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 
2007. I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the end of my statement the attached letter from the Virginia 
Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit 
Act of 2007.
  Mr. President, our teachers have made a personal commitment to 
educate the next generation and to strengthen America. In my view, the 
Federal Government should recognize

[[Page S8698]]

the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career.
  In addition to the refundable tax credit legislation that we are 
introducing today, earlier this year Senator Collins and I introduced 
S. 505, The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007. S. 505 will build upon 
current law by increasing the above-the-line deduction, as President 
Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; 
allowing educators to include professional development costs within 
that $400 deduction; and making the teacher tax relief provisions in 
the law permanent.
  The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 is another step forward in 
providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Education Association,

                                     Washington, DC, June 27, 2007
     Senator Susan Collins,
     Senator John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Warner: On behalf of the National 
     Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we would 
     like to express our strong support for your proposal to 
     create a tax credit for educators' classroom supply and 
     professional development expenses. We thank you for your 
     continued leadership and advocacy on this important issue.
       As you know, educators across the country make considerable 
     financial sacrifices as they reach into their own pockets to 
     purchase classroom supplies. Studies show that teachers spend 
     more of their own funds each year to supply their classrooms, 
     including purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, 
     scissors, and facial tissues. For example, NEA's 2003 report 
     Status of the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001 found 
     that teachers spent an average of $443 a year on classroom 
     supplies. More recently, the National School Supply and 
     Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators 
     spent out of their own pockets an average of $826.00 for 
     supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials, 
     for a total of $1,752.
       By creating a tax credit, your legislation would reduce the 
     amount of taxes paid by a teacher by 50 percent for each 
     dollar he or she spends on school supplies. Thus, a teacher 
     taking the maximum credit of $300 would save $150 in taxes, 
     regardless of his or her tax bracket. As a result, your bill 
     will make a real difference for many educators, who often 
     must sacrifice other personal needs in order to pay for 
     classroom supplies.
       NEA also strongly supports your proposal to cover out-of-
     pocket professional development expenses under the tax 
     credit. Teacher quality is the single most critical factor in 
     maximizing student achievement. Ongoing professional 
     development is essential to ensure that educators stay up-to-
     date on the skills and knowledge necessary to prepare 
     students for the challenges of the 21st century. Your bill 
     will make a critical difference in helping educators access 
     quality training.
       We thank you again for your work on this important 
     legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you 
     to support our nation's educators.
           Sincerely,
     Diane Shust,
       Director of Government Relations.
     Randall Moody,
       Manager of Federal Advocacy.
                                  ____



                               Virginia Education Association,

                                      Richmond, VA, June 28, 2007.
     Senator John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On behalf of the members of the 
     Virginia Education Association, I am delighted and proud that 
     you are again proposing to create a tax credit for educators' 
     classroom supply and professional development expenses. 
     Virginia teachers and I appreciate your continued leadership 
     on this matter because it obviously affects Virginia 
     educators--and educators around the nation--directly in the 
     pocketbook.
       As I'm sure you are aware, the National Education 
     Association reported in a study entitled the Status of the 
     American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001 that teachers spent 
     an average of $443 a year on classroom supplies. Since that 
     time, the average spending for supplies and materials is 
     estimated to have increased to over $1,750 annually. Add to 
     that the out of pocket expense of professional development 
     and you realize the sacrifice and commitment of our nation's 
     teachers to a quality education for their classrooms and the 
     professional commitment they have for themselves.
       The bill you are sponsoring with Senator Collins recognizes 
     teachers' dedication and will make a significance difference 
     for many educators. Again, I thank you.
           Sincerely,

                                                Princess Moss,

                                                        President,
                                   Virginia Education Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 1729. A bill to amend titles 18 and 28 of the United States Code 
to provide incentives for the prompt payments of debts owed to the 
United States and the victims of crime by imposing surcharges on unpaid 
judgments owed to the United States and to the victims of crime, to 
provide for offsets on amounts collected by the Department of Justice 
for Federal agencies, to increase the amount of special assessments 
imposed upon convicted persons, to establish an Enhanced Financial 
Recovery Fund to enhance, supplement, and improve the debt collection 
activities of the Department of Justice, to amend title 5, United 
States Code, to provide to assistant United States attorneys the same 
retirement benefits as are afforded to Federal law enforcement 
officers, and for authorized purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Cochran to 
introduce a bill that will provide parity between the retirement 
benefits granted to assistant U.S. attorneys and those granted to other 
Federal law enforcement officers.
  There are 5,500 assistant U.S. attorneys in 93 offices throughout the 
United States, all of whom are serving on the front lines to uphold the 
rule of law. Having served as a prosecutor for many years in Vermont, I 
know well the integral role prosecutors play in the administration of 
justice. Prosecutors are a crucial component of our justice system, and 
should be recognized as such when they reach the end of their careers.
  Probation officers, deputy marshals, corrections officers, and even 
corrections employees not serving in a law enforcement role receive 
enhanced benefits greater than those received by assistant U.S. 
attorneys. This is an inequity that should be remedied. By correcting 
this disparity, Congress would also help the Federal justice system 
retain experienced prosecutors. Of all the prosecutors who leave the 
government for the private sector, 60 to 70 percent do so with 
experience of between 6 and 15 years. With the Department of Justice's 
rapidly expanding role in combating terrorism, we cannot afford to lose 
the experienced men and women who serve in this vital role.
  This legislation also addresses concerns about the cost to the 
Federal Government of providing enhanced retirement benefits to 
assistant U.S. attorneys. Proponents of the bill have helped craft 
provisions that would assist the Department of Justice in recovering 
money owed to the Federal Government as a result of judgments and other 
fines. By bolstering the Department's ability to collect the funds it 
is owed, resources would be freed up to provide the parity in 
retirement benefits sought by assistant U.S. attorneys. The result of 
the creative efforts to fund these benefits in an alternative manner is 
that the Department of Justice will, through its duties as the Nation's 
law enforcement agency, be able to provide the benefits its employees 
deserve at little or no cost to the taxpayer.
  By passing this legislation, we will signal the Federal Government's 
recognition that prosecutors in our society fulfill a critical role. 
Congress can send the message that the service of these prosecutors is 
a valued and indispensable component of our Federal justice system. I 
hope all Senators will join us in supporting this legislation to ensure 
that Federal policy equally respects the contributions of all members 
of the law enforcement community in keeping our society safe and 
secure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1729

       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 ``Enhanced Financial Recovery 
     and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007''.

                  TITLE I--ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY

     SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL SURCHARGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3612 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (g) and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page S8699]]

       ``(g) Imposition of Surcharge.--
       ``(1) In general.--A surcharge shall be imposed upon a 
     defendant if there are any unpaid criminal monetary penalties 
     as of the date specified in subsection (f)(1).
       ``(2) Amount of surcharge.--The surcharge imposed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       ``(A) 5 percent of the unpaid principal balance; or
       ``(B) $50, if the unpaid balance is less than $1,000.
       ``(3) Allocation of payments.--
       ``(A) Fine or special assessment.--If a surcharge is 
     imposed under paragraph (1) for a fine or special 
     assessment--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 95 percent of each principal 
     payment made by a defendant shall be credited to the Crime 
     Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601); and
       ``(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of each principal 
     payment shall be credited to the Department of Justice 
     Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund established under section 
     104 of the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable 
     Retirement Treatment Act of 2007.
       ``(B) Restitution.--If a surcharge is imposed under 
     paragraph (1) for a restitution obligation--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 95 percent of each principal 
     payment shall be paid to any victim identified by the court; 
     and
       ``(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of each principal 
     payment shall be credited to the Department of Justice 
     Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund established under section 
     104 of the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable 
     Retirement Treatment Act of 2007.
       ``(C) Surcharges.--For any payment made by a defendant 
     after the full amount of a surcharge imposed under paragraph 
     (1) has been satisfied, the full amount of such payment shall 
     be credited to the principal amount due or accrued interest, 
     as the case may be.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(A) the term `criminal monetary penalties' includes the 
     principal amount of any amount imposed as a fine, restitution 
     obligation, or special assessment, regardless of whether any 
     payment schedule has been imposed; and
       ``(B) the term `principal payment' does not include any 
     amount that is imposed as interest, penalty, or a 
     surcharge.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3612 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (d) and (e); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i), as 
     amended by this Act, as subsection (d) through (g), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 102. IMPOSITION OF CIVIL SURCHARGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3011 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3011. Imposition of surcharge

       ``(a) In General.--A surcharge shall be imposed on a 
     defendant if there is an unpaid balance due to the United 
     States on any money judgment in a civil matter recovered in a 
     district court as of--
       ``(1) the fifteenth day after the date of the judgment; or
       ``(2) if the day described in paragraph (1) is a Saturday, 
     Sunday, or legal public holiday, the next day that is not a 
     Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
       ``(b) Amount of Surcharge.--A surcharge imposed under 
     subsection (a) shall be--
       ``(1) 5 percent of the unpaid principal balance; or
       ``(2) $50, if the unpaid balance is less than $1,000.
       ``(c) Allocation of Payments.--If a surcharge is imposed 
     under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) an amount equal to 95 percent of each principal 
     payment made by a defendant shall be credited as otherwise 
     provided by law; and
       ``(2) an amount equal to 5 percent of each principal 
     payment shall be credited to the Department of Justice 
     Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund established under section 
     104 of the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable 
     Retirement Treatment Act of 2007.
       ``(d) Surcharges.--For any payment made by a defendant 
     after the full amount of a surcharge imposed under 
     subsection(a) has been satisfied, the full amount of such 
     payment shall be credited to the principal amount due or 
     accrued interest, as the case may be.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `principal payment' does not include any 
     amount that is imposed as interest, penalty, or a surcharge; 
     and - included in title 18, but not here?
       ``(2) the term `unpaid balance due to the United States' 
     includes any unpaid balance due to a person that was 
     represented by the Department of Justice in the civil matter 
     in which the money judgment was entered.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections at the beginning of subchapter A of chapter 176 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 3011 and inserting the following:

``3011. Imposition of surcharge.''.

     SEC. 103. INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 3013 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) The court shall assess on any person convicted of an 
     offense against the United States--
       ``(1) in the case of an infraction or a misdemeanor--
       ``(A) if the defendant is an individual--
       ``(i) the amount of $10 in the case of an infraction or a 
     class C misdemeanor;
       ``(ii) the amount of $25 in the case of a class B 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(iii) the amount of $100 in the case of a class A 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(B) if the defendant is a person other than an 
     individual--
       ``(i) the amount of $100 in the case of an infraction or a 
     class C misdemeanor;
       ``(ii) the amount of $200 in the case of a class B 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(iii) the amount of $500 in the case of a class A 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(2) in the case of a felony--
       ``(A) the amount of $200 if the defendant is an individual; 
     and
       ``(B) the amount of $1,000 if the defendant is a person 
     other than an individual.''.

     SEC. 104. ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     separate account known as the Department of Justice Enhanced 
     Financial Recovery Fund (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Fund'').
       (b) Deposits.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, 
     United States Code, or any other law regarding the crediting 
     of collections, there shall be credited as an offsetting 
     collection to the Fund an amount equal to--
       (1) 2 percent of any amount collected pursuant to civil 
     debt collection litigation activities of the Department of 
     Justice (in addition to any amount credited under section 
     11013 of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 527 note));
       (2) 5 percent of all amounts collected as restitution due 
     to the United States pursuant to the criminal debt collection 
     litigation activities of the Department of Justice;
       (3) any surcharge collected under section 3612(g) of title 
     18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, or section 
     3011 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act; 
     and
       (4) 50 percent of any special assessment collected under 
     section 3013(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended 
     by this Act.
       (c) Availability.--The amounts credited to the Fund shall 
     remain available until expended.
       (d) Payments From the Fund.--
       (1) Amount.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Attorney General shall use not less than $20,000,000 of 
     the Fund in each fiscal year, to the extent that funds are 
     available, for the civil and criminal debt collection 
     activities of the Department of Justice, including 
     restitution judgments where the beneficiaries are the victims 
     of crime.
       (B) Exceptions.--
       (i) Adjustment of amount.--In each fiscal year following 
     the first fiscal year in which deposits into the Fund are 
     greater than $20,000,000, the amount to be used under 
     paragraph (1) shall be increased by a percentage equal to the 
     change in the Consumer Price Index for the calendar year 
     preceding that fiscal year.
       (ii) Limitation.--In any fiscal year, amounts in the Fund 
     shall be available to the extent that the amount appropriated 
     in that fiscal year for the purposes described in 
     subparagraph (A) is not less than an amount equal to the 
     amount appropriated for such activities in fiscal year 2006, 
     adjusted annually in the same proportion as increases 
     reflected in the amount of aggregate level of appropriations 
     for the Executive Office of United States Attorneys and 
     United States Attorneys.
       (2) Use of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Funds used under paragraph (1) shall be 
     used to enhance, supplement, and improve civil and criminal 
     debt collection litigation activities of the Department of 
     Justice, primarily such activities by United States 
     attorneys' offices. A portion of such sums may be used by the 
     Department of Justice to provide legal, investigative, 
     accounting, and training support to the United States 
     attorneys' offices.
       (B) Limitation on use.--Funds used under paragraph (1) may 
     not be used to determine whether a defendant is guilty of an 
     offense or liability to the United States (except 
     incidentally for the provision of assistance necessary or 
     desirable in a case to ensure the preservation of assets or 
     the imposition of a judgment which assists in the enforcement 
     of a judgment or in a proceeding directly related to the 
     failure of a defendant to satisfy the monetary portion of a 
     judgment).
       (e) Other Use of Funds.--After using funds under subsection 
     (d), the Attorney General may use amounts remaining in the 
     Fund for additional civil or criminal debt collection 
     activities, for personnel expenses, for personnel benefit 
     expenses incurred as a result of this Act or the amendments 
     made by this Act, or for other prosecution and litigation 
     expenses. The availability of amounts from the Fund shall 
     have no effect on the implementation of title II or the 
     amendments made by title II.
       (f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``United 
     States''--
       (1) includes--
       (A) the executive departments, the judicial and legislative 
     branches, the military departments, and independent 
     establishments of the United States; and
       (B) corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or 
     agencies of the United States; and
       (2) except as provided in paragraph (1), does not include 
     any contractor of the United States.

[[Page S8700]]

     SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 101 and 
     section 103 shall apply to any offense committed on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, including any offense 
     involving conduct that continued on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Fund and Surcharges.--
       (1) In general.--Section 104 and the amendments made by 
     section 102 shall take effect 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Pending cases.--The amendments made by section 102 
     shall apply to any case pending on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  TITLE II--EQUITABLE RETIREMENT TREATMENT OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES 
                               ATTORNEYS

     SEC. 201. RETIREMENT TREATMENT OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES 
                   ATTORNEYS.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) Assistant united states attorney defined.--Section 8331 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (28), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (29) relating to dynamic assumptions, by 
     striking the period and inserting a semicolon;
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (29) relating to air traffic 
     controllers as paragraph (30);
       (D) in paragraph (30), as so redesignated, by striking the 
     period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(31) `assistant United States attorney' means an 
     assistant United States attorney appointed under section 542 
     of title 28.''.
       (2) Retirement treatment.--Chapter 83 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding after section 8351 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 8352. Assistant United States attorneys

       ``Except as provided under the Enhanced Financial Recovery 
     and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007 (including the 
     provisions relating to the non-applicability of mandatory 
     separation requirements under section 8335(b) and 8425(b) of 
     this title), an assistant United States attorney shall be 
     treated in the same manner and to the same extent as a law 
     enforcement officer for purposes of this chapter.''.
       (3) Technical and conforming amendments.--
       (A) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     83 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 8351 the following:

``8352. Assistant United States attorneys.''.
       (B) Mandatory separation.--Section 8335(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``8331(29)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``8331(30)(A)''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
       (1) Assistant united states attorney defined.--Section 8401 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (34), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (35), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) `assistant United States attorney' means an 
     assistant United States attorney appointed under section 542 
     of title 28.''.
       (2) Retirement treatment.--Section 8402 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Except as provided under the Enhanced Financial 
     Recovery and Equitable Treatment Act of 2006 (including the 
     provisions relating to the non-applicability of mandatory 
     separation requirements under section 8335(b) and 8425(b) of 
     this title), an assistant United States attorney shall be 
     treated in the same manner and to the same extent as a law 
     enforcement officer for purposes of this chapter.''.
       (c) Mandatory Separation.--Sections 8335(b)(1) and 
     8425(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, are each amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection shall 
     not apply in the case of an assistant United States 
     attorney.''.

     SEC. 202. PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCUMBENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``assistant United States attorney'' means an 
     assistant United States attorney appointed under section 542 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (2) the term ``incumbent'' means an individual who is 
     serving as an assistant United States attorney on the 
     effective date of this section.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Department of Justice 
     shall take measures reasonably designed to provide notice to 
     incumbents on--
       (1) their election rights under this title; and
       (2) the effects of making or not making a timely election 
     under this title.
       (c) Election Available to Incumbents.--
       (1) In general.--An incumbent may elect, for all purposes, 
     to be treated--
       (A) in accordance with the amendments made by this title; 
     or
       (B) as if this title had never been enacted.
       (2) Failure to elect.--Failure to make a timely election 
     under this subsection shall be treated in the same way as an 
     election under paragraph (1)(A), made on the last day 
     allowable under paragraph (3).
       (3) Time limitation.--An election under this subsection 
     shall not be effective unless the election is made not later 
     than the earlier of--
       (A) 120 days after the date on which the notice under 
     subsection (b) is provided; or
       (B) the date on which the incumbent involved separates from 
     service.
       (d) Limited Retroactive Effect.--
       (1) Effect on retirement.--In the case of an incumbent who 
     elects (or is deemed to have elected) the option under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A), all service performed by that 
     individual as an assistant United States attorney (and, with 
     respect to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, any service 
     performed by such individual pursuant to an appointment under 
     sections 515, 541, 543, and 546 of title 28, United States 
     Code) shall--
       (A) to the extent performed on or after the effective date 
     of that election, be treated in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by this title; and
       (B) to the extent performed before the effective date of 
     that election, be treated in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, as if the amendments made by 
     this title had then been in effect.
       (2) No other retroactive effect.--Nothing in this title 
     (including the amendments made by this title) shall affect 
     any of the terms or conditions of an individual's employment 
     (apart from those governed by subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code) with respect to 
     any period of service preceding the date on which such 
     individual's election under subsection (c) is made (or is 
     deemed to have been made).
       (e) Individual Contributions for Prior Service.--
       (1) In general.--An individual who makes an election under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A) shall, with respect to prior service 
     performed by such individual, deposit, with interest, to the 
     Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund the difference 
     between the individual contributions that were actually made 
     for such service and the individual contributions that would 
     have been made for such service if the amendments made by 
     section 202 of this title had then been in effect.
       (2) Effect of not contributing.--If the deposit required 
     under paragraph (1) is not paid, all prior service of the 
     incumbent shall remain fully creditable as law enforcement 
     officer service, but the resulting annuity shall be reduced 
     in a manner similar to that described in section 
     8334(d)(2)(B) of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Prior service defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``prior service'' means, with respect to any individual who 
     makes an election (or is deemed to have made an election) 
     under subsection (c)(1)(A), all service performed as an 
     assistant United States attorney, but not exceeding 20 years, 
     performed by such individual before the date as of which 
     applicable retirement deductions begin to be made in 
     accordance with such election.
       (f) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this title, 
     including provisions under which any interest due on the 
     amount described under subsection (e) shall be determined.

     SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 201 shall 
     take effect on the first day of the first applicable pay 
     period beginning on or after 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Incumbents.--Section 202 of this title shall take 
     effect 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Snowe, 
        and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1730. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security 
Act, to reward States for engaging individuals with disabilities in 
work activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Pathways to 
Independence Act of 2007, along with Senators Conrad, Stabenow, Snowe, 
and Collins. This legislation includes two important provisions that 
will help States transition Temporary Assistance for Needy Fami1ies, 
TANF, recipients who have disabilities into work.
  States currently face a conflict between the new Federal TANF 
requirements, as reauthorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006, 
DRA, and the nondiscrimination requirements of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. In order to comply with the ADA, States must make 
modifications to the work requirements they impose on TANF recipients 
with disabilities to ensure that they can participate in the program 
and move toward gainful employment. However, under new Federal TANF 
rules, States only get credit when recipients participate in a narrow 
set of activities for a specific number of hours each week, with 
limited flexibility for people with disabilities.
  Our legislation would allow States to create modified employability 
plans for people with disabilities and get credit toward the TANF 
participation rate if

[[Page S8701]]

recipients comply with the requirements in those plans. This would 
encourage States to engage people with disabilities in appropriate 
employment-focused activities without fear of facing Federal penalties 
for not meeting their TANF work rates. The bill also would allow states 
To exclude people with pending SSI applications and severe temporary 
disabilities from the work rates.
  This legislation allows states to receive full credit when a modified 
employability plan is developed for a family that includes a person 
with a disability. The bill requires States that receive credit for 
families on their caseload with modified employability plans to submit 
annual reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, on 
the types of modifications made and disabled populations served. It 
also requires HHS to compile this information and send an annual report 
to Congress.
  This approach is appealing to States for many reasons. It allows 
States to design a system and receive credit for moving a person 
progressively over time from rehabilitation toward work. It also 
creates a more realistic work structure for individuals with 
disabilities and/or addictions who otherwise may fall out of the system 
either through sanction or discouragement, despite their need for 
financial assistance.
  In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 
44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or 
mental impairment. This is almost three times higher than the rate 
among the non-TANF population in the United States. In 8 percent of 
TANF families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; 
among non-TANF families, this figure is 1 percent. The GAO's work 
confirmed the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban 
Institute and the HHS Inspector General.
  These figures mean that we need to make sure that the TANF program 
gives States the ability and incentives to serve families in their TANF 
programs and help them to move from welfare to work. This is the lesson 
that Oregon and many other States already have learned when they 
developed and refined their TANF programs.
  Most individuals with disabilities who receive TANF are able to 
engage in work activities and move toward employment, and many will 
either need no modifications to standard work activities or only minor 
modifications. Those with more serious conditions may need more 
intensive services and more significant adjustment to the basic work 
requirements. Under the bill, a qualified professional must make a 
determination that an individual has a disability and the state must 
document the types of modifications, if any, that the individual needs 
to succeed in moving toward employment.
  Our bill proposes the creation of a more appropriate path for those 
who have disabling conditions, both short- and long-term, recognizing 
the barriers many of these families face both financially and 
emotionally. The current strategy of rapid employment for all TANF 
recipients is not always feasible. This bill will help families with 
disabilities achieve and maintain stability during the transition from 
welfare to becoming more financially secure and independent of 
Government assistance.
  Over 20 individual States, including Oregon, and the National 
Governors Association, representing all 50 States and five territories 
have identified problems with how the current rules affect their 
ability to serve individuals with disabilities appropriately and meet 
the TANF work requirements. They have asked for modifications to the 
new TANF requirements like the ones proposed in our bill.
  I look forward to working with my cosponsors, Senators Conrad, 
Stabenow, Snowe, and Collins on these important provisions, and I urge 
my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       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 ``Pathways to Independence Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF MODIFIED EMPLOYABILITY PLAN FOR 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(c)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Individuals with disabilities complying with a 
     modified employability plan deemed to be meeting work 
     participation requirements.--
       ``(i) Modified employability plan.--A State may develop a 
     modified employability plan for an adult or minor child head 
     of household recipient of assistance who has been determined 
     by a qualified medical, mental health, addiction, or social 
     services professional (as determined by the State) to have a 
     disability, or who is caring for a family member with a 
     disability (as so determined). The modified employability 
     plan shall--

       ``(I) include a determination that, because of the 
     disability of the recipient or the individual for whom the 
     recipient is caring, reasonable modification of work 
     activities, hourly participation requirements, or both, is 
     needed in order for the recipient to participate in work 
     activities;
       ``(II) set forth the modified work activities in which the 
     recipient is required to participate;
       ``(III) set forth the number of hours per week for which 
     the recipient is required to participate in such modified 
     work activities based on the State's evaluation of the 
     family's circumstances;
       ``(IV) set forth the services, supports, and modifications 
     that the State will provide to the recipient or the 
     recipient's family;
       ``(V) be developed in cooperation with the recipient; and
       ``(VI) be reviewed not less than every 6 months.

       ``(ii) Inclusion in monthly participation rates.--For the 
     purpose of determining monthly participation rates under 
     subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), and notwithstanding paragraphs (1), 
     (2)(A), (2)(B), (2)(C), and (2)(D) of this subsection and 
     subsection (d) of this section, a recipient is deemed to be 
     engaged in work for a month in a fiscal year if--

       ``(I) the State has determined that the recipient is in 
     substantial compliance with activities and hourly 
     participation requirements set forth in a modified 
     employability plan that meets the requirements set forth in 
     clause (i); and
       ``(II) the State complies with the reporting requirement 
     set forth in clause (iii) for the fiscal year in which the 
     month occurs.

       ``(iii) Reports.--

       ``(I) Report by state.--With respect to any fiscal year for 
     which a State counts a recipient as engaged in work pursuant 
     to a modified employability plan, the State shall submit a 
     report entitled `Annual State Report on TANF Recipients 
     Participating in Work Activities Pursuant to Modified 
     Employability Plans Due to Disability' to the Secretary not 
     later than March 31 of the succeeding fiscal year. The report 
     shall provide the following information:

       ``(aa) The aggregate number of recipients with modified 
     employability plans due to a disability.
       ``(bb) The percentage of all recipients with modified 
     employability plans who substantially complied with 
     activities set forth in the plans each month of the fiscal 
     year.
       ``(cc) Information regarding the most prevalent types of 
     physical and mental impairments that provided the basis for 
     the disability determinations.
       ``(dd) The percentage of cases with a modified 
     employability plan in which the recipient had a disability, 
     was caring for a child with a disability, or was caring for 
     another family member with a disability.
       ``(ee) A description of the most prevalent types of 
     modification in work activities or hours of participation 
     that were included in the modified employability plans.
       ``(ff) A description of the qualifications of the staff who 
     determined whether individuals had a disability, of the staff 
     who determined that individuals needed modifications to their 
     work requirements, and of the staff who developed the 
     modified employability plans.

       ``(II) Report by secretary.--The Secretary shall submit an 
     annual report to Congress entitled `Efforts in State TANF 
     Programs to Promote and Support Employment for Individuals 
     with Disabilities' not later than July 31 of each fiscal year 
     that includes information on State efforts to engage 
     individuals with disabilities in work activities for the 
     preceding fiscal year. The report shall include the 
     following:

       ``(aa) The number of individuals for whom each State has 
     developed a modified employability plan.
       ``(bb) The types of physical and mental impairments that 
     provided the basis for the disability determination, and 
     whether the individual with the disability was an adult 
     recipient or minor child head of household, a child, or a 
     non-recipient family member.
       ``(cc) The types of modifications that States have included 
     in modified employability plans.
       ``(dd) The extent to which individuals with a modified 
     employability plan are participating in work activities.
       ``(ee) An analysis of the extent to which the option to 
     establish such modified employability plans was a factor in 
     States' achieving or not achieving the minimum participation 
     rates under subsection (a) for the fiscal year.
       ``(iv) Definitions.--

[[Page S8702]]

       ``(I) Disability.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
     term `disability' means a mental or physical impairment, 
     including substance abuse or addiction, that--

       ``(aa) constitutes or results in a substantial impediment 
     to employment; or
       ``(bb) substantially limits 1 or more major life 
     activities.

       ``(II) Modified work activities.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `modified work activities' means 
     activities the State has determined will help the recipient 
     become employable and which are not subject to and do not 
     count against the limitations and requirements under the 
     preceding provisions of this subsection and of subsection 
     (d).''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2007.

     SEC. 3. STATE OPTION TO EXCLUDE SSI APPLICANTS IN WORK 
                   PARTICIPATION RATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(b)(5) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(5)) is amended by striking ``at its 
     option, not require an individual'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``at its option--
       ``(A) not require an individual who is a single custodial 
     parent caring for a child who has not attained 12 months of 
     age to engage in work, and may disregard such an individual 
     in determining the participation rates under subsection (a) 
     of this section for not more than 12 months;
       ``(B) disregard for purposes of determining such rates for 
     any month, on a case-by-case basis, an individual who is an 
     applicant for or a recipient of supplemental security income 
     benefits under title XVI or of social security disability 
     insurance benefits under title II, if--
       ``(i) the State has determined that an application for such 
     benefits has been filed by or on behalf of the individual;
       ``(ii) the State has determined that there is a reasonable 
     basis to conclude that the individual meets the disability or 
     blindness criteria applied under title II or XVI;
       ``(iii) there has been no final decision (including a 
     decision for which no appeal is pending at the administrative 
     or judicial level or for which the time period for filing 
     such an appeal has expired) denying benefits; and
       ``(iv) not less than every 6 months, the State reviews the 
     status of such application and determines that there is a 
     reasonable basis to conclude that the individual continues to 
     meet the disability or blindness criteria under title II or 
     XVI; and
       ``(C) disregard for purposes of determining such rates for 
     any month, on a case-by-case basis, an individual who the 
     State has determined would meet the disability criteria for 
     supplemental security income benefits under title XVI or 
     social security disability insurance benefits under title II 
     but for the requirement that the disability has lasted or is 
     expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 
     months.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2007.
                                  ____



                                        Mental Health America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 28, 2007.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith, Conrad, Stabenow, Snowe, and Collins: 
     I am writing to commend you for introducing the ``Pathways to 
     Independence Act of 2007''. This legislation will enable 
     States to engage individuals with mental health and substance 
     use conditions in programs to help them successfully move 
     from welfare to work.
       Mental Health America is dedicated to helping all people 
     live mentally healthier lives. Our network of over 320 State 
     and local affiliates nationwide includes advocates, consumers 
     of mental health services, family members of consumers, 
     providers of mental health care, and other concerned 
     citizens--all dedicated to improving mental health care and 
     promoting mental wellness.
       A large percentage of individuals who need and rely on the 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program have 
     significant mental health conditions and substance use 
     disorders. Studies indicate that one-fourth to one-third of 
     TANF recipients has serious mental health conditions, and 
     some studies show that up to one-fifth of TANF recipients 
     have substance use disorders. Moreover, more than one-fifth 
     have learning disabilities and more than one-fifth have 
     physical impairments. As you know, these rates are well above 
     those for the general population and indicate a pressing need 
     for access to care.
       We are very concerned about changes made to the TANF 
     program in reauthorizing legislation included in the Deficit 
     Reduction Act (DRA). Individuals with mental health 
     conditions, substance use disorders, or other disabling 
     conditions will need assistance meeting the work requirements 
     of the TANF program that were significantly tightened by the 
     DRA. However, the regulations issued by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services implementing the new DRA 
     requirements provide such narrow definitions of the types of 
     activities that can count toward a state's work participation 
     rate (which determines Federal funding), we fear States will 
     be discouraged from providing the services these individuals 
     need in order to be engaged in the program and able to work. 
     We are particularly alarmed that States are only allowed to 
     count individuals receiving mental health or substance abuse 
     treatment or rehabilitation activities as job readiness 
     activities for 4 consecutive weeks and 6 weeks total per year 
     before requiring that these individuals be engaged in full-
     time employment.
       States are required under the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 
     (Rehab Act) to make modifications to Federal programs, 
     including TANF, to enable individuals with disabilities to 
     participate. However, if States provide ADA-required 
     modifications to the work requirements for individuals with 
     disabilities, including those with serious mental health 
     conditions, they may not meet their work participation rates 
     even if these TANF recipients are actively engaged in 
     activities designed to help them secure full-time jobs.
       Your bill would give States the flexibility they need in 
     order to fully engage individuals with serious mental health 
     conditions or substance use disorders in activities designed 
     to move them successfully into employment. Specifically, your 
     bill would allow States to develop ``modified employability 
     plans'' for TANF recipients who are determined by qualified 
     medical, mental health, or social services professionals 
     either to have a disability or to be caring for a family 
     member with a disability. These provisions would also enable 
     States to meet the ADA and Rehab Act requirements to provide 
     reasonable accommodations to these families without losing 
     Federal TANF funds.
       We greatly appreciate your on-going leadership in working 
     to ensure that individuals with mental health conditions, 
     substance use disorders, and other disabling conditions are 
     able to fully participate in and benefit from the TANF 
     program. We look forward to working with you toward swift 
     enactment of the ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2007''.
           Sincerely,
                                                      David Shern,
                                                  President & CEO.
                                      Consortium for Citizens with


                                                 Disabilities,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2007.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith, Conrad, Stabenow, Snowe, and Collins: 
     We are writing to thank you for introducing legislation that 
     will allow States to more effectively serve families that 
     include a person with a disability in the Temporary 
     Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. We believe this 
     legislation, if enacted, will significantly improve the 
     ability of States to help families successfully move from 
     welfare toward work while also ensuring that the needs of 
     family members with disabilities are met. The undersigned 
     organizations enthusiastically support this legislation.
       The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a 
     coalition of national consumer, advocacy, provider and 
     professional organizations headquartered in Washington, DC. 
     We work together to advocate for national public policy that 
     ensures the self determination, independence, empowerment, 
     integration, and inclusion of children and adults with 
     disabilities in all aspects of society. The CCD TANF Task 
     Force seeks to ensure that families that include persons with 
     disabilities are afforded equal opportunities and appropriate 
     accommodations under the TANF block grant.
       Congress explicitly stated in the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that, in implementing 
     TANF, States are to comply with the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitative 
     Services Act of 1973. The expectation, therefore, is that 
     States will provide individualized treatment and an effective 
     and meaningful opportunity to fully participate in the 
     program. To achieve this, States must provide appropriate 
     services, modify as necessary policies, practices, and 
     procedures, and adopt non-discriminatory methods of 
     administering the program. This expectation is also conveyed 
     in guidance to the States issued by the Office of Civil 
     Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services.
       Under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), Congress 
     reauthorized the TANF block grant program. The legislation 
     retained States' obligation to comply fully with the ADA and 
     Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
     while hindering States' ability to fully engage families that 
     include a person with a disability. The DRA effectively 
     increases the work participation rate for the TANF program 
     and imposes penalties on States that fail to meet the 
     participation rates. It does not allow States to receive 
     credit toward the work participation rate for families whose 
     employability plan has been modified to accommodate a person 
     with a disability. It fails to ensure that States receive 
     adequate credit for providing rehabilitative services to 
     parents with disabilities to help them prepare for a 
     successful transition to work. In short, existing policies do 
     not provide States with credit for offering appropriate 
     accommodation and services to families that include a person 
     with a disability. Instead it increases the likelihood States 
     offering such accommodations and services that ``do not 
     count'' will face financial penalties.

[[Page S8703]]

       HHS received comments from TANF administrators across the 
     country who argued that the TANF provisions adopted under the 
     DRA and reflected in HHS interim regulations severely impedes 
     their ability to appropriately serve families that include a 
     person with a disability. In a letter to Secretary Leavitt in 
     response to the interim proposed regulations, the National 
     Governor's Association stated that:
       Governors continue to believe that States should have 
     maximum flexibility in receiving credit for key 
     rehabilitative and supportive services such as substance 
     abuse, behavioral/mental health and domestic violence 
     treatments in one or more work activity. These services are 
     an imperative part of moving recipients, with barriers, to 
     work and retaining employment. States need credit for these 
     services in work activities that are fully countable for all 
     hours of participation without time limit.
       We believe your legislation provides appropriate 
     flexibility for families who require accommodation due to a 
     disability. Under this bill, States will receive credit, not 
     face penalties, for investing in the supports necessary to 
     help individuals with disabilities succeed in the labor 
     market and achieve a higher degree of self-reliance. The 
     flexibility provided in this bill can improve the overall 
     performance of the TANF program by helping families at 
     greatest risk move toward employment. To date, studies have 
     demonstrated that a disproportionate number of families who 
     exit the program without employment or other sources of 
     financial assistance include a person with a disability. 
     States can and must serve these families better and Congress 
     should provide them with the tools to do so by supporting 
     this legislation.
       Thank you again for introducing this legislation and your 
     leadership on this very important issue. We are grateful for 
     your leadership on behalf of families that include an adult 
     or child with a disability. We look forward to working with 
     you and your staffs to ensure that this provision becomes 
     law.
           Sincerely,
       American Dance Therapy Association.
       American Music Therapy Association.
       American Association on Intellectual & Developmental 
     Disabilities.
       American Psychological Association.
       Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD).
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       Easter Seals, Inc.
       Epilepsy Foundation.
       Goodwill Industries International, Inc.
       Learning Disabilities Association of America.
       Mental Health America.
       National Alliance on Mental Illness.
       National Alliance to End Homelessness.
       National Association of Councils on Developmental 
     Disabilities.
       National Association of County Behavioral Health and 
     Developmental Disability Directors.
       National Association of State Directors of Special 
     Education.
       National Association of State Head Injury Administrators.
       National Association of State Mental Health Program 
     Directors.
       National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare.
       National Disability Rights Network.
       The Arc of the United States.
       United Cerebral Palsy.
       United Spinal Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 1731. A bill to provide for the continuing review of unauthorized 
Federal programs and agencies and to establish a bipartisan commission 
for the purposes of improving oversight and eliminating wasteful 
Government spending; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the United States 
Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. I am very pleased to 
be joined by my colleagues and good friends, Senator George Voinovich 
and Senator Saxby Chambliss, who share my commitment that every dime 
sent by taxpayers to Washington, DC, is spent wisely.
  The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007 
creates an eight member bipartisan Commission, made up of four Senators 
and four Representatives. The Commission will look at the effectiveness 
and efficiency of all Federal programs, but will especially focus on 
unauthorized and ineffective programs. The bill is modeled after the 
sunset process that the State of Texas instituted in 1977 to identify 
and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government 
agencies. This process has led to the elimination of dozens of agencies 
that have outlived their usefulness and has saved Texas taxpayers 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  The job of the Commission is to ask the fundamental question: ``Is an 
agency or program still needed?''
  The Commission has two major responsibilities. First, the Commission 
must submit a legislative proposal to Congress at least once every 10 
years that includes a review schedule of at least 25 percent of 
unauthorized Federal programs and at least 25 percent of ineffective 
Federal programs or where effectiveness cannot be shown by the Office 
of Management and Budget's, OMB, Performance Assessment Rating Tool, 
PART. The Commission's schedule will abolish each program if Congress 
fails to either reauthorize the program or consider the Commission's 
recommendations within 2 years.
  Second, the Commission must conduct a review of each program 
identified in its review schedule and send its recommendations for 
congressional review. Congress will then have 2 years to consider and 
pass the Commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program 
before it is abolished.
  Congress has two bites of the apple when it comes to evaluating 
Federal spending. First, when it authorizes a program and second when 
it appropriates the money for it. Yet a study by the Congressional 
Budget Office found that Congress spent just under $160 billion in 2006 
on agencies and programs despite the fact that their authorization had 
expired. The list included hundreds of accounts, big and small, ranging 
from the Coast Guard, $8 billion, to the Administration on Aging, $1.5 
billion, to section 8 tenant-based housing, $15.6 billion, to foreign 
relations programs, $9.5 billion. Many of these expired programs and 
agencies, perhaps most, deserve reauthorization. Nonetheless, Congress 
should aggressively determine whether these programs and agencies are 
working as intended and the Commission will help serve this purpose.
  In addition, the Commission will use OMB's PART, which is a tool to 
assess and improve program performance. PART looks at all factors that 
affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and 
design, performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning, 
program management, and program results. Using PART, OMB has scored 793 
Government programs and found that 4 percent are ineffective and the 
results for 24 percent could not be shown. Programs rated as 
``ineffective'' or ``results not demonstrated'' account for $152 
billion in budget authority.
  The Commission's work will be guided by 10 criteria, including the 
program's effectiveness and efficiency, achievement of performance 
goals, and whether the program has fulfilled its legislative intent.
  Unfortunately Congress has a tendency to create commissions and then 
ignore their work and continue on with business as usual. This bill 
solves this problem. It requires Congress to consider, debate, and vote 
on the Commission's report under expedited procedures.
  The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007 is 
an important step to getting our fiscal house in order and to making 
sure that Congress gets back to the hard work of oversight to determine 
if programs actually fulfill their stated purpose or yield some 
unintended or counterproductive results. Periodic assessments are 
essential to good Government and this is what the Commission will 
provide to Congress and to taxpayers across the country. For this 
reason, I ask that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring the United 
States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2007.
  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 printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1731

       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 ``United States Authorization 
     and Sunset Commission Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency as 
     defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``Commission'' means the United States 
     Authorization and Sunset Commission established under section 
     3; and
       (3) the term ``Commission Schedule and Review bill'' means 
     the proposed legislation submitted to Congress under section 
     4(b).

[[Page S8704]]

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the United States 
     Authorization and Sunset Commission.
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 8 
     members (in this Act referred to as the ``members''), as 
     follows:
       (1) Four members appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate, 1 of whom may include the majority leader of the 
     Senate, with minority members appointed with the consent of 
     the minority leader of the Senate.
       (2) Four members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, 1 of whom may include the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, with minority members appointed 
     with the consent of the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     Comptroller of the Government Accountability Office shall be 
     non-voting ex officio members of the Commission.
       (c) Qualifications of Members.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Senate members.--Of the members appointed under 
     subsection (b)(1), 4 shall be members of the Senate (not more 
     than 2 of whom may be of the same political party).
       (B) House of representative members.--Of the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(2), 4 shall be members of the 
     House of Representatives, not more than 2 of whom may be of 
     the same political party.
       (2) Continuation of membership.--
       (A) In general.--If a member was appointed to the 
     Commission as a Member of Congress and the member ceases to 
     be a Member of Congress, that member shall cease to be a 
     member of the Commission.
       (B) Actions of commission unaffected.--Any action of the 
     Commission shall not be affected as a result of a member 
     becoming ineligible under subparagraph (A).
       (d) Initial Appointments.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, all initial appointments to 
     the Commission shall be made.
       (e) Chairperson; Vice Chairperson.--
       (1) Initial chairperson.--An individual shall be designated 
     by the Speaker of the House of Representatives from among the 
     members initially appointed under subsection (b)(2) to serve 
     as chairperson of the Commission for a period of 2 years.
       (2) Initial vice chairperson.--An individual shall be 
     designated by the majority leader of the Senate from among 
     the individuals initially appointed under subsection (b)(1) 
     to serve as vice-chairperson of the Commission for a period 
     of 2 years.
       (3) Alternate appointments of chairmen and vice chairmen.--
     Following the termination of the 2-year period described 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Speaker and the majority 
     leader of the Senate shall alternate every 2 years in 
     appointing the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the 
     Commission.
       (f) Terms of Members.--
       (1) Members of congress.--Each member appointed to the 
     Commission shall serve for a term of 6 years, except that, of 
     the members first appointed under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (b), 2 members shall be appointed to serve a term 
     of 3 years.
       (2) Term limit.--A member of the Commission who serves more 
     than 3 years of a term may not be appointed to another term 
     as a member.
       (g) Initial Meeting.--If, after 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, 5 or more members of the Commission 
     have been appointed--
       (1) members who have been appointed may--
       (A) meet; and
       (B) select a chairperson from among the members (if a 
     chairperson has not been appointed) who may serve as 
     chairperson until the appointment of a chairperson; and
       (2) the chairperson shall have the authority to begin the 
     operations of the Commission, including the hiring of staff.
       (h) Meeting; Vacancies.--After its initial meeting, the 
     Commission shall meet upon the call of the chairperson or a 
     majority of its members. Any vacancy in the Commission shall 
     not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner 
     in which the original appointment was made.
       (i) Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Hearings, testimony, and evidence.--The Commission may, 
     for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act--
       (i) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, 
     administer such oaths; and
       (ii) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, 
     that the Commission or such designated subcommittee or 
     designated member may determine advisable.
       (B) Subpoenas.--Subpoenas issued under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     may be issued to require attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of evidence relating to any 
     matter under investigation by the Commission.
       (C) Enforcement.--The provisions of sections 102 through 
     104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 
     192 through 194) shall apply in the case of any failure of 
     any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when 
     summoned under authority of this paragraph.
       (2) Contracting.--The Commission may contract with and 
     compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     services without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
     Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) to enable the Commission to discharge 
     its duties under this Act.
       (3) Information from federal agencies.--The Commission is 
     authorized to secure directly from any executive department, 
     bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent 
     establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, 
     information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the 
     purposes of this section. Each such department, bureau, 
     agency, board, commission, office, establishment, or 
     instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, 
     furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and 
     statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by 
     the chairperson.
       (4) Support services.--
       (A) Government accountability office.--The Government 
     Accountability Office is authorized on a nonreimbursable 
     basis to provide the Commission with administrative services, 
     funds, facilities, staff, and other support services for the 
     performance of the functions of the Commission.
       (B) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     nonreimbursable basis such administrative support services as 
     the Commission may request.
       (C) Agencies.--In addition to the assistance under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), departments and agencies of the 
     United States are authorized to provide to the Commission 
     such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support 
     services as the Commission may determine advisable as may be 
     authorized by law.
       (5) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.
       (6) Immunity.--The Commission is an agency of the United 
     States for purposes of part V of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to immunity of witnesses).
       (7) Director and staff of the commission.--
       (A) Director.--The chairperson of the Commission may 
     appoint a staff director and such other personnel as may be 
     necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its 
     functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no 
     rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the 
     equivalent of that payable to a person occupying a position 
     at level II of the Executive Schedule. Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement from the Commission, and such detailee shall 
     retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her 
     regular employment without interruption.
       (B) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (i) In general.--The executive director and any personnel 
     of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 89A, 89B, and 90 of that 
     title.
       (ii) Members of commission.--Clause (i) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Commission.
       (C) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     With the approval of the majority of the Commission, the 
     chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (8) Compensation and travel expenses.--
       (A) Compensation.--Members shall not be paid by reason of 
     their service as members.
       (B) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as necessary for the purposes of 
     carrying out the duties of the Commission.
       (k) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on 
     December 31, 2037.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 
                   AUTHORIZATION AND SUNSET COMMISSION.

       (a) Schedule and Review.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and at least once every 10 years 
     thereafter, the Commission shall submit to Congress a 
     legislative proposal that includes the schedule of review and 
     abolishment of agencies and programs (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Commission Schedule and Review bill'').
       (2) Schedule.--The schedule of the Commission shall provide 
     a timeline for the Commission's review and proposed 
     abolishment of--
       (A) at least 25 percent of unauthorized agencies or 
     programs as measured in dollars, including those identified 
     by the Congressional Budget Office under section 602(e)(3) of 
     title 2, United States Code; and
       (B) if applicable, at least 25 percent of the programs as 
     measured in dollars identified by the Office of Management 
     and Budget through its Program Assessment Rating

[[Page S8705]]

     Tool program or other similar review program established by 
     the Office of Management and Budget as ineffective or results 
     not demonstrated.
       (3) Review of agencies.--In determining the schedule for 
     review and abolishment of agencies under paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall provide that any agency that performs 
     similar or related functions be reviewed concurrently.
       (4) Criteria and review.--The Commission shall review each 
     agency and program identified under paragraph (1) in 
     accordance with the following criteria as applicable:
       (A) The effectiveness and the efficiency of the program or 
     agency.
       (B) The achievement of performance goals (as defined under 
     section 1115(g)(4) of title 31, United States Code).
       (C) The management of the financial and personnel issues of 
     the program or agency.
       (D) Whether the program or agency has fulfilled the 
     legislative intent surrounding its creation, taking into 
     account any change in legislative intent during the existence 
     of the program or agency.
       (E) Ways the agency or program could be less burdensome but 
     still efficient in protecting the public.
       (F) Whether reorganization, consolidation, abolishment, 
     expansion, or transfer of agencies or programs would better 
     enable the Federal Government to accomplish its missions and 
     goals.
       (G) The promptness and effectiveness of an agency in 
     handling complaints and requests made under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     Freedom of Information Act).
       (H) The extent that the agency encourages and uses public 
     participation when making rules and decisions.
       (I) The record of the agency in complying with requirements 
     for equal employment opportunity, the rights and privacy of 
     individuals, and purchasing products from historically 
     underutilized businesses.
       (J) The extent to which the program or agency duplicates or 
     conflicts with other Federal agencies, State or local 
     government, or the private sector and if consolidation or 
     streamlining into a single agency or program is feasible.
       (b) Schedule and Abolishment of Agencies and Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and at least once every 10 years 
     thereafter, the Commission shall submit to the Congress a 
     Commission Schedule and Review bill that--
       (A) includes a schedule for review of agencies and 
     programs; and
       (B) abolishes any agency or program 2 years after the date 
     the Commission completes its review of the agency or program, 
     unless the agency or program is reauthorized by Congress.
       (2) Expedited congressional consideration procedures.--In 
     reviewing the Commission Schedule and Review bill, Congress 
     shall follow the expedited procedures under section 6.
       (c) Recommendations and Legislative Proposals.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to 
     Congress and the President--
       (A) a report that reviews and analyzes according to the 
     criteria established under subsection (a)(4) for each agency 
     and program to be reviewed in the year in which the report is 
     submitted under the schedule submitted to Congress under 
     subsection (a)(1);
       (B) a proposal, if appropriate, to reauthorize, reorganize, 
     consolidate, expand, or transfer the Federal programs and 
     agencies to be reviewed in the year in which the report is 
     submitted under the schedule submitted to Congress under 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (C) legislative provisions necessary to implement the 
     Commission's proposal and recommendations.
       (2) Additional reports.--The Commission shall submit to 
     Congress and the President additional reports as prescribed 
     under paragraph (1) on or before June 30 of every other year.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit the power of the Commission to review any 
     Federal program or agency.
       (e) Approval of Reports.--The Commission Schedule and 
     Review bill and all other legislative proposals and reports 
     submitted under this section shall require the approval of 
     not less than 5 members of the Commission.

     SEC. 5. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Introduction and Committee Consideration.--
       (1) Introduction.--If any legislative proposal with 
     provisions is submitted to Congress under section 4(c), a 
     bill with that proposal and provisions shall be introduced in 
     the Senate by the majority leader, and in the House of 
     Representatives, by the Speaker. Upon introduction, the bill 
     shall be referred to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     under paragraph (2). If the bill is not introduced in 
     accordance with the preceding sentence, then any Member of 
     Congress may introduce that bill in their respective House of 
     Congress beginning on the date that is the 5th calendar day 
     that such House is in session following the date of the 
     submission of such proposal with provisions.
       (2) Committee consideration.--
       (A) Referral.--A bill introduced under paragraph (1) shall 
     be referred to any appropriate committee of jurisdiction in 
     the Senate, any appropriate committee of jurisdiction in the 
     House of Representatives, the Committee on the Budget and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate, and the Committee on the Budget and the Committee 
     on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) Reporting.--Not later than 30 calendar days after the 
     introduction of the bill, each committee of Congress to which 
     the bill was referred shall report the bill or a committee 
     amendment thereto.
       (C) Discharge of committee.--If a committee to which is 
     referred a bill has not reported such bill at the end of 30 
     calendar days after its introduction or at the end of the 
     first day after there has been reported to the House involved 
     a bill, whichever is earlier, such committee shall be deemed 
     to be discharged from further consideration of such bill, and 
     such bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the 
     House involved.
       (b) Expedited Procedure.--
       (1) Consideration.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 5 calendar days after the 
     date on which a committee has been discharged from 
     consideration of a bill, the majority leader of the Senate, 
     or the majority leader's designee, or the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, or the Speaker's designee, shall 
     move to proceed to the consideration of the committee 
     amendment to the bill, and if there is no such amendment, to 
     the bill. It shall also be in order for any member of the 
     Senate or the House of Representatives, respectively, to move 
     to proceed to the consideration of the bill at any time after 
     the conclusion of such 5-day period.
       (B) Motion to proceed.--A motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of a bill is highly privileged in the House of 
     Representatives and is privileged in the Senate and is not 
     debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment, to a 
     motion to postpone consideration of the bill, or to a motion 
     to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed is 
     agreed to or not agreed to shall not be in order. If the 
     motion to proceed is agreed to, the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, as the case may be, shall immediately 
     proceed to consideration of the bill without intervening 
     motion, order, or other business, and the bill shall remain 
     the unfinished business of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, as the case may be, until disposed of.
       (C) Limited debate.--Debate on the bill and all amendments 
     thereto and on all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith shall be limited to not more than 50 
     hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring 
     and those opposing the bill. A motion further to limit debate 
     on the bill is in order and is not debatable. All time used 
     for consideration of the bill, including time used for quorum 
     calls (except quorum calls immediately preceding a vote) and 
     voting, shall come from the 50 hours of debate.
       (D) Amendments.--No amendment that is not germane to the 
     provisions of the bill shall be in order in the Senate. In 
     the Senate, an amendment, any amendment to an amendment, or 
     any debatable motion or appeal is debatable for not to exceed 
     1 hour to be divided equally between those favoring and those 
     opposing the amendment, motion, or appeal.
       (E) Vote on final passage.--Immediately following the 
     conclusion of the debate on the bill, and the disposition of 
     any pending amendments under subparagraph (D), the vote on 
     final passage of the bill shall occur.
       (F) Other motions not in order.--A motion to postpone 
     consideration of the bill, a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 
     bill is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by 
     which the bill is agreed to or not agreed to is not in order.
       (2) Consideration by other house.--If, before the passage 
     by one House of the bill that was introduced in such House, 
     such House receives from the other House a bill as passed by 
     such other House--
       (A) the bill of the other House shall not be referred to a 
     committee and may only be considered for final passage in the 
     House that receives it under subparagraph (C);
       (B) the procedure in the House in receipt of the bill of 
     the other House, with respect to the bill that was introduced 
     in the House in receipt of the bill of the other House, shall 
     be the same as if no bill had been received from the other 
     House; and
       (C) notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the vote on final 
     passage shall be on the bill of the other House.

     Upon disposition of a bill that is received by one House from 
     the other House, it shall no longer be in order to consider 
     the bill that was introduced in the receiving House.
       (3) Consideration in conference.--
       (A) Convening of conference.--Immediately upon final 
     passage of a bill that results in a disagreement between the 
     2 Houses of Congress with respect to a bill, conferees shall 
     be appointed and a conference convened.
       (B) Action on conference reports in the senate.--
       (i) Motion to proceed.--The motion to proceed to 
     consideration in the Senate of the conference report on a 
     bill may be made even though a previous motion to the same 
     effect has been disagreed to.
       (ii) Debate.--Consideration in the Senate of the conference 
     report (including a message between Houses) on a bill, and 
     all

[[Page S8706]]

     amendments in disagreement, including all amendments thereto, 
     and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, 
     shall be limited to 20 hours, equally divided and controlled 
     by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
     designees. Debate on any debatable motion or appeal related 
     to the conference report (or a message between Houses) shall 
     be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the mover and the manager of the conference 
     report (or a message between Houses).
       (iii) Conference report defeated.--Should the conference 
     report be defeated, debate on any request for a new 
     conference and the appointment of conferrees shall be limited 
     to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, 
     the manager of the conference report and the minority leader 
     or the minority leader's designee, and should any motion be 
     made to instruct the conferees before the conferees are 
     named, debate on such motion shall be limited to \1/2\ hour, 
     to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover 
     and the manager of the conference report. Debate on any 
     amendment to any such instructions shall be limited to 20 
     minutes, to be equally divided between and controlled by the 
     mover and the manager of the conference report. In all cases 
     when the manager of the conference report is in favor of any 
     motion, appeal, or amendment, the time in opposition shall be 
     under the control of the minority leader or the minority 
     leader's designee.
       (iv) Amendments in disagreement.--In any case in which 
     there are amendments in disagreement, time on each amendment 
     shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the manager of the conference 
     report and the minority leader or the minority leader's 
     designee. No amendment that is not germane to the provisions 
     of such amendments shall be received.
       (v) Limitation on motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit 
     the conference report is not in order.
       (c) Rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives.--
     This section is enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and is deemed 
     to be part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a bill, and it supersedes other 
     rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent with such 
     rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to 
     the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, 
     and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of 
     that House.

     SEC. 6. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION SCHEDULE AND 
                   REVIEW BILL.

       (a) Introduction and Committee Consideration.--
       (1) Introduction.--The Commission Schedule and Review bill 
     submitted under section 4(b) shall be introduced in the 
     Senate by the majority leader, or the majority leader's 
     designee, and in the House of Representatives, by the 
     Speaker, or the Speaker's designee. Upon such introduction, 
     the Commission Schedule and Review bill shall be referred to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress under paragraph (2). 
     If the Commission Schedule and Review bill is not introduced 
     in accordance with the preceding sentence, then any member of 
     Congress may introduce the Commission Schedule and Review 
     bill in their respective House of Congress beginning on the 
     date that is the 5th calendar day that such House is in 
     session following the date of the submission of such 
     aggregate legislative language provisions.
       (2) Committee consideration.--
       (A) Referral.--A Commission Schedule and Review bill 
     introduced under paragraph (1) shall be referred to any 
     appropriate committee of jurisdiction in the Senate, any 
     appropriate committee of jurisdiction in the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on the Budget and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate and the Committee on the Budget and the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives. A committee to which a Commission Schedule 
     and Review bill is referred under this paragraph may review 
     and comment on such bill, may report such bill to the 
     respective House, and may not amend such bill.
       (B) Reporting.--Not later than 30 calendar days after the 
     introduction of the Commission Schedule and Review bill, each 
     Committee of Congress to which the Commission Schedule and 
     Review bill was referred shall report the bill.
       (C) Discharge of committee.--If a committee to which is 
     referred a Commission Schedule and Review bill has not 
     reported such Commission Schedule and Review bill at the end 
     of 30 calendar days after its introduction or at the end of 
     the first day after there has been reported to the House 
     involved a Commission Schedule and Review bill, whichever is 
     earlier, such committee shall be deemed to be discharged from 
     further consideration of such Commission Schedule and Review 
     bill, and such Commission Schedule and Review bill shall be 
     placed on the appropriate calendar of the House involved.
       (b) Expedited Procedure.--
       (1) Consideration.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 5 calendar days after the 
     date on which a committee has been discharged from 
     consideration of a Commission Schedule and Review bill, the 
     majority leader of the Senate, or the majority leader's 
     designee, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or 
     the Speaker's designee, shall move to proceed to the 
     consideration of the Commission Schedule and Review bill. It 
     shall also be in order for any member of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives, respectively, to move to proceed to 
     the consideration of the Commission Schedule and Review bill 
     at any time after the conclusion of such 5-day period.
       (B) Motion to proceed.--A motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of a Commission Schedule and Review bill is 
     highly privileged in the House of Representatives and is 
     privileged in the Senate and is not debatable. The motion is 
     not subject to amendment, to a motion to postpone 
     consideration of the Commission Schedule and Review bill, or 
     to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other 
     business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion 
     to proceed is agreed to or not agreed to shall not be in 
     order. If the motion to proceed is agreed to, the Senate or 
     the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall 
     immediately proceed to consideration of the Commission 
     Schedule and Review bill without intervening motion, order, 
     or other business, and the Commission Schedule and Review 
     bill shall remain the unfinished business of the Senate or 
     the House of Representatives, as the case may be, until 
     disposed of.
       (C) Limited debate.--Debate on the Commission Schedule and 
     Review bill and on all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith shall be limited to not more than 10 
     hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring 
     and those opposing the Commission Schedule and Review bill. A 
     motion further to limit debate on the Commission Schedule and 
     Review bill is in order and is not debatable. All time used 
     for consideration of the Commission Schedule and Review bill, 
     including time used for quorum calls (except quorum calls 
     immediately preceding a vote) and voting, shall come from the 
     10 hours of debate.
       (D) Amendments.--No amendment to the Commission Schedule 
     and Review bill shall be in order in the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives.
       (E) Vote on final passage.--Immediately following the 
     conclusion of the debate on the Commission Schedule and 
     Review bill, the vote on final passage of the Commission 
     Schedule and Review bill shall occur.
       (F) Other motions not in order.--A motion to postpone 
     consideration of the Commission Schedule and Review bill, a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of other business, or 
     a motion to recommit the Commission Schedule and Review bill 
     is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     Commission Schedule and Review bill is agreed to or not 
     agreed to is not in order.
       (2) Consideration by other house.--If, before the passage 
     by one House of the Commission Schedule and Review bill that 
     was introduced in such House, such House receives from the 
     other House a Commission Schedule and Review bill as passed 
     by such other House--
       (A) the Commission Schedule and Review bill of the other 
     House shall not be referred to a committee and may only be 
     considered for final passage in the House that receives it 
     under subparagraph (C);
       (B) the procedure in the House in receipt of the Commission 
     Schedule and Review bill of the other House, with respect to 
     the Commission Schedule and Review bill that was introduced 
     in the House in receipt of the Commission Schedule and Review 
     bill of the other House, shall be the same as if no 
     Commission Schedule and Review bill had been received from 
     the other House; and
       (C) notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the vote on final 
     passage shall be on the Commission Schedule and Review bill 
     of the other House. Upon disposition of a Commission Schedule 
     and Review bill that is received by one House from the other 
     House, it shall no longer be in order to consider the 
     Commission Schedule and Review bill that was introduced in 
     the receiving House.
       (c) Rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives.--
     This section is enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and is deemed 
     to be part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a Commission Schedule and Review 
     bill, and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that 
     it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to 
     the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, 
     and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of 
     that House.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and 
colleague Senator Cornyn in introducing the United States Authorization 
and Sunset Commission Act of 2007. This legislation would create a 
bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress on whether to 
reauthorize, reorganize, or terminate Federal programs. It would 
establish a systematic process to review unauthorized programs and 
agencies, and, if applicable, programs that are rated as ineffective or 
results not demonstrated under the

[[Page S8707]]

Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Comptroller General and the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, would serve as ex-
officio members, bringing their knowledge and experience and that of 
their organizations to the process.
  Earlier this year, as it does every year, the CBO reported on 
programs that at one time had an explicit authorization that has either 
expired or will expire during the current session. This is always a 
lengthy report that runs 75 pages or more. In recent years, the total 
amount of unauthorized programs receiving appropriations reported by 
CBO has ranged between $160 billion and $170 billion annually.
  I make this point, not to criticize or to imply that all unauthorized 
programs should be eliminated. Instead, it is to point out that what we 
are doing now is not working for us. We know that oversight is an 
important part of our job, but oversight takes time. How do we explain 
to our constituents that we do not have the time to distinguish between 
worthwhile programs and those that have outlived their purpose, are 
poorly targeted, operate inefficiently, or simply are not producing 
results?
  As a sponsor of The Stop Over-Spending Act of 2007, ``S.O.S.,'' 
legislation, which includes several provisions from bills I introduced 
earlier this year, I want to work with my colleagues to pass 
legislation that allows us to convert some of the time spent on the 
annual budget cycle into time spent on oversight. A biennial budget 
cycle plus commissions such as this one and others that I have proposed 
to examine entitlement programs and increase program accountability all 
have a similar goal--to provide the time and the tools to reinvigorate 
congressional oversight.
  This legislation does not take away our obligation to make difficult 
decisions about what programs to continue and those that we can no 
longer afford to support. What it does do is provide an opportunity to 
work smarter. I believe by establishing this Commission to do a 
thorough examination of programs and agencies, using established 
criteria, and a transparent reporting process, that we can carry out 
our responsibilities more efficiently and effectively.
  I urge my colleagues to support The United States Authorization and 
Sunset Commission Act of 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. 
        Brown):
  S. 1733. A bill to authorize funds to prevent housing discrimination 
through the use of nationwide testing, to increase funds for the Fair 
Housing Initiatives Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Housing Fairness 
Act of 2007, legislation that would strengthen efforts to detect 
discrimination and enforce equal housing opportunities. This 
legislation is especially timely given that June is National 
Homeownership Month.
  The Housing Fairness Act promotes equal housing opportunities for all 
people by authorizing funds to process complaints, investigate cases of 
housing discrimination, and develop and operate education and outreach 
programs to inform the general public of fair housing rights. The 
legislation also creates a competitive matching grant program for 
private nonprofit organizations to examine the causes of housing 
discrimination and segregation and their effects on education, poverty 
and economic development.
  Despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act almost 40 years ago, more 
than 4 million fair housing violations still occur each year. When the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development designated certain real 
estate companies for investigation, studies uncovered an 87 percent 
rate of racial steering and a 20 percent denial rate for African-
Americans and Latinos. In part due to fair housing violations, the 
homeownership gap between people of different racial and ethnic groups 
is larger than it was in 1940. These facts confirm that we need to be 
doing more to promote fair housing.
  I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with me 
to find solutions to further detect discrimination and enforce the Fair 
Housing Act.
  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. 1733

       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 ``Housing Fairness Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. TESTING FOR DISCRIMINATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall conduct a nationwide program of testing 
     to--
       (1) detect and document differences in the treatment of 
     persons seeking to rent or purchase housing or obtain or 
     refinance a home mortgage loan, and measure patterns of 
     adverse treatment because of the race, color, religion, sex, 
     familial status, disability status, or national origin of a 
     renter, home buyer, or borrower; and
       (2) measure the prevalence of such discriminatory practices 
     across the housing and mortgage lending markets as a whole.
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall enter into agreements with qualified fair 
     housing enforcement organizations, as such organizations are 
     defined under subsection (h) of section 561 of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 3616a(h)), 
     for the purpose of conducting the testing required under 
     subsection (a) .
       (c) Report.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall report to Congress--
       (1) on a biennial basis, the results of each round of 
     testing required under subsection (a) along with any 
     recommendations or proposals for legislative or 
     administrative action to address any issues raised by such 
     testing; and
       (2) on an annual basis, a detailed summary of the calls 
     received by the Fair Housing Administration's 24-hour toll-
     free telephone hotline.
       (d) Use of Results.--The results of any testing required 
     under subsection (a) may be used as the basis for the 
     Secretary, or any State or local government or agency, public 
     or private nonprofit organization or institution, or other 
     public or private entity that the Secretary has entered into 
     a contract or cooperative agreement with under section 561 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 
     3616a) to commence, undertake, or pursue any investigation or 
     enforcement action to remedy any discrimination uncovered as 
     a result of such testing.
       (e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Disability status.--The term ``disability status'' has 
     the same meaning given the term ``handicap'' in section 802 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3602).
       (2) Familial status.--The term ``familial status'' has the 
     same meaning given that term in section 802 of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3602).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this 
     section $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR THE FAIR HOUSING INITIATIVES 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1987 (42 U.S.C. 3616a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``qualified'' before 
     ``private nonprofit fair housing enforcement 
     organizations,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``qualified'' before 
     ``private nonprofit fair housing enforcement 
     organizations,'';
       (2) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out the provisions of this section $52,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, of which--
       ``(A) not less than 75 percent of such amounts shall be for 
     private enforcement initiatives authorized under subsection 
     (b);
       ``(B) not more than 10 percent of such amounts shall be for 
     education and outreach programs under subsection (d); and
       ``(C) any remaining amounts shall be used for program 
     activities authorized under this section.
       ``(2) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under this 
     section shall remain available until expended.'';
       (3) in subsection (h), in the matter following subparagraph 
     (C), by inserting ``and meets the criteria described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (C)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) websites and other media outlets.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or other public or 
     private entities'' and inserting ``or other public or private 
     nonprofit entities''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or other public or 
     private entities'' and inserting ``or other public or private 
     nonprofit entities''.

[[Page S8708]]

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development should--
       (1) fully comply with the requirements of section 561(d) of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 
     3616a(d)) to establish, design, and maintain a national 
     education and outreach program to provide a centralized, 
     coordinated effort for the development and dissemination of 
     the fair housing rights of individuals who seek to rent, 
     purchase, sell, or facilitate the sale of a home;
       (2) utilize all amounts appropriated for such education and 
     outreach program under section 561(g) of such Act; and
       (3) promulgate regulations regarding the fair housing 
     obligations of each recipient of Federal housing funds to 
     affirmatively further fair housing, as that term is defined 
     under title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3601 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. GRANTS TO PRIVATE ENTITIES TO STUDY HOUSING 
                   DISCRIMINATION.

       (a) Grant Program.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall carry out a competitive matching grant 
     program to assist private nonprofit organizations in--
       (1) conducting comprehensive studies that examine--
       (A) the causes of housing discrimination and segregation; 
     and
       (B) the effects of housing discrimination and segregation 
     on education, poverty, and economic development; and
       (2) implementing pilot projects that test solutions that 
     will help prevent or alleviate housing discrimination and 
     segregation.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a private nonprofit organization shall--
       (1) submit an application to the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development, containing such information as the 
     Secretary shall require; and
       (2) agree to provide matching non-Federal funds for 25 
     percent of the total amount of the grant, such funds may 
     include items donated on an in-kind contribution basis.
       (c) Preference.--In awarding any grant under this section, 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall give 
     preference to any applicant who is--
       (1) a qualified fair housing enforcement organization, as 
     such organization is defined under subsection (h) of section 
     561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 
     U.S.C. 3616a(h)); or
       (2) a partner of any such organization.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this 
     section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1734. A bill to provide for prostate cancer imaging research and 
education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Prostate 
Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act. This important legislation 
addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to 
detect and diagnose prostate cancer, and for the education of the 
dangers of this deadly disease.
  I thank my colleagues, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator John 
Kerry, for joining me as original cosponsors of this important 
legislation.
  Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United 
States, and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men. 
This cancer strikes one in every six men, making it even more prevalent 
than breast cancer, which strikes one in every seven women.
  In 2007, more than 218,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate 
cancer, and more than 27,000 men will die from the disease. One new 
case occurs every 2.5 minutes and a man dies from prostate cancer every 
19 minutes.
  The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act, also known 
as the PRIME Act, will mirror the investment the Federal Government 
made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving 
breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. 
This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, HHS, to expand research on prostate cancer, and provides the 
resources to develop innovative advanced imaging technologies for 
prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment.
  The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act would also 
create a national campaign conducted through HHS to increase awareness 
about the need for prostate cancer screening, and the development of 
better screening techniques. Since African American men are 56 percent 
more likely to develop prostate cancer compared with Caucasian men and 
nearly 2.5 times as likely to die from the disease, this campaign will 
work with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this effort will reach 
the men most at risk from this disease.
  The Prostate Research, Imaging and Men's Education Act will also 
promote research that improves prostate cancer screening blood tests. 
According to a recent National Cancer Institute study, current blood 
tests result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive 
alarms. Some 15 percent of men with normal blood test levels actually 
have prostate cancer. Even when levels are abnormal, some 88 percent of 
men end up not having prostate cancer but undergoing unnecessary 
biopsies. Furthermore, the prostate is one of the last organs in a 
human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer 
even when multiple samples are taken.
  Government initiative in research and education can be the key to 
diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. This 
legislation would strengthen our efforts to fight this disease.
  As June is Men's Health Month, this is an ideal time to draw 
attention to the issue affecting so many men across the Nation. I ask 
all my fellow Senators to join with me in ensuring the health of our 
husbands, brothers, sons, and friends against this disease.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 1736. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that the eligibility requirements for disability insurance 
benefits under which an individual must have 20 quarters of Social 
Security coverage in the 40 quarters preceding a disability shall not 
be applicable in the case of a disabled individual suffering from a 
covered terminal disease; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Claire Collier 
Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation 
will ensure that individuals suffering from certain terminal diseases 
are entitled to receive Social Security disability benefits. Under 
current law, an individual who contracts a covered terminal illness, 
and who has not been part of the workforce for a period of time, may 
not qualify for Social Security disability benefits they would 
otherwise be entitled to.
  This bill is named after Claire Collier, a Stamford, Connecticut 
mother of three, who I first met a few years ago after she was 
diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, in 2003. ALS, 
commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, first strikes the nerve cells, 
then weakens the muscles, causes paralysis and tragically leads to 
death.
  Three years ago, Claire applied for Social Security disability 
benefits. However, she was denied the benefits because she did not have 
enough work credits. Ms. Collier, who worked for more than 15 years as 
an events planner, does not qualify for Social Security disability 
benefits, even though she paid Social Security and Medicare taxes for 
more than 15 years. The reason is the Social Security Act mandates that 
an individual earn 20 quarters of Social Security earnings during the 
10 years preceding a disability to collect benefits. This discriminates 
against people who have earned the required number of credits outside 
of the time period prescribed under current law.
  Under the present system, hardworking Americans, such as Claire 
Collier, are being denied benefits at a time when they need them most. 
In Claire's case, the rules are especially unfair since she has been 
penalized for choosing to stay at home with her children prior to being 
diagnosed with ALS.
  The bill I am sponsoring will change the eligibility standard. The 
Claire Collier legislation will amend the Social Security Act to 
provide that the eligibility standard for disability insurance benefits 
not be applicable in the case of a disabled individual suffering from a 
terminal illness.
  Passage of this important legislation will simply ensure fairness. We 
should reward individuals who contribute to Social Security, not punish 
them. The Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness 
Act will eliminate inequity in the current system. I look forward to 
working with

[[Page S8709]]

my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only passed by this 
body soon, but that it is signed into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mrs. Boxer)
  S. 1738. A bill to establish a Special Counsel for Child Exploitation 
Prevention and Interdiction within the Office of the Deputy Attorney 
General, to improve the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, to 
increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, and to make 
other improvements to increase the ability of law enforcement agencies 
to investigate and prosecute predators; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Combating 
Child Exploitation Act of 2007. This legislation takes a bold step 
forward in addressing child exploitation.
  And, Mr. President, let me assure you, we need bold action. We have 
taken some important steps here in the Senate, including passing the 
Jacob Weterling Act, the Pam Lyncher Act, the Amber Alert program, and 
last year's Adam Walsh Act.
  But, this is a problem that keeps growing and growing, and we need 
bold action to address this problem. If we do not act, we will probably 
be back here naming a new bill after another unfortunate child victim.
  The bottom line is that the Internet has facilitated an exploding, 
multi-billion dollar market for child pornography, with 20,000 new 
images posted every week. This is a market that can only be supplied by 
the continued sexual assault and exploitation of more children and the 
research shows that victims are getting younger and they are being 
exposed to more sadistic abuse.
  The FBI and the Department of Justice have testified before Congress 
that there are hundreds of thousands of people trafficking child 
pornography in this country and millions around the world.
  We are not making a dent in this problem.
  Don't get me wrong, there are many Federal, State and local 
investigators and prosecutors out there working tirelessly, but need to 
do much more.
  We have not dedicated enough Federal agents to this problem and we 
have not provided enough support for States and local government.
  The most troubling aspect, one that led to the drafting of this 
legislation is that we know where many of these people are and if we 
set the right priorities we can go pick them up.
  Let me repeat that, we have new investigative techniques that will 
allow us to identify many of the people who are trafficking child 
pornography and we can go pick them up.
  A very conservative estimate is that there are more than 400,000 
people who we know who are trafficking child pornography on the 
Internet in the U.S. right now.
  We can, with minimal effort, take these people down. But, due to lack 
of resources we are investigating less than 2 percent of these cases. 
Again, we are only investigating 2 percent of the known child 
pornography traffickers.
  We also know that when law enforcement agents do investigate these 
cases, there is a local abused child in 30 percent off the cases. And, 
research shows that at least 55 percent of child pornography possessors 
have previously sexually assaulted children or attempted to do so. So, 
by picking up these known offenders, we are saving children.
  Finally, it is important to note that every time one of these images 
or videos are shared, the child is victimized again and again.
  So, to help ensure that law enforcement has the capacity to get the 
job done, I am introducing the Combating Child Exploitation Act of 
2007.
  First, this legislation will establish a Special Counsel in the 
Deputy Attorney General's Office to coordinate all activities related 
to preventing child exploitation. This will be one person who will be 
held accountable for results.
  We will also congressionally require that there be at least one 
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, CAC, in each State. This 
program is poised to become the backbone for our investigative efforts 
here in the U.S. by forming a network of highly trained investigators 
to focus exclusively on combating child exploitation. Under this bill, 
we will triple the funding for the ICAC program to help with hiring, 
training, and investigative resources to form this Nation-wide network.
  In addition, we will authorize over 250 new Federal agents to focus 
exclusively on this problem, including 125 new FBI agents, which will 
double the number of agents under the Innocent Images Program at the 
FBI, 95 new agents for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 
ICE, and 31 new postal inspectors.
  This bill will help us form a coordinated effort to go after child 
predators. As stated previously, we know where many of these people are 
and we need to go get them.
  In my view, it is inexcusable that we are not putting the resources 
toward tracking the ones down who we know about and doing much more to 
find the others who are lurking in the shadows.
  This legislation will get us on the right track and I urge my 
colleagues to support this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Brown):
  S. 1739. A bill to amend section 35 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to improve the health coverage tax credit, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last month, the Government 
Accountability Office, GAO, released yet another report about the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance, TAA, health coverage tax credit, HCTC. The 
report confirms what many in Congress have been saying since the HCTC 
program began, the credit is not enough, the program has several 
barriers to enrollment, the premiums are prohibitively high for some 
workers because of medical underwriting, and the program is very 
confusing and expensive to administer. Although the GAO reported a $19 
million decrease in costs of administration between 2003 and the end of 
fiscal year 2006, administrative costs still make up approximately 34 
percent of the total spending for the HCTC.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act is up for reauthorization this 
year. It is long past time for Congress to focus on the problems with 
the TAA health coverage tax credit and reauthorization presents us with 
that opportunity. That is why I am introducing legislation today that 
will make much-needed improvements to the HCTC program. And, I am proud 
that the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, is joining me in 
introducing this important bill. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement 
Act of 2007 offers solutions to many of the problems with the HCTC 
identified by the GAO. This legislation will go a long way to make the 
TAA health care tax credit a realistic option for displaced workers and 
their families.
  When Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to 
American workers that the potential loss of jobs will not equal the 
loss of health care coverage. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to 
make good on that promise. Since we passed this bill, I have heard from 
steel retirees and widows in my State about how unaffordable the TAA 
health care tax credit is. And I have been very frustrated, just as I 
was when this bill passed, that we were not able to make the credit 
more affordable and accessible for people who need it the most--laid-
off workers and retirees with very limited income. We can fix these 
problems by including provisions from the TAA Health Coverage 
Improvement Act in the TAA reauthorization bill.
  For a good number of supporters of the Trade Act of 2002, the health 
insurance tax credit was the single most important factor in overcoming 
their concerns about giving the President fast-track authority to move 
trade agreements through Congress. In my own judgment, the fast-track 
would not have passed Congress without the health care tax credit. The 
TAA health credit was the trade-off to balance the President's 
authority.
  Yet, the success many of us envisioned for the health care tax credit 
has not been realized through implementation. The number of people who 
have been able to access the health care tax credit over the last 2 
years is extremely disappointing. As of January 31, 2007, only 15,506 
out of 252,280 who are eligible for the credit are enrolled

[[Page S8710]]

in the program. That is just over 6 percent, which means that almost 94 
percent of those eligible are not participating.
  In my home State of West Virginia, we have worked hard to promote the 
HCTC for trade-displaced workers. When Weirton Steel instituted 
significant layoffs, thousands of employees lost their jobs. In the 
aftermath, State and national officials, health plan staff, and 
representatives of the Independent Steelworkers Union and United Steel 
Workers worked collaboratively to provide continuous health care 
coverage for HCTC-eligible workers and retirees. The community really 
came together and worked around the clock to educate workers and 
retirees about their coverage options and to ensure they were enrolled 
in the HCTC.

  Loss of employment is absolutely devastating to workers and their 
families. While health care coverage alone cannot replace job loss, it 
does help to ease the burden on displaced workers and their dependents. 
West Virginia is a model example of how HCTC can work. However, with 
only 6 percent of those eligible for HCTC enrolled across the country, 
there is still much more that needs to be done.
  I must say to my colleagues that Congress has had a hand in these 
disappointing enrollment figures. We have ignored every opportunity to 
improve the health coverage tax credit and enhance the lives of workers 
displaced by trade. Members of this body have previously voted against 
TAA bills that would have extended Trade Adjustment Assistance to 
service workers and also addressed some of the problems the GAO has 
identified with the health coverage credit.
  The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes long overdue 
improvements to the TAA health care tax credit. First, this legislation 
addresses the issue of affordability. In addition to the GAO, several 
consumer advocacy groups and research organizations, including the 
Commonwealth Fund, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and 
Families USA, have cited affordability of the credit as the primary 
reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is 
that a 65 percent subsidy is not enough. With a 65 percent credit, an 
eligible individual still has to pay an average of $2,104 in annual 
premium costs for single coverage plus additional amounts for 
deductibles and co-payments. This figure is particularly astounding 
given the fact that the average worker, while actively employed and 
earning a paycheck, paid just $627 annually in 2006 for single 
employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. In other words, if you 
lose your job, you have to pay more than three times as much for health 
insurance, even if you get the HCTC. The TAA Health Coverage 
Improvement Act makes the credit more affordable by increasing the 
subsidy amount to 95 percent.
  This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing 
limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under 
the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health 
insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance 
coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who 
previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to 
separation from employment. However, States have been allowed by this 
Administration to create State-based coverage options in the individual 
market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have 
individual market coverage one month prior to separation from 
employment.
  Because of the Administration's interpretation of the law, there are 
people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from 
employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was 
not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation 
undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because 
individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and 
medical status. In one state that GAG reviewed for a previous report, 
because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect 
health were charged almost 6 times the premiums charged to recipients 
rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing 
today addresses this problem by clarifying that States can only 
designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day 
restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community-
rated.
  Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have 
access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what 
people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees 
had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or 
pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates 
the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group 
option in every State, so that displaced workers Nationwide will have 
access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were 
used to when they were employed.
  Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the 3 month continuous 
coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers 
are required to maintain 3 months of continuous health insurance 
coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those 
protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, 
comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this 3 
month period to be counted as the 3 months prior to separation from 
employment. However, the administration has interpreted the 3 month 
requirement as 3 months of health insurance coverage prior to 
enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation 
from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid-
off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health 
coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification 
and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily-provided consumer 
protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that 
three months of continuous coverage means 3 months prior to separation 
from employment.
  Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to receive the health 
coverage tax credit. Over the last 2 years, younger spouses and 
dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to 
receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or 
retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health 
coverage through their spouses or parents. The TAA Health Coverage 
Improvement Act allows younger spouses and dependent children to retain 
eligibility for the health coverage tax credit in the event the 
qualified beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare.
  Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and 
makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance 
coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low 
participation include the complex nature of the HCTC program and the 
inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the up to 
3 months before they begin to receive advance payments. The TAA Health 
Coverage Improvement Act improves consumer information about the HCTC 
by requiring that the Treasury Secretary's eligibility notice include a 
description of the HCTC program; specific contact information for state 
offices responsible for determining eligibility and providing 
enrollment assistance; a list of the HCTC coverage options in the sate; 
and a statement informing eligible individuals of the deadline to 
enroll in HCTC in order to avoid lapses in coverage. Additionally, our 
legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows 
displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the 
HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for 
certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury 
Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the 
health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for 
advance payment to begin.
  As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment 
Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In 
West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of 
trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these 
individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and 
care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a 
significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit 
is designed

[[Page S8711]]

to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this 
very difficult transition.
  Unfortunately, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. 
The Government Accountability Office has given us a very specific 
diagnosis of the problems. Now, it is up to us to fix them. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important 
legislation in conjunction with reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance program.
  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 printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 1739

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``TAA Health 
     Coverage Improvement Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Improvement of the affordability of the credit.
Sec. 3. 100 percent credit and payment for monthly premiums paid prior 
              to certification of eligibility for the credit.
Sec. 4. Eligibility for certain pension plan participants; presumptive 
              eligibility.
Sec. 5. Clarification of 3-month creditable coverage requirement.
Sec. 6. TAA pre-certification period rule for purposes of determining 
              whether there is a 63-day lapse in creditable coverage.
Sec. 7. Continued qualification of family members after certain events.
Sec. 8. Offering of Federal group coverage.
Sec. 9. Additional requirements for individual health insurance costs.
Sec. 10. Alignment of COBRA coverage with TAA period for TAA-eligible 
              individuals.
Sec. 11. Notice requirements.
Sec. 12. Annual report on enhanced TAA benefits.
Sec. 13. Extension of national emergency grants.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE CREDIT.

       (a) Improvement of Affordability.--
       (1) In general.--Section 35(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to credit for health insurance costs of 
     eligible individuals) is amended by striking ``65'' and 
     inserting ``95''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 7527(b) of such Code 
     (relating to advance payment of credit for health insurance 
     costs of eligible individuals) is amended by striking ``65'' 
     and inserting ``95''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.

     SEC. 3. 100 PERCENT CREDIT AND PAYMENT FOR MONTHLY PREMIUMS 
                   PAID PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR 
                   THE CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 35 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 2(a)(1), 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the subsection heading and all that follows 
     through ``In case'' and inserting ``Amount of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--In case''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) 100 percent credit for months prior to issuance of 
     eligibility certificate.--The amount allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by subtitle A shall be equal to 100 
     percent in the case of the taxpayer's first eligible coverage 
     months occurring prior to the issuance of a qualified health 
     insurance costs credit eligibility certificate.''.
       (b) Payment for Premiums Due Prior to Certification of 
     Eligibility for the Credit.--Section 7527 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to advance payment of credit 
     for health insurance costs of eligible individuals) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Payment for Premiums Due Prior to Issuance of 
     Certificate.--The program established under subsection (a) 
     shall provide--
       ``(1) that the Secretary shall make payments on behalf of a 
     certified individual of an amount equal to 100 percent of the 
     premiums for coverage of the taxpayer and qualifying family 
     members under qualified health insurance for eligible 
     coverage months (as defined in section 35(b)) occurring prior 
     to the issuance of a qualified health insurance costs credit 
     eligibility certificate; and
       ``(2) that any payments made under paragraph (1) shall not 
     be included in the gross income of the taxpayer on whose 
     behalf such payments were made.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN PENSION PLAN RECIPIENTS; 
                   PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) Eligibility for Certain Pension Plan Recipients.--
     Subsection (c) of section 35 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) an eligible multiemployer pension participant.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Eligible multiemployer pension recipient.--The term 
     `eligible multiemployer pension recipient' means, with 
     respect to any month, any individual--
       ``(A) who has attained age 55 as of the first day of such 
     month,
       ``(B) who is receiving a benefit from a multiemployer plan 
     (as defined in section 3(37)(A) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974), and
       ``(C) whose former employer has withdrawn from such 
     multiemployer plan pursuant to section 4203(a) of such 
     Act.''.
       (b) Presumptive Eligibility for Petitioners for Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance.--Subsection (c) of section 35 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by subsection (a), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Presumptive status as a taa recipient.--The term 
     `eligible individual' shall include any individual who is 
     covered by a petition filed with the Secretary of Labor under 
     section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974. This paragraph shall 
     apply to any individual only with respect to months which--
       ``(A) end after the date that such petition is so filed, 
     and
       ``(B) begin before the earlier of--
       ``(i) the 90th day after the date of filing of such 
     petition, or
       ``(ii) the date on which the Secretary of Labor makes a 
     final determination with respect to such petition.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) of section 7527(d) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``or an eligible alternative TAA 
     recipient (as defined in section 35(c)(3))'' and inserting 
     ``, an eligible alternative TAA recipient (as defined in 
     section 35(c)(3)), an eligible multiemployer pension 
     recipient (as defined in section 35(c)(5), or an individual 
     who is an eligible individual by reason of section 
     35(c)(6)''.
       (2) Section 173(f)(4) of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)(4)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (C), the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(D) an eligible multiemployer pension recipient (as 
     defined in section 35(c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), and
       ``(E) an individual who is an eligible individual by reason 
     of section 35(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (d) Technical Amendment Clarifying Eligibility of Certain 
     Displaced Workers Receiving a Benefit Under a Defined Benefit 
     Pension Plan.--The first sentence of section 35(c)(2) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before 
     the period the following: ``, and shall include any such 
     individual who would be eligible to receive such an allowance 
     but for the fact that the individual is receiving a benefit 
     under a defined benefit plan (as defined in section 3(35) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974).''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF 3-MONTH CREDITABLE COVERAGE 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 35(e)(2)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualifying 
     individual) is amended by inserting ``(prior to the 
     employment separation necessary to attain the status of an 
     eligible individual)'' after ``9801(c)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 173(f)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2918(f)(2)(B)(ii)(I)) is amended by inserting ``(prior to the 
     employment separation necessary to attain the status of an 
     eligible individual)'' after ``1986''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 6. TAA PRE-CERTIFICATION PERIOD RULE FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A 63-DAY LAPSE IN 
                   CREDITABLE COVERAGE.

       (a) ERISA Amendment.--Section 701(c)(2) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181(c)(2)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) TAA-eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a 
     TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the 
     individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on 
     the date that is 5 days after the postmark date of the notice 
     by the Secretary (or by any person or entity designated by 
     the Secretary) that the individual is eligible for a 
     qualified health insurance costs credit eligibility 
     certificate for purposes of section 7527 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall not be taken into account in 
     determining the continuous period under subparagraph (A).

[[Page S8712]]

       ``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual', 
     and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 605(b)(4)(C).''.
       (b) PHSA Amendment.--Section 2701(c)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg(c)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) TAA-eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a 
     TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the 
     individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on 
     the date that is 5 days after the postmark date of the notice 
     by the Secretary (or by any person or entity designated by 
     the Secretary) that the individual is eligible for a 
     qualified health insurance costs credit eligibility 
     certificate for purposes of section 7527 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall not be taken into account in 
     determining the continuous period under subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual', 
     and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 2205(b)(4)(C).''.
       (c) IRC Amendment.--Section 9801(c)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to not counting periods before 
     significant breaks in creditable coverage) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) TAA-eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a 
     TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the 
     individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on 
     the date which is 5 days after the postmark date of the 
     notice by the Secretary (or by any person or entity 
     designated by the Secretary) that the individual is eligible 
     for a qualified health insurance costs credit eligibility 
     certificate for purposes of section 7527 shall not be taken 
     into account in determining the continuous period under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual', 
     and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 7. CONTINUED QUALIFICATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS AFTER 
                   CERTAIN EVENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 35 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (9) as paragraph (10) and inserting after paragraph 
     (8) the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Continued qualification of family members after 
     certain events.--
       ``(A) Eligible individual becomes medicare eligible.--In 
     the case of a month which would be an eligible coverage month 
     with respect to an eligible individual but for subsection 
     (f)(2)(A), such month shall be treated as an eligible 
     coverage month with respect to any qualifying family member 
     of such eligible individual (but not with respect to such 
     eligible individual).
       ``(B) Divorce.--In the case of a month which would be an 
     eligible coverage month with respect to a former spouse of a 
     taxpayer but for the finalization of a divorce between the 
     spouse and the taxpayer that occurs during the period in 
     which the taxpayer is an eligible individual, such month 
     shall be treated as an eligible coverage month with respect 
     to such former spouse.
       ``(C) Death.--In the case of a month which would be an 
     eligible coverage month with respect to an eligible 
     individual but for the death of such individual, such month 
     shall be treated as an eligible coverage month with respect 
     to any qualifying family of such eligible individual.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 173(f) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Continued qualification of family members after 
     certain events.--
       ``(A) Eligible individual becomes medicare eligible.--In 
     the case of a month which would be an eligible coverage month 
     with respect to an eligible individual but for subsection 
     (f)(2)(A), such month shall be treated as an eligible 
     coverage month with respect to any qualifying family member 
     of such eligible individual (but not with respect to such 
     eligible individual).
       ``(B) Divorce.--In the case of a month which would be an 
     eligible coverage month with respect to a former spouse of a 
     taxpayer but for the finalization of a divorce between the 
     spouse and the taxpayer that occurs during the period in 
     which the taxpayer is an eligible individual, such month 
     shall be treated as an eligible coverage month with respect 
     to such former spouse.
       ``(C) Death.--In the case of a month which would be an 
     eligible coverage month with respect to an eligible 
     individual but for the death of such individual, such month 
     shall be treated as an eligible coverage month with respect 
     to any qualifying family of such eligible individual.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 8. OFFERING OF FEDERAL GROUP COVERAGE.

       (a) Provision of Group Coverage.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     establish a program under which eligible individuals (as 
     defined in section 35(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) are offered enrollment under health benefit plans that 
     are made available under FEHBP.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--The terms and conditions of 
     health benefits plans offered under paragraph (1) shall be 
     the same as the terms and coverage offered under FEHBP, 
     except that the percentage of the premium charged to eligible 
     individuals (as so defined) for such health benefit plans 
     shall be equal to 5 percent.
       (3) Study.--The Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     conduct a study of the impact of the offering of health 
     benefit plans under this subsection on the terms and 
     conditions, including premiums, for health benefit plans 
     offered under FEHBP and shall submit to Congress, not later 
     than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a 
     report on such study. Such report may contain such 
     recommendations regarding the establishment of separate risk 
     pools for individuals covered under FEHBP and eligible 
     individuals covered under health benefit plans offered under 
     paragraph (1) as may be appropriate to protect the interests 
     of individuals covered under FEHBP and alleviate any adverse 
     impact on FEHBP that may result from the offering of such 
     health benefit plans.
       (4) FEHBP defined.--In this section, the term ``FEHBP'' 
     means the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program offered 
     under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) of section 35(e) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(K) Coverage under a health benefits plan offered under 
     section 8(a)(1) of the TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act of 
     2007.''.
       (2) Section 173(f)(2)(A) of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)(2)(A)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new clause:
       ``(xi) Coverage under a health benefits plan offered under 
     section 8(a)(1) of the TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act of 
     2007.''.

     SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 35(e)(2) of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``subparagraphs (B) through 
     (H) of paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1) (other 
     than subparagraphs (A), (I), and (K) thereof)''.
       (b) Rating System Requirement.--Subparagraph (J) of section 
     35(e)(1) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``For purposes of this subparagraph and clauses 
     (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (F), such term does not 
     include any insurance unless the premiums for such insurance 
     are restricted based on a community rating system (determined 
     other than on the basis of age).''.
       (c) Clarification of Congressional Intent to Limit Use of 
     Individual Health Insurance Coverage Option.--Section 
     35(e)(1)(J) (relating to qualified health insurance) is 
     amended in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``, 
     but only'' after ``under individual health insurance''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 173(f)(2) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(x), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Such term does not include any insurance unless 
     the premiums for such insurance are restricted based on a 
     community rating system (determined other than on the basis 
     of age).''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by inserting ``, 
     but only'' after ``under individual health insurance''; and
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``clauses (ii) through 
     (viii) of subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A) 
     (other than clauses (i), (x), and (xi) thereof)''.

     SEC. 10. ALIGNMENT OF COBRA COVERAGE WITH TAA PERIOD FOR TAA-
                   ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) ERISA.--Section 605(b) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1165(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and 
     Coverage'' after ``Election''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``and period'' 
     after ``Commencement'';
       (B) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``, shall''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``, and in no event shall the maximum 
     period required under section 602(2)(A) be less than the 
     period during which the individual is a TAA-eligible 
     individual'' before the period at the end.
       (b) Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Section 4980B(f)(5)(C) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``and 
     coverage'' after ``election''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) in the clause heading, by inserting ``and period'' 
     after ``Commencement'';
       (B) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``, shall''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``, and in no event shall the maximum 
     period required under paragraph (2)(B)(i) be less than the 
     period during which the individual is a TAA-eligible 
     individual'' before the period at the end.
       (c) Public Health Service Act.--Section 2205(b) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-5(b)) is amended--

[[Page S8713]]

       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and 
     Coverage'' after ``Election''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``and period'' 
     after ``Commencement'';
       (B) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``, shall''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``, and in no event shall the maximum 
     period required under section 2202(2)(A) be less than the 
     period during which the individual is a TAA-eligible 
     individual'' before the period at the end.

     SEC. 11. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 7527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to advance payment of credit for health insurance costs of 
     eligible individuals), as amended by section 3(b), is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Inclusion of Certain Information.--The notice by the 
     Secretary (or by any person or entity designated by the 
     Secretary) that an individual is eligible for a qualified 
     health insurance costs credit eligibility certificate shall 
     include--
       ``(1) information explaining how the program established 
     under subsection (a) works with the credit established under 
     section 35,
       ``(2) the name, address, and telephone number of the State 
     office or offices responsible for determining that the 
     individual is eligible for such certificate and for providing 
     the individual with assistance with enrollment in qualified 
     health insurance (as defined in section 35(e)),
       ``(3) a list of the coverage options that are treated as 
     qualified health insurance (as so defined) by the State in 
     which the individual resides, and
       ``(4) in the case of a TAA-eligible individual (as defined 
     in section 4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv)(II)), a statement informing the 
     individual that the individual has 63 days from the date that 
     is 5 days after the postmark date of such notice to enroll in 
     such insurance without a lapse in creditable coverage (as 
     defined in section 9801(c)).''.

     SEC. 12. ANNUAL REPORT ON ENHANCED TAA BENEFITS.

       Not later than October 1 of each year (beginning in 2008) 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall report to the Committee on Finance 
     and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives the following information with respect to the 
     most recent taxable year ending before such date:
       (1) The total number of participants utilizing the health 
     insurance tax credit under section 35 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, including a measurement of such participants 
     identified--
       (A) by State, and
       (B) by coverage under COBRA continuation provisions (as 
     defined in section 9832(d)(1) of such Code) and by non-COBRA 
     coverage (further identified by group and individual market).
       (2) The range of monthly health insurance premiums offered 
     and the average and median monthly health insurance premiums 
     offered to TAA-eligible individuals (as defined in section 
     4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv)(II) of such Code) under COBRA continuation 
     provisions (as defined in section 9832(d)(1) of such Code), 
     State-based continuation coverage provided under a State law 
     that requires such coverage, and each category of coverage 
     described in section 35(e)(1) of such Code, identified by 
     State and by the actuarial value of such coverage and the 
     specific benefits provided and cost-sharing imposed under 
     such coverage.
       (3) The number of States applying for and receiving 
     national emergency grants under section 173(f) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) and the 
     time necessary for application approval of such grants.
       (4) The cost of administering the health credit program 
     under section 35 of such Code, by function, including the 
     cost of subcontractors.

     SEC. 13. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 173(f) of the Workforce Investment 
     Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(1) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) Health insurance coverage for eligible individuals in 
     order to obtain qualified health insurance that has 
     guaranteed issue and other consumer protections.--Funds made 
     available to a State or entity under paragraph (4)(A) of 
     subsection (a) shall be used to provide an eligible 
     individual described in paragraph (4)(C) and such 
     individual's qualifying family members with health insurance 
     coverage for the 3-month period that immediately precedes the 
     first eligible coverage month (as defined in section 35(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) in which such eligible 
     individual and such individual's qualifying family members 
     are covered by qualified health insurance that meets the 
     requirements described in clauses (i) through (iv) of section 
     35(e)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or such 
     longer minimum period as is necessary in order for such 
     eligible individual and such individual's qualifying family 
     members to be covered by qualified health insurance that 
     meets such requirements).
       ``(B) Additional uses.--Funds made available to a State or 
     entity under paragraph (4)(A) of subsection (a) may be used 
     by the State or entity for the following:
       ``(i) Health insurance coverage.--To assist an eligible 
     individual and such individual's qualifying family members 
     with enrolling in health insurance coverage and qualified 
     health insurance or paying premiums for such coverage or 
     insurance.
       ``(ii) Administrative expenses and start-up expenses to 
     establish group health plan coverage options for qualified 
     health insurance.--To pay the administrative expenses related 
     to the enrollment of eligible individuals and such 
     individuals' qualifying family members in health insurance 
     coverage and qualified health insurance, including--

       ``(I) eligibility verification activities;
       ``(II) the notification of eligible individuals of 
     available health insurance and qualified health insurance 
     options;
       ``(III) processing qualified health insurance costs credit 
     eligibility certificates provided for under section 7527 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(IV) providing assistance to eligible individuals in 
     enrolling in health insurance coverage and qualified health 
     insurance;
       ``(V) the development or installation of necessary data 
     management systems; and
       ``(VI) any other expenses determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, including start-up costs and on going 
     administrative expenses, in order for the State to treat the 
     coverage described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), or (F)(i) 
     of section 35(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or, 
     only if the coverage is under a group health plan, the 
     coverage described in subparagraph (F)(ii), (F)(iii), 
     (F)(iv), (G), or (H) of such section, as qualified health 
     insurance under that section.

       ``(iii) Outreach.--To pay for outreach to eligible 
     individuals to inform such individuals of available health 
     insurance and qualified health insurance options, including 
     outreach consisting of notice to eligible individuals of such 
     options made available after the date of enactment of this 
     clause and direct assistance to help potentially eligible 
     individuals and such individual's qualifying family members 
     qualify and remain eligible for the credit established under 
     section 35 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and advance 
     payment of such credit under section 7527 of such Code.
       ``(iv) Bridge funding.--To assist potentially eligible 
     individuals purchase qualified health insurance coverage 
     prior to issuance of a qualified health insurance costs 
     credit eligibility certificate under section 7527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and commencement of advance 
     payment, and receipt of expedited payment, under subsections 
     (a) and (e), respectively, of that section.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--The inclusion of a permitted 
     use under this paragraph shall not be construed as 
     prohibiting a similar use of funds permitted under subsection 
     (g).''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Qualified health insurance.--For purposes of this 
     subsection and subsection (g), the term `qualified health 
     insurance' has the meaning given that term in section 35(e) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 174(c)(1) of the Workforce Investment 
     Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2919(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Authorization 
     and appropriation for fiscal year 2002'' and inserting 
     ``Appropriations''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) to carry out subsection (a)(4)(A) of section 173--
       ``(i) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(ii) $300,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2010; and''.
       (c) Report Regarding Failure to Comply With Requirements 
     for Expedited Approval Procedures.--Section 173(f) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Report for failure to comply with requirements for 
     expedited approval procedures.--If the Secretary fails to 
     make the notification required under clause (i) of paragraph 
     (3)(A) within the 15-day period required under that clause, 
     or fails to provide the technical assistance required under 
     clause (ii) of such paragraph within a timely manner so that 
     a State or entity may submit an approved application within 2 
     months of the date on which the State or entity's previous 
     application was disapproved, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress explaining such failure.''.
       (d) Technical Amendment.--Effective as if included in the 
     enactment of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-210; 116 
     Stat. 933), subsection (f) of section 203 of that Act is 
     repealed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 1743. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the dollar limitation on contributions to funeral trusts; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
eliminate the current dollar limitation on Qualified Funeral Trusts, 
QFTs. Congress created these savings vehicles in 1997 to assist 
individuals and families who wanted to plan for, and prepay, funeral 
expenses. Yet, funeral costs are rising

[[Page S8714]]

rapidly, and the arbitrary cap that Congress imposed on QFTs makes 
planning more difficult. Today I am proud to introduce this bipartisan 
legislation, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, the chairman of 
the Special Committee on Aging, Senator Kohl. We are also joined by two 
of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Specter and Crapo. The change 
would have a positive impact on the lives of older Americans and on 
their families. In addition, according to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, it would have a slight, but positive, impact on the Federal 
treasury.
  When Congress created QFTs, it did so as a tax simplification 
measure. Unfortunately, it capped the size of these trusts at $7,000, 
adjusted regularly for inflation. This year, the inflation-adjusted cap 
is $8,800, but in many instances, this amount is no longer sufficient 
to cover a family's funeral expenses. In Utah, the average cost of a 
full funeral and burial is $12,685. I am sure that in many other states 
it is even higher. Because of this contribution limit, even those who 
preplan their own funerals too often leave their heirs with substantial 
expenses. Even those who attempt to cover the entire expense may not 
have enough money to cover all costs after administrative fees and 
taxes are deducted.
  This proposal would make Qualified Funeral Trusts more effective. The 
principal reason individuals set up Qualified Funeral Trust plans is to 
lift a financial burden from their children. Ordinarily, trusts for 
funeral expenses are grantor trusts, and the beneficiary is responsible 
for paying any tax on income generated by the trust. Congress 
recognized, however, that this result created an administrative burden 
for the beneficiary or the funeral director trustee. As a result, 
Congress enacted Section 685 of the Internal Revenue Code, allowing 
funeral director trustees to elect to pay the tax on income earned by 
funeral trusts. This tax simplification measure eased the paperwork 
burden and administrative costs on funeral director trustees, who were 
previously required to issue hundreds of 1099 forms to their elderly 
customers. It also eliminated the tax liability and confusion of many 
elderly Americans who previously received these forms. Unfortunately, 
only those trusts under the cap are currently eligible for designation 
as QFTs. By removing this restrictive cap, our legislation will 
eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens on beneficiaries and 
trustees.
  Let me give you an example of how the current cap creates unnecessary 
confusion for families. I have used this example before. It remains 
worth telling. Four years ago, a constituent of mine wrote me about 
this situation. He was suffering from Parkinson's disease. So he began 
planning his own funeral in order that these decisions and this burden 
would be lifted from his children. Because of the cap on QFTs, however, 
which at the time was $7,800, this Utahn was not able to fully fund the 
funeral services he desired. It became necessary to have one of his 
sons complete this planning for him by opening up his own, separate 
trust that would help to cover the remaining expenses. We should not be 
making it hard for families to do the right thing. We should not be 
making families jump through extra hoops when all they are trying to do 
is make these responsible decisions, well in advance of need.

  For older Americans, the primary benefits of this legislation are the 
ability to have all the money they have saved in the trust be applied 
to final expenses, instead of taxes, and the incentive to increase the 
amount of their contribution. Sixty percent of prefunded funerals were 
funded by trusts and elimination of the cap should raise this 
percentage. For funeral directors, this change would eliminate the 
burden and expense of issuing information documents to report income 
earned from the trust.
  The National Funeral Directors Association supports this legislation. 
So too do numerous funeral homes that serve the people of Utah.
  I have no doubt that many more of these funeral businesses, many of 
which are family-owned and family-run, that serve local communities 
from coast to coast support this legislation as well.
  I think we can all agree that we should make it easier for those who 
are willing to provide for these necessary expenses in advance. Today, 
I ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to enact this important 
measure.
  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. 1743

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DOLLAR LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
                   FUNERAL TRUSTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 685 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of 
     funeral trusts) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsections (d), (e), and (f) of 
     such section are redesignated as subsections (c), (d), and 
     (e), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

                          ____________________