[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14645-14649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Nelson):
  S. 1835. A bill to provide support to States to establish invisible 
high risk

[[Page 14646]]

pool or reinsurance programs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the cost of health insurance has been a 
major problem with the Affordable Care Act and with many of the bills 
which have been advanced to repeal and replace this law.
  I rise to introduce the Lower Premiums Through Reinsurance Act of 
2017. This bill would provide States with the flexibility and support 
they need to create State-based reinsurance programs for their 
individual health insurance markets in order to lower premiums while 
ensuring continued coverage for people with preexisting conditions.
  I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague and friend Senator 
Bill Nelson in introducing this bill. Senator Nelson is a former 
insurance commissioner who comes to this issue with a wealth of 
knowledge dating to his experience with Florida's innovative 
homeowners' reinsurance program, developed in the 1990s in the wake of 
Hurricane Andrew. For my own part, I spent 5 years in State government 
overseeing a department which included the Bureau of Insurance.
  Over the past 2 weeks, the Senate HELP Committee, on which I am 
privileged to serve, completed a round of hearings under the able 
leadership of Chairman Lamar Alexander and Ranking Member Patty Murray. 
They looked at the steps we could take in the near term to stabilize 
the individual market and help to bring down rates. Reinsurance was 
frequently mentioned as an option Congress should consider and adopt. 
Insurance commissioners from Alaska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, and Washington State all spoke positively of its benefits, 
as did the five Governors who testified before the committee--three 
Republicans and two Democrats. Although the witnesses presented 
different views on how a reinsurance mechanism might be structured, 
they were in broad agreement that reinsurance funding would help 
stabilize the markets and lower premiums.
  The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has recommended 
that Congress provide reinsurance funding of $15 billion annually to 
help cover high-cost claims in the individual market. We realize, 
however, we are living in very tight budget times, and there is an 
understandable reluctance among many Members to provide that level of 
Federal funding. We believe the ACA's section 1332's flowthrough 
mechanism can effectively leverage that level of funding with a much 
smaller contribution of Federal dollars. Our bill, therefore, would 
appropriate $2.25 billion per year in 2018 and 2019, which should be 
sufficient to leverage $15 billion in total reinsurance funding 
annually, based on the ratios in Alaska's recently approved 1332 
waiver.
  As Alaska's insurance commissioner told the HELP Committee, next year 
her State will be able to fund its $55 million reinsurance program with 
just $6.6 million of its own money--15 percent of the total. The 
remaining $48.4 million will be provided in Federal flowthrough funding 
that matches the savings to the Federal Government resulting from the 
reinsurance program. Let me explain why there would be savings for the 
Federal Government.
  If we are able to reduce the cost of premiums, then the Federal 
Government will be paying less by way of subsidies to individuals who 
qualify for those subsidies because they make 400 percent or less of 
the Federal poverty level.
  The bill we are introducing today would allow States to quickly stand 
up their own reinsurance programs through the Affordable Care Act's 
section 1332 waiver process. Broadly speaking, the bill would create a 
menu of options States could use to design reinsurance programs, which 
in turn would be eligible for Federal seed money grants. States may 
also obviously add funds from other sources to the mix.
  States that want to set up their own reinsurance pools quickly could 
do so under our bill by using one of three options designed for 
expedited review: first, by demonstrating that their program is an 
``invisible high-risk pool'' along the lines of the Maine and Alaska 
models, which I will describe in more detail in a moment; second, by 
showing that their program fits within the parameters of ObamaCare's 
``transitional insurance program,'' which expired at the end of last 
year; and third, by submitting what I would call a ``me too'' 
application based on another State's program that has already received 
approval.
  I wish to take a moment to explain why our legislation provides 
expedited review for different reinsurance pool designs. First, many of 
the witnesses who testified before the HELP Committee made the point 
that States would have difficulty quickly coming up with their own 
design. We acknowledge that, and that is why we provided expedited 
review for a pool based on the transitional ACA reinsurance program 
previously in effect and with which States are already familiar.
  Second, we know from the experience of the States of Maine and Alaska 
how effective invisible reinsurance pools can be. Alaska's invisible 
pool reduced a projected 40-percent rate increase to just 7 percent 
this year and is expected to contribute to a 20-percent decline in 
premiums next year. Maine saw similar results in its program, the Maine 
Guaranteed Access Reinsurance Association.
  The Maine program, which was in operation from 2012 until the end of 
2013, covered approximately 3,600 insured individuals, at a cost of 
approximately $12,500 per person, per year, and reduced rates in the 
individual market by about 20 percent on average.
  It is important for us to keep in mind that the individual market is 
where people who do not have employer-sponsored insurance have to go to 
buy their insurance. If they make 400 percent or less of the Federal 
poverty level, they get premium tax credits--subsidies, in other 
words--from the Federal Government to assist them with the cost. But if 
they make a dollar over 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, they 
lose that assistance altogether.
  Another problem that is in the ACA is those cliffs, which make no 
sense whatsoever and really penalize individuals who may work in the 
trades, such as electricians and plumbers, who don't know for certain 
what their income is going to be and can face an unexpected bill where 
they have to pay back the entire subsidy. But there are others who make 
above 400 percent who knew it and didn't qualify for the subsidy, but 
they still have to purchase in the individual market. I think that 
should be revisited, but that is a speech for another day.
  My point is that they would benefit greatly from a 20-percent 
reduction in the premiums they pay. That was our experience in Maine. 
On average there was a 20-percent reduction in premiums when the 
reinsurance pool was in effect. The reinsurance pool even generated a 
surplus of $5 billion during its 18 months of operation.
  The Maine pool was successful for several reasons. First, risks were 
ceded up front so insurers could not wait until a policyholder 
developed an unexpected serious health condition to decide who was 
going to be in the high-risk pool and who was not. The rules also 
required policies for individuals who suffered from certain high-risk 
conditions to be automatically ceded to the pool on enrollment.
  I note that when an insurer made the decision to cede to the pool the 
risk for a particular policyholder, or if it was an automatic ceding, 
90 percent of the premiums from that policyholder went to the 
reinsurance pool to help finance it.
  Second--and this is important--the program was invisible to both 
individuals who were insured through it and to healthcare providers. 
Individuals were covered seamlessly and enjoyed the same benefits as 
nonpool enrollees. Likewise, healthcare providers did not know whose 
policy had been ceded to the pool.
  Third--and also very important--Maine's program operated with the 
full set of consumer protection guardrails set by the ACA, including 
guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewability, and prohibitions against 
taking preexisting conditions or health status into account in issuing 
policies or setting rates.

[[Page 14647]]

  Fourth, the Maine program was designed to provide true reinsurance. 
Insurers paid the first $7,500 in costs, plus 10 percent of the next 
$25,000. After that threshold, the pool picked up the rest of the 
costs.
  Finally, Maine's program was backed by a stable funding source. In 
addition to receiving 90 percent of the premiums for ceded policies, it 
also received funding that was assessed at a rate of $4 per person, per 
month, on all healthcare policies.
  While Alaska's reinsurance program differs from Maine's in some 
respects, the success of both models shows the promise and proves the 
promise of invisible reinsurance pools, and that is why our bill 
includes invisible reinsurance pools as an option for expedited review 
and approval.
  Open enrollment in the ACA exchanges begins November 1, just about 6 
weeks from now. In just days, CMS is expected to finalize the premiums 
insurers will charge in the ACA exchanges next year. While I personally 
remain ever hopeful that a bipartisan agreement on a targeted, 
consensus approach to stabilizing the markets and reducing premiums can 
still be reached, clearly, we have very little time. Beyond providing 
cost-sharing reduction funding, there is no step that would be more 
powerful in stabilizing markets and reducing premiums than providing 
reinsurance.
  This Chamber is deeply divided on what to do on healthcare policy, 
but surely we ought to be able to come together and build on the good 
work that the leaders of the HELP Committee have done--work that more 
than 60 Senators have witnessed and participated in by attending 
coffees that Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray have 
sponsored with our witnesses and by participating in the HELP Committee 
hearings. They have worked hard to produce a bill that would really 
make a difference.
  The bill Senator Nelson and I are introducing today helps to fill out 
the reinsurance provisions that I know from attending each of those 
hearings have been widely supported by virtually every witness who 
testified before us. It would enable States to stand up their own 
reinsurance program simply and quickly, and it would reduce the costs 
of the Federal Government if we used the section 1332 flow-through 
mechanism far below what would otherwise be required. Most important of 
all, it is something that we could do right off, along with the cost-
saving reductions, which help low-income people with their copays and 
their deductibles--their out-of-pocket costs. Those two steps are 
actions that we could take right now to help moderate premium increases 
that would otherwise occur and that would be of real benefit to anyone 
who is in the individual market.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, 
        Mr. Markey, and Mr. Franken):
  S. 1837. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax rate parity among all tobacco products, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 1837

       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 ``Tobacco Tax Equity Act of 
     2017''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHING EXCISE TAX EQUITY AMONG ALL TOBACCO 
                   PRODUCT TAX RATES.

       (a) Tax Parity for Pipe Tobacco and Roll-Your-Own 
     Tobacco.--Section 5701(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``$2.8311 cents'' and inserting 
     ``$24.78''.
       (b) Tax Parity for Smokeless Tobacco.--
       (1) Section 5701(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$1.51'' and inserting 
     ``$13.42'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``50.33 cents'' and 
     inserting ``$5.37''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Smokeless tobacco sold in discrete single-use 
     units.--On discrete single-use units, $50.33 per thousand.''.
       (2) Section 5702(m) of such Code is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or chewing tobacco'' 
     and inserting ``, chewing tobacco, or discrete single-use 
     unit'';
       (B) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by inserting ``that is not a 
     discrete single-use unit'' before the period in each such 
     paragraph; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Discrete single-use unit.--The term `discrete single-
     use unit' means any product containing tobacco that--
       ``(A) is not intended to be smoked; and
       ``(B) is in the form of a lozenge, tablet, pill, pouch, 
     dissolvable strip, or other discrete single-use or single-
     dose unit.''.
       (c) Tax Parity for Large Cigars.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 5701(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``52.75 
     percent'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting the following: ``$24.78 per pound and a 
     proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of 
     a pound but not less than 5.033 cents per cigar.''.
       (2) Guidance.--The Secretary of the Treasury, or the 
     Secretary's delegate, may issue guidance regarding the 
     appropriate method for determining the weight of large cigars 
     for purposes of calculating the applicable tax under section 
     5701(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (d) Tax Parity for Roll-Your-Own Tobacco and Certain 
     Processed Tobacco.--Subsection (o) of section 5702 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``, and 
     includes processed tobacco that is removed for delivery or 
     delivered to a person other than a person with a permit 
     provided under section 5713, but does not include removals of 
     processed tobacco for exportation'' after ``wrappers 
     thereof''.
       (e) Clarifying Tax Rate for Other Tobacco Products.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5701 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Other Tobacco Products.--Any product not otherwise 
     described under this section that has been determined to be a 
     tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration through 
     its authorities under the Family Smoking Prevention and 
     Tobacco Control Act shall be taxed at a level of tax 
     equivalent to the tax rate for cigarettes on an estimated per 
     use basis as determined by the Secretary.''.
       (2) Establishing per use basis.--For purposes of section 
     5701(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, not later than 
     12 months after the later of the date of the enactment o this 
     Act or the date that a product has been determined to be a 
     tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary of the Treasury's 
     delegate) shall issue final regulations establishing the 
     level of tax for such product that is equivalent to the tax 
     rate for cigarettes on an estimated per use basis.
       (f) Clarifying Definition of Tobacco Products.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 5702 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Tobacco Products.--The term `tobacco products' 
     means--
       ``(1) cigars, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, 
     and roll-your-own tobacco, and
       ``(2) any other product subject to tax pursuant to section 
     5701(i).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Subsection (d) of section 5702 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``cigars, cigarettes, 
     smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, or roll-your-own tobacco'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``tobacco products''.
       (g) Tax Rates Adjusted for Inflation.--Section 5701 of such 
     Code, as amended by subsection (e), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any calendar year 
     beginning after 2017, the dollar amounts provided under this 
     chapter shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by 
     substituting `calendar year 2016' for `calendar year 1992' in 
     subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
     (1) is not a multiple of $0.01, such amount shall be rounded 
     to the next highest multiple of $0.01.''.
       (h) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) 
     through (4), the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to articles removed (as defined in section 5702(j) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after the last day of the 
     month which includes the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Discrete single-use units and processed tobacco.--The 
     amendments made by subsections (b)(1)(C), (b)(2), and (d) 
     shall apply to articles removed (as defined in section 
     5702(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after the date 
     that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Large cigars.--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall apply to articles removed after December 31, 2017.
       (4) Other tobacco products.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (e)(1) shall apply to products removed after the 
     last day of the

[[Page 14648]]

     month which includes the date that the Secretary of the 
     Treasury (or the Secretary of the Treasury's delegate) issues 
     final regulations establishing the level of tax for such 
     product.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Scott, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Young, 
        Mr. Donnelly, and Ms. Duckworth):
  S. 1845. A bill to amend the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention 
Act to provide for additional procedures for families with children 
under the age of 6, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 1845

       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 ``Lead-Safe Housing for Kids 
     Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING 
                   PREVENTION ACT.

       Section 302(a) of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 4822(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Additional procedures for families with children 
     under the age of 6.--
       ``(A) Risk assessment.--
       ``(i) Definition.--In this subparagraph, the term `covered 
     housing'--

       ``(I) means housing receiving Federal assistance described 
     in paragraph (1) that was constructed prior to 1978; and
       ``(II) does not include--

       ``(aa) single-family housing covered by an application for 
     mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.); or
       ``(bb) multi-family housing that--
       ``(AA) is covered by an application for mortgage insurance 
     under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       ``(BB) does not receive any other Federal housing 
     assistance.
       ``(ii) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2017, 
     the Secretary shall promulgate regulations that--

       ``(I) require the owner of covered housing in which a 
     family with a child of less than 6 years of age will reside 
     or is expected to reside to conduct an initial risk 
     assessment for lead-based paint hazards--

       ``(aa) in the case of covered housing receiving tenant-
     based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), not later than 15 days 
     after the date on which the family and the owner submit a 
     request for approval of a tenancy;
       ``(bb) in the case of covered housing receiving public 
     housing assistance under the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) or project-based rental 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), not later than 15 days after the 
     date on which a physical condition inspection occurs; and
       ``(cc) in the case of covered housing not described in item 
     (aa) or (bb), not later than a date established by the 
     Secretary;

       ``(II) provide that a visual assessment alone is not 
     sufficient for purposes of complying with subclause (I);
       ``(III) require that, if lead-based paint hazards are 
     identified by an initial risk assessment conducted under 
     subclause (I), the owner of the covered housing shall--

       ``(aa) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     initial risk assessment is conducted, control the lead-based 
     paint hazards, including achieving clearance in accordance 
     with regulations promulgated under section 402 or 404 of the 
     Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682, 2684), as 
     applicable; and
       ``(bb) provide notice to all residents in the covered 
     housing affected by the initial risk assessment, and provide 
     notice in the common areas of the covered housing, that lead-
     based paint hazards were identified and will be controlled 
     within the 30-day period described in item (aa); and

       ``(IV) provide that there shall be no extension of the 30-
     day period described in subclause (III)(aa).

       ``(iii) Exceptions.--The regulations promulgated under 
     clause (ii) shall provide an exception to the requirement 
     under subclause (I) of such clause for covered housing--

       ``(I) if the owner of the covered housing submits to the 
     Secretary documentation--

       ``(aa) that the owner conducted a risk assessment of the 
     covered housing for lead-based paint hazards during the 12-
     month period preceding the date on which the family is 
     expected to reside in the covered housing; and
       ``(bb) of any clearance examinations of lead-based paint 
     hazard control work resulting from the risk assessment 
     described in item (aa);

       ``(II) from which all lead-based paint has been identified 
     and removed and clearance has been achieved in accordance 
     with regulations promulgated under section 402 or 404 of the 
     Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682, 2684), as 
     applicable;
       ``(III)(aa) if lead-based paint hazards are identified in 
     the dwelling unit in the covered housing in which the family 
     will reside or is expected to reside;
       ``(bb) the dwelling unit is unoccupied;
       ``(cc) the owner of the covered housing, without any 
     further delay in occupancy or increase in rent, provides the 
     family with another dwelling unit in the covered housing that 
     has no lead-based paint hazards; and
       ``(dd) the common areas servicing the new dwelling unit 
     have no lead-based paint hazards; and
       ``(IV) in accordance with any other standard or exception 
     the Secretary deems appropriate based on health-based 
     standards.

       ``(B) Relocation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2017, 
     the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide that a 
     family with a child of less than 6 years of age that occupies 
     a dwelling unit in covered housing in which lead-based paint 
     hazards were identified, but not controlled in accordance 
     with regulations required under clause (ii), may relocate on 
     an emergency basis and without placement on any waitlist, 
     penalty (including rent payments to be made for that dwelling 
     unit), or lapse in assistance to--
       ``(i) a dwelling unit that was constructed in 1978 or 
     later; or
       ``(ii) another dwelling unit in covered housing that has no 
     lead-based paint hazards.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     amendments made by section 2 such sums as may be necessary 
     for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Ms. Hassan):
  S. 1847. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure 
that the needs of children are considered in homeland security, 
trafficking, and disaster recovery planning, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, 
is tasked with keeping the American public safe in the homeland. Its 
mission ranges from thwarting terrorist attacks to responding to 
natural and manmade disasters, from interdicting the movement of 
illicit drugs at the border to combating human trafficking and 
protecting its victims. Nearly one-quarter of the population within our 
borders are children They have unique needs, and we must ensure those 
needs are met in the face of threat and in recovery.
  For example, when children are stranded at school because of a 
terrorist attack or a natural disaster, they need a planned route and 
means to get home safely. A child is caught up in a drug cartel and 
used as a trafficking mule--the child is a victim, not a criminal. He 
needs help breaking the addiction. An adolescent, promised a better 
life, has her passport stolen and forced to sell herself. She needs 
help escaping her captors and healing.
  The recent tragedies of wildfires in Montana and across the Northwest 
and Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are all too recent reminders that we 
need to plan for the needs of children in both building resiliency and 
responding to disasters. That is why I am introducing the-Homeland 
Security for Children Act. This legislation would simply ensure DHS's 
Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans includes input from 
organizations representing the needs of children when soliciting 
stakeholder feedback and developing policies. Further, a technical 
expert at the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be authorized 
to lead its external collaboration and policy developments to integrate 
the needs of children into its activities to prepare for and respond 
to, disasters.
  I thank Senator Hassan for being an original cosponsor of this bill, 
as well as Representative Donald Payne of New Jersey for leading in the 
House of Representatives. I ask my Senate colleagues to join us in 
support of this important legislation.
  Mr. DAINES Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the legislation be printed in the Record.

[[Page 14649]]



                                S. 1847

       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 ``Homeland Security for 
     Children Act''.

     SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR STRATEGY, 
                   POLICY, AND PLANS.

       Section 709(c)(6) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 349(c)(6)) is amended by inserting ``, including 
     feedback from organizations representing the needs of 
     children,'' after ``stakeholder feedback''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL EXPERT AUTHORIZED.

       Section 503(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 313(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) identify and integrate the needs of children into 
     activities to prepare for, protect against, respond to, 
     recover from, and mitigate against the risk of natural 
     disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, 
     including catastrophic incidents, including by appointing a 
     technical expert, who may consult with relevant outside 
     organizations and experts, as necessary, to coordinate such 
     integration, as necessary.''.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act and annually thereafter for 4 years, the Under Secretary 
     for Strategy, Policy, and Plans of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report 
     describing the efforts the Department has undertaken to 
     review and incorporate feedback from organizations 
     representing the needs of children into Department policy in 
     accordance with paragraph (6) of section 709(c) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 349(c)) (as added by 
     section 2 of this Act), and the effect of that review and 
     incorporation on the efforts of the Department to combat 
     human trafficking and drug trafficking and respond to natural 
     and manmade disasters, including information on the 
     following:
       (1) The designation of any individual responsible for 
     carrying out the duties under such paragraph (6).
       (2) Any review, formal or informal, of Department policies, 
     programs, or activities to assess the suitability of the 
     policies, programs, or activities for children and where 
     feedback from organizations representing the needs of 
     children should be reviewed and incorporated.
       (3) Any review, change, modification, or promulgation of 
     Department policies, programs, or activities to ensure that 
     the policies, programs, or activities are appropriate for 
     children.
       (4) Coordination with organizations or experts outside the 
     Department, under such paragraph (6), conducted to inform any 
     review, change, modification, or promulgation of policies, 
     programs, or activities described in paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     this subsection.

                          ____________________