[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17238-17244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Specter):
  S. 1685. A bill to reduce the sentencing disparity between powder and 
crack cocaine violations, and to provide increased emphasis on 
aggravating factors relating to the seriousness of the offense and the 
culpability of the offender; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1685, the 
Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007. I am joined in this effort by 
my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Specter. This 
bipartisan, balanced effort will adjust the existing statutory ratio 
for cocaine sentencing to craft a more rational and effective 
sentencing policy. I must underscore that this bill continues to offer 
significant penalties for drug dealers and ensures that those who 
continue to peddle dangerous substances in our communities will endure 
harsh consequences for their destructive choices; at the same time, 
though, S. 1685 rectifies a longstanding disparity in cocaine 
sentencing that should have been fixed two decades ago.
  Some background might be appropriate for my colleagues at this point. 
In 1986, Congress enacted the anti-drug abuse law to address the 
growing problem of drug use in our country. This legislation created 
the basic framework of statutory mandatory minimum penalties which are 
currently applicable to Federal drug trafficking offenses.
  The law differentiated between powder and crack cocaine by 
establishing significantly higher penalties for crack cocaine offenses. 
It is likely this was done based on assumptions that crack cocaine was 
considered more dangerous and had increased levels of violence 
associated with its usage. Based on these assumptions, the law provided 
for quantity-based penalties which differed dramatically between the 
two forms of cocaine. Under that law, the current law, it takes 100 
times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same 5- and 
10-year mandatory minimum sentences. This penalty structure is referred 
to as the ``100 to 1 drug ratio.''
  Over the last decade, public officials, lawmakers, interest groups, 
criminal justice practitioners, and judges have all criticized and 
questioned the fairness and practicality of the Federal sentencing 
policy for cocaine offenses created by the 1986 law. This 100-to-1 
ratio is widely viewed as an unjustifiable disparity. Crack and powder 
cocaine are pharmacologically the same drug, and although the level of 
violence associated with crack is higher, it does not warrant such an 
extreme sentencing disparity.
  It should also be noted that during the negotiations in 1986 that 
produced the 100-to-1 ratio law, a bill was introduced at the request 
of President Reagan which represented the Reagan administration's views 
on drug policy. This bill was described as the ``culmination'' of 
President Reagan's efforts in his commitment to fight drug abuse. The 
Reagan legislation utilized the same quantity of crack cocaine 
necessary to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum as what is called for 
in the legislation we are introducing today, reducing the sentencing 
disparity to a 20-to-1 ratio.
  While many individuals can disagree on what the appropriate ratio 
should be, I am completely comfortable recommending the same amount 
previously requested by President Reagan. I supported his proposed 20-
to-1 ratio in 1986, and I support this same ratio today.
  Many organizations share our concern, and the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission has advocated that Congress reduce the sentencing disparity 
on four different occasions between 1995 and 2007. The Commission has 
conducted a voluminous amount of research on this topic. This research 
has led to many conclusions by the Commission, including that the 
current penalties exaggerate the relative harmfulness of crack, sweep 
too broadly and apply most often to lower level offenders, and fail to 
provide adequate proportionality.
  The Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act continues to recognize that crack 
and powder cocaine are not coequal in their destructive effects. On the 
contrary, the five-fold reduction in the crack-powder ratio corrects 
the unjustifiable disparity, while appropriately reflecting the greater 
harm to our citizens and communities posed by crack cocaine.
  This legislation also seeks to emphasize the defendant's role in the 
crime and will require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to examine 
sentencing enhancements for all Federal drug violations, including 
methamphetamine. The Commission's examination should include 
appropriate sentencing enhancements for offenders who brandished a 
weapon, sold to minors or pregnant women, sold drugs near schools, were 
involved in the importation of the illegal drugs into our country, or 
have previous felony drug trafficking convictions.
  Finding ways to reduce drug crime is not and should not be a partisan 
issue. All individuals involved in this process have tried to design a 
blueprint to curb the spread of drug trafficking and abuse. An easy, 
straightforward blueprint has unfortunately proven to be elusive. Since 
the 1970s, Congress has been working to improve Federal sentencing 
policy and has routinely made necessary changes to make our sentencing 
structure more just and effective. The bill we introduce today seeks to 
remedy mistakes of the past and will provide a rational and just 
sentencing schedule while continuing to reflect the fundamental and 
befitting goals of the criminal justice system.

[[Page 17239]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in 
support of this important legislation to reduce the difference in 
sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. It is important to 
ameliorate harsh drug laws that have discriminatory consequences.
  The Sentencing Reform Act was enacted over 20 years ago to reduce 
unwarranted disparities and assure proportionality in punishment. 
Instead, the severity of crack-cocaine sentencing has had a harsh 
impact on low-income and African-American communities and has 
undermined public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice 
system. Unfair sentencing feeds the perception that the criminal 
justice system unjustly targets the poor and minority communities.
  The crack powder laws were intended to punish those at the highest 
levels of the illegal drug trade, such as traffickers and kingpins. But 
the low amount needed to trigger the harsh sentences is not associated 
with high-level drug dealing. As the Sentencing Commission reported in 
2005, only 15 percent of Federal cocaine traffickers were high-level 
dealers. The overwhelming majority of defendants were low-level 
participants, such as street dealers, lookouts, or couriers. Harsh 
sentencing in such cases has only a limited impact on the drug trade 
because they involve low level offenders who are not at the top of the 
drug chain. The mass incarceration resulting from these sentences has 
done nothing to decrease drug use. Recent data indicate that such use 
has actually increased over time.
  When these laws were enacted, there was widespread belief in the 
extraordinary dangers of crack cocaine. It was viewed as highly 
addictive and likely to cause violent behavior. We know much more about 
crack cocaine now than we did 20 years ago. The rationale that crack is 
more dangerous or more addictive than powder is not supported by 
research. In fact, research has demonstrated that the effects of crack 
cocaine are much like the effects of powder cocaine.
  Medical experts have determined that the pharmacological effects of 
crack were overstated. They found that crack use doesn't incite violent 
behavior. As with other drugs, the violence is related to the 
distribution of the drug.
  Changes in the drug market have also called the 100-to-1 ratio into 
question. Demand for crack cocaine by new users has decreased 
significantly, and the violence associated with crack cocaine has 
declined. How can Congress continue to support a policy it knows is 
flawed? Changes are long overdue and will be an important step in 
reducing the disparity that plagues drug sentencing policies.
  Under the current sentencing laws, the statutory ratio for powder and 
crack cocaine is 100 to 1. One gram of crack cocaine triggers the same 
penalty as 100 grams of powder cocaine. Possession of 5 grams of crack 
triggers a 5-year mandatory minimum penalty. It is the only drug with a 
mandatory prison sentence for a first-time possession offense. This 
disparity results from an early attempt by the Commission to 
incorporate congressionally mandated minimum penalties into the 
guidelines, even though such harsh mandatory minimums are completely 
inconsistent with the structure and goals of the Sentencing Reform Act.
  Judges, experts, and practitioners in the Federal criminal justice 
system have long opposed mandatory minimums on the ground that they 
undermine the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act by creating 
unwarranted disparities, subjecting defendants with different levels of 
culpability to the same punishment, and adding another unnecessary 
layer of complexity to the sentencing process.
  In its 2002 report, as well as an updated report to Congress in May, 
the commission has repeatedly recognized that the 100-to-1 ratio 
exaggerates the relative harm of crack cocaine and creates unwarranted 
disparities that are correlated with race and class. With a new sense 
of urgency, the Commission continues to call on Congress to eliminate 
the 100-to-1 ratio.
  Senator Hatch's legislation takes two important steps toward this 
goal. It reduces the ratio from 100-to-1 to 20-to-1, and it eliminates 
the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for first-time possession. 
Under the new sentencing scheme proposed by this legislation, the 
amount of crack cocaine triggering a mandatory minimum sentence would 
be raised from 5 grams to 25 grams, an amount that targets the more 
serious traffickers. This change will make cocaine laws more consistent 
with the penalty structure for other types of drugs that require much 
greater amounts to trigger a mandatory minimum. For heroin and 
marijuana, it is 100 grams. Even for methamphetamine, the triggering 
amount is 10 grams. Congress must take action to support the 
recommendations of the Sentencing Commission.
  Changing the ratio will also provide important benefits to the 
criminal justice system as a whole. The Sentencing Commission estimates 
that the 20-to-1 ratio could save over 3,000 prison beds in the Federal 
system over a 5-year period, with millions of dollars in savings each 
year. Resources for prosecution could also be redirected toward more 
serious drug offenders, whose prosecution may actually make a 
difference in drug trafficking. Adjusting the ratio will also help to 
restore public confidence and fairness in the criminal justice system. 
Currently, 5,000 people are convicted under the Federal crack cocaine 
laws every year. The Sentencing Commission recently proposed amended 
guidelines for crack cocaine by reducing sentencing ranges, a change 
that will affect 78 percent of Federal defendants. The commission's 
proposed amendment to the guideline will result in an average sentence 
reduction of 16 months.
  Drug abuse and addiction are increasingly being recognized as public 
health issues, not just as crime problems. More resources must be 
directed at breaking the cycle of drug addiction, which often leads to 
involvement in crimes. More resources must also be directed toward drug 
courts, which provide nonviolent drug offenders with treatment, not 
punishment. We are currently working to reauthorize SAMSHA to improve 
substance abuse treatment, since punishment and incarceration only 
address one part of the overall drug problem.
  The commission recognizes, however, that its efforts are only a 
partial step to eliminate unwarranted disparities in the Federal crack 
powder laws. It has strongly urged Congress to address the problems 
with the 100-to-1 ratio. It is important for us to move forward on this 
issue without any effort to raise penalties for powder cocaine. Current 
law provides for 5-year and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for 
offenses involving, respectively, 500 and 5000 grams of powder cocaine. 
There is no evidence that existing powder-cocaine penalties are too 
low.
  Our goal is to return to the original intent of these laws and direct 
our limited resources to arresting and prosecuting high level drug 
traffickers. Our harshest punishments should be reserved for those who 
truly deserve them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
        Casey):
  S. 1687. A bill to provide for global pathogen surveillance and 
response; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, many have called the 20th Century ``the 
American century.'' The 21st Century will be one, too, provided that we 
understand and act on a new reality: that global interactions make each 
country, even the U.S., more dependent upon others. Nowhere is this 
more striking than in our battle against emerging infectious diseases 
and bioterrorism. Whether we like it or not, the very security of our 
Nation depends upon the capability of nations in remote regions to 
contain epidemics before they spread.
  Today, I am introducing the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2007. 
I am very pleased to have as original cosponsors Senator Hagel, who is 
an esteemed colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator 
Kennedy, who chairs the HELP Committee. Each of these gentlemen also

[[Page 17240]]

cosponsored earlier versions of this bill. Also cosponsoring this bill 
is one of my fine new colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator Casey.
  Our action today is timely, as there is still time to prevent 
bioterrorist attacks on the U.S. It is urgent, because the disease 
surveillance capabilities in foreign countries that this act will 
promote are vitally needed to protect our country against not only 
bioterrorism, but also natural diseases such as avian influenza, which 
threatens to become the greatest pandemic since at least 1918. And it 
is long overdue, as this bill was first passed by the Senate in 2001 
and was again passed in 2005. All of us hope that the third time will 
be the charm.
  The purpose of this bill is to bolster the ability of developing 
countries to detect, identify and report disease outbreaks, with 
particular attention to outbreaks that could be the result of terrorist 
activity. My concern, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, is that today, the many deficiencies in the capability of 
developing nations to track and contain disease epidemics are the 
equivalent of cracks in a levee. Right now, when the epidemiological 
``big one'' hits, whether it is a natural outbreak or a terrorist 
attack, the world simply won't be able to respond in time.
  The odds of a major bioterrorism event are very low, but they are 
hardly zero. In 2001, the American news media, the U.S. Postal Service 
and this United States Senate learned first-hand what it is like to 
receive deadly pathogens in the mail. To this day, we do not know 
whether the murderous anthrax letters were just a criminal act or 
actually a bioterrorist attack. But we surely know that neither our 
military power nor our economic wealth or geographical distance affords 
us immunity from the risk that a deranged person or group will visit 
biological destruction upon us.
  The odds of a major outbreak of a new, but natural, disease are much 
higher, and the possible consequences, while variable, are truly 
frightening. At the high end, an avian flu pandemic similar to the 
Spanish flu of 1918 could kill many millions of people and threaten 
social cohesion everywhere, including in the U.S. Viruses and other 
pathogens respect no borders. Increased contact between humans and 
animals, coupled with vastly increased travel of goods and people, has 
made it possible for a new and distant outbreak to become a sudden 
threat to every continent.
  The SARS epidemic was a good example of this. Now the world watches 
nervously as avian flu spreads westward from Asia, occasionally 
striking poultry flocks in Europe and Africa. We wonder when it will 
reach the Western Hemisphere and whether, or when, it will mutate into 
a disease that is readily transmitted between humans, who lack any 
immunity to it.
  Last month, a man with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, or 
XDRTB, flew across one ocean, twice, and drove across several national 
borders, reminding us how readily a disease can be spread in the modern 
world. We dodged a bullet this time; XDRTB is especially difficult to 
treat, but does not spread as readily as influenza or some other 
diseases. Authorities knew who the disease vector was, moreover, and 
they knew what he had. The risk with avian flu or a bioterrorism attack 
is heightened by the likelihood that the disease will spread before 
anybody even knows it's here.
  As if that were not enough, recent advances in biotechnology that 
open the door to new cures for diseases could also lead to the 
development of new diseases, or new strains of old ones, with much 
greater virulence than in the past or with the ability to resist our 
current vaccines or medicines. Such man-made diseases have already been 
developed by accident, and there is a clear risk of their being 
developed on purpose.
  The U.S., and this Senate, have acted to address the twin threats of 
bioterrorism and new pathogens. We enacted the Public Health Security 
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, introduced by 
Senators Frist and Kennedy, to buttress the ability of U.S. public 
health institutions to deal with a bioterrorism emergency. In 2004 we 
enacted the Project BioShield Act to spur the development of new 
vaccines and medicines.
  The Centers for Disease Control has a program to put electronic 
surveillance systems in 8 American cities as the cornerstone of an 
eventual national network. Delaware is developing the first State-wide, 
electronic reporting system for infectious diseases, which will serve 
as a prototype for other States. And the Department of Health and Human 
Services funded a 3-year, $5.4 million program, early warning 
infectious disease surveillance, to assist the Government of Mexico to 
improve its disease surveillance capabilities near the U.S. border. 
Other funds were provided to U.S. States on the Mexican border.
  But these efforts, as vital as they are, address the threats of 
disease and bioterrorism only when they are inside our house or on our 
doorstep. We must lift our eyes and look farther, to the places around 
the world where diseases and terrorism so often breed. We must battle 
bioterrorism not just at home, but also in those countries where lax 
governance and the lack of public health resources could permit both 
strange groups and stranger diseases to get a foothold and to get out 
of hand. We must not treat the threat of a massive biological pandemic 
the way we treated the threat of a category 5 hurricane striking New 
Orleans. If we do not prepare to combat realistic, once-in-a-century 
threats, then we will be left again to pick up the pieces after 
enduring massive physical and social harm.
  There are precedents in current programs, moreover, for promoting 
disease surveillance as a means to lessen the risk of bioterrorism. For 
example, our programs to find useful careers for former Soviet 
biological weapons scientists, under the leadership of the State 
Department's Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction, currently fund the 
disease surveillance activities of anti-plague institutes in six states 
of the former Soviet Union, which had a major pathogen surveillance 
program ever since tsarist days. The Department of Defense also has 
programs with former Soviet scientists, as well as overseas 
laboratories that work with doctors in developing countries.
  We need to build on those programs. We must create a world-wide 
disease surveillance capability that matches that of the old anti-
plague institutes. We must help the rest of the world gain the 
capability to detect, contain, and report on disease outbreaks in a 
timely manner, and especially to spot outbreaks that may be the result 
of biological terrorism.
  Part of the answer to the threat of new natural diseases is to 
stockpile vaccines and medicines, and the means to deliver them 
quickly. But rapid detection and identification of an outbreak is 
equally necessary, wherever it occurs. Only disease surveillance can 
give us the lead time to manufacture vaccines and enable the world 
community to help control a disease outbreak where it initially occurs.
  In 2005, two sets of researchers reported in the journals Nature and 
Science that, based on computer simulations, if an outbreak of human-
to-human-transmitted avian flu occurred in a rural part of Southeast 
Asia, it might be possible to stem that dangerous epidemic by using 
anti-viral drugs to treat the tens of thousands of people who might 
have been exposed in the initial outbreak. One key requirement, 
however, was that the outbreak would have to be discovered, identified 
and reported very quickly; in one study, the assumption was that 
countermeasures were instituted when only 30 people had observable 
symptoms. That is a tall order for any country's disease surveillance 
system, let alone a poorly equipped one.
  The National Intelligence Council, NIC, reported in January 2000 that 
developing nations in Africa and Asia have only rudimentary systems, at 
best, for disease surveillance. They lack sufficient trained personnel 
and laboratory equipment, and especially the modern communications 
equipment that is needed for speedy analysis

[[Page 17241]]

and reporting of disease outbreaks. The NIC estimated that it would 
take at least a decade to create an effective world-wide disease 
surveillance system.
  According to an August 2001 report by the General Accounting Office, 
World Health Organization officials said that more than 60 percent of 
laboratory equipment in developing countries was either outdated or 
nonfunctioning, and that the vast majority of national personnel were 
not familiar with quality assurance principles for handling and 
analyzing biological samples. Deficiencies in training and equipment 
meant that many public health units in Africa and Asia were simply 
unable to perform accurate and timely disease surveillance.
  The poor sanitary conditions, poverty, close contact between people 
and animals, and weak medical infrastructure make developing countries 
ideal breeding grounds for epidemics.
  So it is vital to give these countries the capability to track 
epidemics and to feed that information into international surveillance 
networks. Disease surveillance is a systematic approach that requires 
trained public health personnel, proper diagnostic equipment to 
identify viruses and pathogens, and prompt transmission of data from 
the doctor or clinic level all the way to national governments and the 
World Health Organization, WHO.
  The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will offer such help to those 
countries that agree to give the United States or the World Health 
Organization prompt access to disease outbreaks, so that we can help 
determine their origin. Recipients of this training will also be able 
to learn to spot diseases that might be used in a bioterrorist attack.
  In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the Department of 
Defense and others, which have all supported the underlying goals of 
the bill. We also accepted several suggestions for improving the bill 
from the State Department and, in 2005, from the HELP Committee, all of 
which contributed to making this a better bill.
  This bill targets U.S. assistance to developing nations in the 
following areas: Training of public health personnel in epidemiology; 
aquisition of laboratory and diagnostic equipment; Acquisition of 
communications technology to quickly transmit data on disease patterns 
and pathogen diagnoses to national public health authorities and to 
international institutions like the WHO; expansion of overseas CDC and 
Department of Defense laboratories engaged in infectious disease 
research and disease surveillance, which expansion could take the form 
of additional laboratories, enlargement of existing facilities, 
increases in the number of personnel, and/or expanding the scope of 
their activities; and expanded assistance to WHO and regional disease 
surveillance efforts, including expansion of U.S.-administered foreign 
epidemiology training programs.
  Two years ago the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, expressed 
her strong backing for this legislation:

       We believe that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will 
     indeed help strengthen developing countries' abilities to 
     identify and track pathogens that could be indicators of 
     dangerous disease outbreaks--either naturally-occurring or 
     deliberately-released. Improved disease surveillance and 
     communication among nations are critical defenses against 
     both bioterrorism and natural outbreaks. We look forward to 
     working with you in support of the Global Pathogen 
     Surveillance Act.

  Secretary Rice went on to make clear that she shares the sense of 
urgency that Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Casey and I feel on this subject:

       One of the true ``nightmare'' scenarios--of a bioterrorist 
     attack or a naturally-occurring disease--involves a 
     contagious biological agent moving swiftly through a crowded 
     urban area of a densely populated developing nation. Thus, we 
     believe that it is critical to increase efforts to strengthen 
     the public health and scientific infrastructure necessary to 
     identify and quickly respond to infectious disease 
     outbreaks--and that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will 
     provide valuable support in these efforts.

  The WHO also shares our concern. During the SARS epidemic, Dr. 
Michael Heymann, who was the highest-ranking American in the WHO, 
stated: ``it is clear that the best defense against the spread of 
emerging infections such as SARS is strong national public health, 
national disease detection and response capacities that can identify 
new diseases and contain them before they spread internationally.'' He 
went on to highlight the important role that disease surveillance plays 
in combating both natural and terrorist outbreaks:

       Global partnerships to combat global microbial threats make 
     good sense as a defense strategy that brings immediate 
     benefits in terms of strengthened pubic health and 
     surveillance systems. The resulting infectious disease 
     intelligence brings dual benefits in terms of protecting 
     populations against both naturally occurring and potentially 
     deliberately caused outbreaks. As SARS has so vividly 
     demonstrated, the need is urgent and of critical importance 
     to the health of economies as well as populations.
       Support to developing countries such as proposed in the 
     Global Pathogen Surveillance Act . . . will help strengthen 
     capacity of public health professionals and epidemiologists, 
     laboratory and other disease detection systems, and outbreak 
     response mechanisms for naturally occurring infectious 
     diseases such as SARS. This in turn will strengthen WHO and 
     the world's safety net for outbreak detection and response, 
     of which the United States is a major partner. And finally, 
     strengthening this global safety net to detect and contain 
     naturally occurring infectious diseases will strengthen the 
     world's capacity to detect and respond to infectious diseases 
     that may be deliberately caused.

  The purpose of the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act is precisely to 
build these partnerships. And today, with the global war on terrorism 
an ever-present concern and with the threat of avian flu on the 
horizon, we have no time to waste. I urge my Senate colleagues to once 
again pass this bill and, with new leadership in the other body and 
with the support of Secretary Rice, I look forward to its speedy 
enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1689. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income amounts received on account of claims based on 
certain unlawful discrimination and to allow income averaging for 
backpay and frontpay awards received on account of such claims, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Civil Rights Tax 
Relief Act of 2007, which I joined Senator Bingaman in introducing 
today.
  The primary purpose of this bill is to continue our efforts to remedy 
an unintended consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 
1996, which made damage awards that are not based on ``physical 
injuries or physical sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income. 
Because most acts of employment discrimination and civil rights 
violations do not cause physical injuries, this provision means that 
plaintiffs who succeed in proving that they have suffered employment 
discrimination or other intentional violations of their civil rights 
are taxed on the compensation they receive.
  Until a few years ago, this problem was compounded by the fact that 
attorneys' fees awarded in successful civil rights actions were treated 
as the plaintiff's taxable income, despite the fact that these fees 
were paid over to the plaintiff's attorney, who was also taxed on the 
money. Back in the 108th Congress, I joined with Senator Bingaman in 
offering legislation to correct this inequity, and I am glad to say 
that this double taxation of attorneys' fees was eliminated as part of 
the JOBS Act we passed in 2004.
  But more remains to be done. Plaintiffs who are successful in 
employment discrimination or civil rights cases often receive a lump-
sum award meant to compensate them for years of employment. 
Unfortunately, these awards are then taxed at the highest marginal tax 
rates, as if the award reflected the plaintiff's normal annual salary. 
As if that were not bad enough, successful plaintiffs can also find 
themselves subject to alternative minimum tax.
  Let me explain how our bill eliminates this unfair taxation. First, 
the bill excludes from gross income amounts awarded other than for 
punitive damages and compensation attributable to services that were to 
be performed, known as ``backpay,'' or that would have been performed 
but for a

[[Page 17242]]

claimed violation of law by the employer, known as ``frontpay.'' 
Second, award amounts for frontpay or backpay would be included in 
income, but would be eligible for income averaging according to the 
time period covered by the award. This correction would allow 
individuals to pay taxes at the same marginal rates that would have 
applied to them had they not suffered discrimination. Our bill also 
ensures that these awards do not trigger the AMT.
  The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement 
of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination 
claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to 
settle claims based on the damages suffered, not on the excessive taxes 
that are now levied.
  This bill is a ``win-win'' for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant 
businesses. I invite my colleagues to join in support of this 
commonsense legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 1690. A bill to establish a 4-year pilot program to provide 
information and educational materials to small business concerns 
regarding health insurance options, including coverage options within 
the small group market; to the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is 
my responsibility and the duty of this chamber to help small 
businesses, as they are the driver of this Nation's economy, 
responsible for generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs 
each year.
  Today, I rise with Senators Kerry and Bennett to introduce 
legislation that would address the crisis that faces small businesses 
when it comes to purchasing quality, affordable health insurance. This 
is not a new crisis. Over 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. 
We have now experienced double digit percentage increases in health 
insurance premiums in 4 of the past 6 years. Small businesses face 
difficult choices in seeking to provide affordable health insurance to 
their employees. The time to act is now.
  Study after study tells us that the smallest businesses are the ones 
least likely to offer insurance and most in need of assistance. 
According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working 
uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our Nation's uninsured population, 
60.6 percent either work for a small business with fewer than 100 
employees or are self-employed. Furthermore, many of the small 
businesses whom we meet with tell us how they feel like the cost and 
complexity of the health care system has moved health insurance far 
beyond their reach.
  That is why today we introduce the Small Business Health Insurance 
Options Act of 2007. This bipartisan measure would establish a pilot, 
competitive matching-grant program for Small Business Development 
Centers, SBDCs, to provide educational resources and materials to small 
businesses designed to increase awareness regarding health insurance 
options available in their areas. Recent research conducted by the 
Healthcare Leadership Council has found that following a brief 
education and counseling session, small businesses are up to 33 percent 
more likely to offer health insurance to their employees.
  Our bill capitalizes on the well-established national SBDC framework. 
SBDCs are one of the greatest business assistance and entrepreneurial 
development resources provided to small businesses that are seeking to 
start, grow, and flourish. Currently, there are over 1,100 service 
locations in every State and territory delivering management and 
technical counseling to prospective and existing small business owners.
  Our legislation would require the Small Business Administration to 
provide up to 20 matching grants to qualified SBDCs across the country. 
No more than two SBDCs, one per State, would be chosen from each of the 
SBA's 10 regions. The grants shall be more than $150,000, but less than 
$300,000, and shall be consistent with the matching requirement under 
current law. In creating the materials for their grant programs, 
participating SBDCs should evaluate and incorporate relevant portions 
of existing health insurance options, including materials created by 
the Healthcare Leadership Council, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and 
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
  Enacting this legislation is an important step in the right direction 
towards assisting small businesses as they work to strengthen 
themselves, remain competitive against larger businesses that are able 
to offer affordable health insurance, and in turn bolster the entire 
economy.
  We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill, and 
to continue to work to address the issues facing the small business 
community.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1690

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Health 
     Insurance Options Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS INFORMATION FOR SMALL 
                   BUSINESS CONCERNS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       (1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the 
     Small Business Administration.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Administration.
       (3) Association.--The term ``association'' means an 
     association established under section 21(a)(3)(A) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(3)(A)) representing a 
     majority of small business development centers.
       (4) Participating small business development center.--The 
     term ``participating small business development center'' 
     means a small business development center described in 
     section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648) that--
       (A) is accredited under section 21(k)(2) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(k)(2)); and
       (B) receives a grant under the pilot program.
       (5) Pilot program.--The term ``pilot program'' means the 
     small business health insurance information pilot program 
     established under this section.
       (6) Small business concern.--The term ``small business 
     concern'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American 
     Samoa, and Guam.
       (b) Small Business Health Insurance Information Pilot 
     Program.--The Administrator shall establish a pilot program 
     to make grants to small business development centers to 
     provide neutral and objective information and educational 
     materials regarding health insurance options, including 
     coverage options within the small group market, to small 
     business concerns.
       (c) Applications.--
       (1) Posting of information.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     post on the website of the Administration and publish in the 
     Federal Register a guidance document describing--
       (A) the requirements of an application for a grant under 
     the pilot program; and
       (B) the types of informational and educational materials 
     regarding health insurance options to be created under the 
     pilot program, including by referencing materials and 
     resources developed by the National Association of Insurance 
     Commissioners, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the 
     Healthcare Leadership Council.
       (2) Submission.--A small business development center 
     desiring a grant under the pilot program shall submit an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Administrator may reasonably require.
       (d) Selection of Participating Small Business Development 
     Centers.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall select not more 
     than 20 small business development centers to receive a grant 
     under the pilot program.
       (2) Selection of programs.--In selecting small business 
     development centers under paragraph (1), the Administrator 
     may not select--
       (A) more than 2 programs from each of the groups of States 
     described in paragraph (3); and
       (B) more than 1 program in any State.
       (3) Groupings.--The groups of States described in this 
     paragraph are the following:

[[Page 17243]]

       (A) Group 1.--Group 1 shall consist of Maine, 
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode 
     Island.
       (B) Group 2.--Group 2 shall consist of New York, New 
     Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
       (C) Group 3.--Group 3 shall consist of Pennsylvania, 
     Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, the District of Columbia, 
     and Delaware.
       (D) Group 4.--Group 4 shall consist of Georgia, Alabama, 
     North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, 
     Kentucky, and Tennessee.
       (E) Group 5.--Group 5 shall consist of Illinois, Ohio, 
     Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
       (F) Group 6.--Group 6 shall consist of Texas, New Mexico, 
     Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
       (G) Group 7.--Group 7 shall consist of Missouri, Iowa, 
     Nebraska, and Kansas.
       (H) Group 8.--Group 8 shall consist of Colorado, Wyoming, 
     North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Utah.
       (I) Group 9.--Group 9 shall consist of California, Guam, 
     American Samoa, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona.
       (J) Group 10.--Group 10 shall consist of Washington, 
     Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon.
       (4) Deadline for selection.--The Administrator shall make 
     selections under this subsection not later than 6 months 
     after the later of the date on which the information 
     described in subsection (c)(1) is posted on the website of 
     the Administration and the date on which the information 
     described in subsection (c)(1) is published in the Federal 
     Register.
       (e) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A participating small business development 
     center shall use funds provided under the pilot program to--
       (A) create and distribute informational materials; and
       (B) conduct training and educational activities.
       (2) Content of materials.--
       (A) In general.--In creating materials under the pilot 
     program, a participating small business development center 
     shall evaluate and incorporate relevant portions of existing 
     informational materials regarding health insurance options, 
     including materials and resources developed by the National 
     Association of Insurance Commissioners, the Kaiser Family 
     Foundation, and the Healthcare Leadership Council.
       (B) Health insurance options.--In incorporating information 
     regarding health insurance options under subparagraph (A), a 
     participating small business development center shall provide 
     neutral and objective information regarding health insurance 
     options in the geographic area served by the participating 
     small business development center, including traditional 
     employer sponsored health insurance for the group insurance 
     market, such as the health insurance options defined in 
     section 2791 of the Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300gg-91) or section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, and Federal and State health insurance programs.
       (f) Grant Amounts.--Each participating small business 
     development center program shall receive a grant in an amount 
     equal to--
       (1) not less than $150,000 per fiscal year; and
       (2) not more than $300,000 per fiscal year.
       (g) Matching Requirement.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     section 21(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(a)(4)) shall apply to assistance made available under the 
     pilot program.
       (h) Reports.--Each participating small business development 
     center shall transmit to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives, a quarterly report 
     that includes--
       (1) a summary of the information and educational materials 
     regarding health insurance options provided by the 
     participating small business development center under the 
     pilot program; and
       (2) the number of small business concerns assisted under 
     the pilot program.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section--
       (A) $5,000,000 for the first fiscal year beginning after 
     the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) $5,000,000 for each of the 3 fiscal years following the 
     fiscal year described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Limitation on use of other funds.--The Administrator 
     may carry out the pilot program only with amounts 
     appropriated in advance specifically to carry out this 
     section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Isakson, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. 
        Murkowski, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 1692. A bill to grant a Federal charter to Korean War Veterans 
Association, Incorporated; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today, on the 57th anniversary of 
the start of the Korean war, to introduce legislation to help honor 
American veterans who served our Nation during that war by granting a 
Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, KWVA, a 
nonprofit fraternal veterans' organization. A companion measure is 
being introduced in the House by the distinguished majority leader, 
Steny Hoyer, and Representative Sam Johnson, who have led this effort 
in previous Congresses along with my predecessor, Senator Paul 
Sarbanes.
  The Korean war is sometimes referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' 
because it has been overshadowed by World War II and the Vietnam war, 
and its importance has often been overlooked in American history. But 
for the nearly 1.2 million American veterans of the Korean war still 
alive today, the war is anything but forgotten. During the 3-year 
course of the war, some 5.7 million Americans were called to serve, 
under some of the most adverse and trying circumstances ever faced in 
wartime, for the cause of freedom. Alongside Korean and United Nations 
allies, our forces fought with extraordinary courage and valor. By the 
time the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953, more than 
36,000 Americans had died, 103,284 had been wounded, 7,140 were 
captured, and 664 were missing.
  Granting a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association 
would give our Nation an opportunity to honor veterans who served in 
that war, as well as those who have served subsequently in defense of 
the Republic of Korea. The KWVA is the only fraternal veterans' 
organization in the United States devoted exclusively to Korean war 
veterans and the only U.S. member of the International Federation of 
Korean War Veterans Associations.
  Incorporated in 1985, the 20,000-member charitable association is 
also one of the few veterans' service organizations in America that has 
not been recognized with a Federal charter. These veterans are a source 
of strength and pride for our country. While we cannot repay the debt 
we owe them for the sacrifices they made, we can and should acknowledge 
and commemorate their service and help the association to expand its 
mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes.
  This recognition for the KWVA is long overdue, and I am hopeful that 
this year, Congress will act swiftly to approve this measure. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1692

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

     SECTION 1. GRANT OF FEDERAL CHARTER TO KOREAN WAR VETERANS 
                   ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED.

       (a) Grant of Charter.--Part B of subtitle II of title 36, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the following:

                     ``CHAPTER 1201--[RESERVED]'';

       and
       (2) by inserting after chapter 1103 the following new 
     chapter:

     ``CHAPTER 1201--KOREAN WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

``Sec.
``120101. Organization.
``120102. Purposes.
``120103. Membership.
``120104. Governing body.
``120105. Powers.
``120106. Restrictions.
``120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of charter.
``120108. Records and inspection.
``120109. Service of process.
``120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents.
``120111. Annual report.
``120112. Definition.

     ``Sec. 120101. Organization

       ``(a) Federal Charter.--Korean War Veterans Association, 
     Incorporated (in this chapter, the `corporation'), a 
     nonprofit organization that meets the requirements for a 
     veterans service organization under section 501(c)(19) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that is organized under the 
     laws of the State of New York, is a federally chartered 
     corporation.

[[Page 17244]]

       ``(b) Expiration of Charter.--If the corporation does not 
     comply with the provisions of this chapter, the charter 
     granted by subsection (a) shall expire.

     ``Sec. 120102. Purposes

       ``The purposes of the corporation are those provided in the 
     articles of incorporation of the corporation and shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) To organize as a veterans service organization in 
     order to maintain a continuing interest in the welfare of 
     veterans of the Korean War, and rehabilitation of the 
     disabled veterans of the Korean War to include all that 
     served during active hostilities and subsequently in defense 
     of the Republic of Korea, and their families.
       ``(2) To establish facilities for the assistance of all 
     veterans and to represent them in their claims before the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations 
     without charge.
       ``(3) To perpetuate and preserve the comradeship and 
     friendships born on the field of battle and nurtured by the 
     common experience of service to the United States during the 
     time of war and peace.
       ``(4) To honor the memory of the men and women who gave 
     their lives so that the United States and the world might be 
     free and live by the creation of living memorial, monuments, 
     and other forms of additional educational, cultural, and 
     recreational facilities.
       ``(5) To preserve for the people of the United States and 
     posterity of such people the great and basic truths and 
     enduring principles upon which the United States was founded.

     ``Sec. 120103. Membership

       ``Eligibility for membership in the corporation, and the 
     rights and privileges of members of the corporation, are as 
     provided in the bylaws of the corporation.

     ``Sec. 120104. Governing body

       ``(a) Board of Directors.--The composition of the board of 
     directors of the corporation, and the responsibilities of the 
     board, are as provided in the articles of incorporation of 
     the corporation.
       ``(b) Officers.--The positions of officers of the 
     corporation, and the election of the officers, are as 
     provided in the articles of incorporation.

     ``Sec. 120105. Powers

       ``The corporation has only those powers provided in its 
     bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in each State in 
     which it is incorporated.

     ``Sec. 120106. Restrictions

       ``(a) Stock and Dividends.--The corporation may not issue 
     stock or declare or pay a dividend.
       ``(b) Political Activities.--The corporation, or a director 
     or officer of the corporation as such, may not contribute to, 
     support, or participate in any political activity or in any 
     manner attempt to influence legislation.
       ``(c) Loan.--The corporation may not make a loan to a 
     director, officer, or employee of the corporation.
       ``(d) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authority.--The 
     corporation may not claim congressional approval, or the 
     authority of the United States, for any activity of the 
     corporation.
       ``(e) Corporate Status.--The corporation shall maintain its 
     status as a corporation incorporated under the laws of the 
     State of New York.

     ``Sec. 120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of 
       charter

       ``If the corporation fails to maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, the charter granted under this chapter shall 
     terminate.

     ``Sec. 120108. Records and inspection

       ``(a) Records.--The corporation shall keep--
       ``(1) correct and complete records of account;
       ``(2) minutes of the proceedings of the members, board of 
     directors, and committees of the corporation having any of 
     the authority of the board of directors of the corporation; 
     and
       ``(3) at the principal office of the corporation, a record 
     of the names and addresses of the members of the corporation 
     entitled to vote on matters relating to the corporation.
       ``(b) Inspection.--A member entitled to vote on any matter 
     relating to the corporation, or an agent or attorney of the 
     member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any 
     proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

     ``Sec. 120109. Service of process

       ``The corporation shall have a designated agent in the 
     District of Columbia to receive service of process for the 
     corporation. Notice to or service on the agent is notice to 
     or service on the corporation.

     ``Sec. 120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents

       ``The corporation is liable for any act of any officer or 
     agent of the corporation acting within the scope of the 
     authority of the corporation.

     ``Sec. 120111. Annual report

       ``The corporation shall submit to Congress an annual report 
     on the activities of the corporation during the preceding 
     fiscal year. The report shall be submitted at the same time 
     as the report of the audit required by section 10101(b) of 
     this title. The report may not be printed as a public 
     document.

     ``Sec. 120112. Definition

       ``For purposes of this chapter, the term `State' includes 
     the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions 
     of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to chapter 1201 
     in the table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle II of 
     title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

120101''.ean War Veterans Association, Incorporated..................

                          ____________________