Juab County Surface and Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2007

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year.

Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system.

The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer.

The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes.

We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class.

We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it.

The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not.

We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would be better off claiming the standard deduction than having to itemize their deductions, so their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income.

Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests.

Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education.

I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their

income in State and local taxes, while the wealthier pay only about 5 percent.

Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break.

The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit.

I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do?

If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this.

I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system.

I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America.

It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially.

I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor.

I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way.

I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days.

There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission.

But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead.

That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork.

So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again.

The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort.

I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better.

I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood

Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senator Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill.

This bill seeks to remove roadblocks to the implementation of 1988 legislation that requires the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. Enactment of this bill is necessary so that Redwood Valley can obtain a reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project which supplied water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, CA. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million contributed to the financing of this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The projected water use in the original feasibility study, developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau, was seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise necessary revenues was compromised by a judicially imposed moratorium on new hook-ups; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's potential water supply allotment by 33 percent.

As a result, in 1988 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 which indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the loans. This loan renegotiation has yet to take place and now the District finds that its water supply is highly uncertain.

In 2000 in a report on Redwood Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation recognized these changed conditions, and concluded that the District needs a reliable water supply before it can solve its current financial dilemma.

The District recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could prove a reliable water source. No government funds will be sought for these projects. The District intends to rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau of Reclamation is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to the repayment of the new loans.

The existing loans are an impediment to the District's attempts to upgrade elements of its existing plant. As an example, the District unsuccessfully sought private financing to build a 100 kW solar panel project. This project would have enabled the District to cut its energy costs and to qualify for energy rebates.

Significantly, this legislation requires the District to repay to the United States the currently suspended loans once the District's new loans have been paid.

The only difference between this bill and S. 3189, which I introduced last year, is to clarify that no renegotiations are required to trigger the District's obligations to repay the loans and the Secretary of Interior ``shall reschedule the payments due'' once the District has satisfied its additional financial obligations.

The proposed water projects will enable the District to generate adequate revenues to allow the District to repay both its new private loans and its original loans from the United States. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, this legislation creates a win-win solution for taxpayers of the United States and the rate payers of the Redwood Valley County Water District.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the last Congress that would bring all electronic surveillance of terrorists under the color of law and would modernize the rules for conducting such surveillance. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, has co- sponsored this legislation.

We all agree that the President and the Intelligence Community should have all the tools they need to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways.

We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools can and should be used in a way that protects the constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans. That is the balance that this legislation attempts to strike.

Nowhere is this more at issue than in electronic surveillance, where government officials record the content of Americans' phone and electronic communications. This important means of obtaining critical counterterrorism information is at the same time a significant, constitutionally recognized intrusion into Americans' privacy rights.

It is worth reminding ourselves of this. We have recently focused on the use of National Security Letters, through which the FBI inappropriately obtained telephone records of at least hundreds of Americans. Electronic surveillance goes far beyond records and collects the actual content--the words spoken over the phone or typed in email.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of why this legislation is necessary, as it has been several months before this was the top legislative issue before the Senate.

For more than five years since September 11, 2001, the National Security Agency collected the content of calls from or to United States persons--citizens and permanent residents--without a court order as is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

This surveillance was done without notifying and seeking authorization from the congressional intelligence committees. The President and Vice President have very closely restricted disclosure of information about what they call the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program.''

Until this surveillance came to light through an article in The New York Times in December 2005, only eight members of Congress were briefed on it. Even after the article came out, the White House refused to brief the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees for several months.

Even now, the Intelligence Committee does not have all the information it needs to carry out its Constitutional oversight duties.

Throughout 2006, the Judiciary Committee debated various bills to authorize or prohibit electronic surveillance outside of FISA. The bill that Senator Specter and I authored last year, which is being re- introduced today, was reported out of Judiciary on a bipartisan vote on September 13, 2006. The Senate, however, took no legislative action prior to adjournment.

Then, on January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notified the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FISA Court had authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Since January, the program has proceeded

under Court supervision, as is required by FISA.

I was pleased that the Administration submitted the TSP to the FISA Court, and that the Court had found a way to issue an order approving this surveillance. I was pleased, but not surprised.

I had maintained throughout the legislative debate last year that it would not take many changes for the TSP to fit under the confines of FISA. All it took was the willingness of the Administration to follow legal process.

Members may ask, given the recent developments, why legislation is now necessary. There are two reasons.

The first is that the Senate should enact this bill is because this Administration has never conceded the point that it cannot conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law. It has put the TSP under FISA Court review, but it asserts that it has the right not to do so. Future Administrations, if not enjoined, may take the same view.

I disagree with this legal analysis.

Secondly, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the FBI, and the Attorney General have said on many occasions that FISA is outdated and in need of modernization. The current FISA process is too bureaucratic, too slow to initiate electronic surveillance from the time a suspected terrorist's phone or email account is identified.

This bill addresses those concerns by providing new flexibility and additional resources to speed the FISA process and allow for the more timely collection of valuable intelligence.

Allow me to summarize the legislation. The bill: re-iterates that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.

Specifies that FISA's requirements cannot be written off through contorted interpretations of other statutes. The Administration's tortured argument with respect to the Authorization for the 2001 Use of Military Force (AUMF) notwithstanding, this legislation would specify that FISA's language can only be undone by a specific and direct Act of Congress.

Requires that Congress, through the Intelligence Committees, be fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program and any related surveillance programs.

Requires the Supreme Court to review, on an expedited basis, the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Streamlines the current ``emergency procedures'' in FISA. Currently, the Attorney General can authorize surveillance prior to a Court order for 72 hours in an emergency. This legislation would extend the time to one week, which should remove any doubt as to whether Court approval can be sought and obtained in time. The bill also allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to initiate electronic surveillance in an emergency to specific supervisory officials at the NSA and FBI.

Authorizes additional personnel to expedite the writing, submission, and review of FISA applications. Specifically, additional FISA Court judges and staff are authorized, as are additional positions at the Department of Justice, FBI, and NSA.

Extends the existing FISA authority--for 15 days of warrantless surveillance following a declaration of war--to any 30-day period following an authorization for the use of military force or a national emergency following a terrorist attack.

Allows the National Security Agency to take full advantage of its capabilities to collect intelligence on foreign communications.

While foreign-to-foreign communications are not covered now by FISA's requirements, the NSA can only conduct surveillance on these calls if it can be sure, in advance, that a telephone call of email won't transit the United States or unexpectedly end here. In the age of cell phones and the global telecommunications system, this a priori certification is very difficult to make. This legislation therefore specifies that in such inadvertent collection cases, the NSA must minimize the data, but that it has not violated the law.

Finally, the legislation clarifies that FISA court orders for electronic surveillance must be individualized to a particular target that the government has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

From the briefings I have received as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the hearings held in Judiciary, I am convinced that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an important anti-terrorism tool that should be continued.

It is also clear from the January FISA Court ruling that the Terrorist Surveillance Program can be conducted within the confines of FISA. It is appropriate now for Congress to re-iterate that this is the appropriate arrangement.

This is by no means an issue that has been overtaken by events. The Administration continues to support a view of plenary authority in which it can conduct electronic surveillance in violation of FISA. The NSA and the FBI continue to labor under a process that was formed 29 years ago, prior to fundamental changes in the telecommunications system.

I urge the Senate to act to ensure that the law is followed and privacy rights upheld, and to provide the Intelligence Community the tools it needs to continue to make us safe.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.