[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 98 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8230-S8240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2659. A bill to extend the temporary increase in payments under 
the medicare program for home health services furnished in a rural 
area; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare 
Rural Home Health Payment Fairness Act. This legislation would extend 
the additional payment for home health services delivered in rural 
areas. This additional 5 percent reimbursement is currently scheduled 
to sunset on April 1, 2005. This legislation would make the additional 
reimbursement permanent.
  I note the presence of one of the strongest advocates of home health 
care, and that is my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. He has 
worked tirelessly to make certain that our seniors and disabled 
citizens are able to receive the home health care they need. I am very 
pleased to have him as one of the key supporters of this legislation.
  Home health care has become an increasingly important part of our 
health care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically 
complex services that our home health caregivers provide have enabled 
millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled citizens 
to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and to receive health care just 
where they want to be--in the comfort, privacy, and security of their 
own homes.
  I have had the great honor of accompanying several of Maine's caring 
home health nurses on their visits to serve their patients. I have seen 
firsthand the difference that they are making for Maine's elderly. I 
remember visiting one elderly couple who told me that it was home 
health care that allowed them to stay together in their very own home, 
rather than being separated with one of them being forced to go into a 
nursing home in the remaining years of their life. Another woman told 
me that her late husband received home health care in the months 
leading up to his death. That had allowed him to be treated at home and 
to be with his family, which is where he very much wanted to be.

  Nevertheless, surveys have shown that the delivery of home health 
services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly 
because of the extra travel time required to cover long distances 
between patients, the higher transportation expenses, and other 
factors. Because of the longer travel times, rural caregivers are 
unable to make as many visits in a day as their urban counterparts. The 
executive director of Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in northern Maine 
where I am from tells me that her agency covers 6,600 square miles with 
a population of only 73,000 people. Her costs are understandably much 
higher than other agencies due to the long distances her staff must 
drive to see their clients. Moreover, her staff is obviously not able 
to see as many patients in a day.
  Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban 
counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher. Smaller 
agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs, 
particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are 
spread over a much smaller number of patients and visits, thus 
increasing overall the per-patient and per-visit costs. Moreover, in 
many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary caregivers for 
homebound beneficiaries with limited access to transportation. These 
rural patients often require more time and care than urban patients and 
are understandably more expensive for home health agencies to serve. If 
the rural extra payment is not extended, agencies may be forced to make 
decisions

[[Page S8231]]

not to accept patients living in remote areas who have greater care 
needs. That would translate into less access to health care for ill 
homebound seniors.
  Failure to extend the rural add-on payment will only put more 
pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on 
very narrow margins. It could force some of these agencies to close 
their doors altogether. Many home health agencies operating in rural 
areas are the only home health providers in large geographic areas. If 
any of these agencies is forced to close, the Medicare patients in that 
region could lose all their access to home health care.
  The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today, with Senators 
Lincoln, Bond, Feingold, Thomas, Conrad, and Burns, will help to ensure 
that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the 
home health services they very much need. I urge all of our colleagues 
to join us as cosponsors. We must act to ensure that this extra payment 
does not expire next April 1.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I compliment my colleague from Maine for 
being a true champion and leader for assuring good home health care 
access to our seniors, disabled, and others who need specialized care. 
As she has done in Maine, I have done in Missouri and found that access 
to home health care is critically important. It is, No. 1, convenient, 
easier, more friendly, and more compassionate for the patients. No. 2, 
all of the statistics we have seen show home health care is more 
effective to treat people. They get well better.
  Finally, it makes sense economically. When cuts in Medicare shut down 
a home health care agency in one rural county in northwest Missouri, 40 
patients who had been treated for an average of $400,000 a year were 
forced to go to institutionalized care. Only 30 of them showed up. I 
hate to guess what happened to the other 10. Their cost for 1 year--it 
was $400,000--became $1.4 million. It was a terrible tragedy in human. 
terms, in health terms, and in economic terms.
  I am proud to join my colleague from Maine.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2660. A bill to provide for the monitoring of the long-term 
medical health of firefighters who responded to emergencies in certain 
disaster areas; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we are entering the fire season in 
California, I am today introducing the Healthy Firefighters Act.
  Last year, I offered this bill as an amendment to the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act, and it passed the Senate by a vote of 94-3. 
Unfortunately, House Republicans insisted on dropping this important 
proposal in conference.
  Last year my State experienced devastating wildfires. Those fires 
killed 24 people, including one firefighter. Over 750,000 acres burned. 
More than 3,700 homes were destroyed in five Southern California 
counties. Thousands of firefighters from local, State and Federal 
agencies responded to these fires.
  Those firefighters--and in fact most firefighters who respond to 
Federal disasters--are at higher risk of long-term health problems 
because of exposure to several toxins, including fine particulates, 
carbon monoxide, sulfur, formaldehyde, mercury, heavy metals, and 
benzene. As a result, their long-term health should be monitored so 
that any consequences can be identified, leading to early detection and 
better treatment.
  The Healthy Firefighters Act does just that. It requires long-term 
health monitoring of firefighters who respond to a crisis in any 
federally-declared disaster area. This long-term monitoring will be 
carried out by the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) in consultation with 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The 
USFA will work with a locally based medical research university so that 
local experts are involved in this important effort.
  This legislation is supported by the International Association of 
Firefighters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the California 
State Firefighters' Association. I ask unanimous consent that support 
letters from these organizations be placed in the Record.
  We owe it to our Nation's firefighters. Our Nation's firefighters put 
their lives on the line to protect us. The least we can do is to help 
them remain healthy by providing long-term health monitoring. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                         International Association


                                             of Fire Fighters,

                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 2004.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of the Nation's more than 
     260,000 professional fire fighters and emergency medical 
     personnel, I wish to express our enthusiastic support for 
     your proposal to provide medical monitoring for fire fighters 
     who respond to nationally declared disasters.
       In recent years, we have become increasingly aware that the 
     greatest dangers fire fighters face are often not the ones 
     that take lives on the fireground, but those that kill and 
     disable years later. Fire fighters who respond to disasters 
     often face prolonged exposure to unknown toxins. Medical 
     monitoring of these fire fighters will enable early detection 
     and treatment for the job-related illnesses that result.
       Equally important, the information, gleaned from this 
     project will enable us to develop better protective clothing 
     and equipment in the future. Thus, this program has the 
     potential to both save the lives of fire fighters who have 
     been exposed to dangerous substances and prevent harmful 
     exposures in the future.
       The Nation's fire fighters thank you for your extraordinary 
     efforts championing this legislation, and we stand ready to 
     assist you in moving this important initiative forward
           Sincerely,
                                           Harold A. Schaitberger,
     General President.
                                  ____



                              National Volunteer Fire Council,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 2004.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: The National Volunteer Fire Council 
     (NVFC) is a nonprofit membership association representing the 
     more than 800,000 members of America's volunteer fire, EMS, 
     and rescue services. Organized in 1976, the NVFC serves as 
     the voice of America's volunteer fire personnel in over 
     28,000 departments across the country. On behalf of our 
     membership, I would like to express our support for your 
     proposed legislation, the Healthy Firefighters Act, which 
     would provide for the monitoring of the long-term medical 
     health of firefighters who respond to emergencies in any area 
     which is declared a disaster area by the Federal Government.
       As you know, firefighters, 75 percent of which are 
     volunteers, respond to a wide array of emergencies--including 
     structure and wildland fires, medical calls, motor vehicle 
     accidents, natural disasters and acts of terrorism. Very 
     often, the severe toll that is taken on their health is 
     traceable to these events; though not always quickly 
     recognizable.
       More specifically, your legislation would direct the U.S. 
     Fire Administration, in conjunction with the National 
     Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, to contract 
     with appropriate medical research universities to conduct 
     long-term medical health monitoring of those firefighters who 
     responded to Federally-declared emergencies. This monitoring 
     includes pulmonary illness, neurological damage, and 
     cardiovascular damage.
       Once again, the NVFC commends your efforts to ensure that 
     firefighters are properly monitored to guarantee that they 
     don't encounter long-term health problems due to responding 
     to national emergencies. If you or your staff have any 
     questions or comments feel free to contact Craig Sharman, 
     NVFC Director of Government Relations at (202) 887-5700 ext. 
     12.
           Sincerely,
                                             Philip C. Stittleburg
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                  California State


                               Firefighters' Association, Inc.

                                Sacramento, CA, February 20, 2004.
     Re Support Healthy Firefighters Act.

     Senator Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer, the California State Firefighters' 
     Association (CSFA), the oldest and largest firefighter 
     association in the state of California, representing over 
     29,000 firefighters and EMS personnel strongly supports your 
     legislation to provide for the monitoring of the long-term 
     medical health of firefighters who responded to emergencies 
     recently in certain disaster areas.
       This important legislation will require that the United 
     States Fire Administration, in conjunction with the National 
     Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, shall contract 
     with an appropriate, locally based medical research 
     university to conduct long-term medical health monitoring of 
     those

[[Page S8232]]

     firefighters who responded to emergencies in any areas 
     referred to in subsection (b).
       (b) Affected Firefighters.--An area referred to in this 
     subsection is any area which is declared a disaster area by 
     the Federal Government.
       (c) Health Monitoring.--The long-term health monitoring 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall include pulmonary 
     illness, neurological damage, and cardiovascular damage.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, an as-yet-to-be 
     announced sum of money for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.
       Thank you for authoring this important piece of 
     legislation. Please feel free to forward and use our 
     endorsement of your bill in any way. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure passage of this measure.
           Respectfully,
                                                    Afrack Vargas,
                                             Legislative Advocate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 2661. A bill to clarify the effects of revocation of a visa, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
fix a loophole in our visa policies that has and could continue to have 
detrimental consequences on our national security. I have been pressing 
the Departments of State and Homeland Security for the last year to 
make changes to visa revocation certificates so that we can question, 
detain, or deport foreigners who were not supposed to be granted a 
visa. It was one year ago today that the Senate Judiciary Committee 
held a hearing on this problem.
  For example, it is extremely difficult to detain and deport suspected 
terrorists whose visas have been revoked on terrorism grounds after 
those persons have set foot on U.S. soil. The difficulty stems from the 
wording on the revocation certificates, which are issued by the State 
Department. However, by law, the Department of Homeland Security has 
policy authority over visa issuance.
  On June 17, 2003, a GAO report revealed that suspected terrorists can 
stay in the country after their visas have been revoked on terrorism 
grounds because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation 
papers. This loophole came to light after the GAO found that more than 
100 persons were granted visas that were later revoked because there 
was evidence the persons had terrorism links and associations. I wrote 
a letter to the Department of State on June 23, 2003, and both the 
House and Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the matter last 
year.
  Some of us in Congress expected the government to fix this problem 
immediately, especially after GAO brought it to the attention of your 
department and other agencies. Perhaps this expectation was naive. More 
than a month after the GAO report and the hearings on the matter, I 
pressed the issue further with Under Secretary Hutchinson during a July 
23, 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
  We all recognized that a simple administrative fix, such as re-
writing the revocation certificate, would solve the problem. In fact, 
Assistant Secretary Hutchinson personally pledged to me in July of last 
year that the Department of Homeland Security would issue regulations 
to fix it as soon as the Memo of Understanding with the Department of 
State was finalized. The Memo was signed on September 29, 2003.
  On May 20 of this year, a member of the Department of Homeland 
Security confirmed that a regulation was written and being circulated 
internally.
  But, here we are--more than a year after the GAO first revealed the 
loophole--and it appears that the problem still has not been solved.
  This week, the GAO issued a report that said ``additional actions are 
needed to eliminate weaknesses in the visa revocation process.'' The 
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State 
jointly develop a written governmentwide policy that clearly defines 
roles and responsibilities and sets performance standards for the 
agencies involved in the visa revocation process.
  Frankly, I think these Departments have had enough time to consult 
with each other. Today, I offer a legislative fix.
  It is amazing to me that such a simple and straightforward solution 
to such a dangerous and well-known problem continues to languish in the 
slow-moving bureaucracy. Promises were made, but the promises have not 
been kept. The visa revocation loophole needs to be fixed.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that 
Senator Grassley and I are introducing that will finally close a 
loophole in our Nation's homeland security. Exactly one year ago today, 
I held a hearing in the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee to 
question why visa revocation is not effective to remove a suspected 
terrorist from the United States. This issue was highlighted in a June 
2003 General Accounting Office report titled, ``New Policies and 
Procedures Needed to Fill Gaps in the Visa Revocation Process.'' 
Subsequently, I held another hearing in the Subcommittee last fall in 
which the Departments of State and Homeland Security assured me and my 
colleagues that the problem would be sufficiently addressed through a 
cooperative agreement.
  Now a year later, we still don't have this problem fully fixed, and 
earlier this month the GAO issued a second report titled, ``Additional 
Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses in the Visa Revocation 
Process.'' The legislation we introduce today will make the needed, 
common sense change to empower the visa revocation process as an anti-
terrorism tool.
  One problem we have realized after September 11 was the lack of 
information sharing across Federal agencies. It is not just keeping bad 
guys out of the United States that is important, but if someone comes 
into this country who has a suspicious background, everyone needs to be 
on the same wavelength with respect to sharing of information on 
individuals in an effective manner. Information sharing and 
coordination between the State Department and the Department of 
Homeland Security is crucial today more than ever. We must continue to 
reshape the government culture, away from old bureaucratic habits, 
toward strong interagency cooperation in order to safeguard our Nation.
  The GAO report exposes how suspected terrorists may remain at large 
even after their visas have been revoked. Last summer, the GAO found 30 
persons whose visas were revoked on terrorism grounds; however, 
revocation gives no legal authority for law enforcement officials to 
remove them. In hearings before Congress, the State Department and 
Homeland Security Department maintained that they were implementing 
methods to resolve the problem by tracking visa revocations more 
precisely, sharing information more efficiently, and hopefully removing 
such suspected terrorists.
  In a report released this month, the GAO found that, although the two 
Departments made some changes, the visa revocation process still lacks 
a timely transmission of information between agencies--not to mention 
the absence of legal authority to remove these suspected terrorists. 
After two GAO reports and two Senate hearings, the Departments still 
don't have their act together.
  Our bill empowers visa revocation as an anti-terrorism tool. First, 
it makes revocation a ground of inadmissibility for a person's 
immigration status. This will give the Department of Homeland Security 
the authority to remove a suspected terrorist from the U.S. Second, the 
legislation forecloses the judicial review process on inadmissibility 
based on a revoked visa, which is consistent with how the U.S. handles 
other visa-related matters.
  With visa revocation, it is difficult to understand why, after a year 
now, State Department action to nullify the visa of a suspected 
terrorist does not translate into the authority for the Homeland 
Security to remove that person. The point is that in a post- 9-11 
world, visa issuance--and revocation--is a homeland security job and we 
must get it right. I encourage the Departments to move forward on this 
issue as we've addressed it in the bill we introduce today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2663. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 
a segment to the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of 
Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S8233]]

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator 
Lieberman in introducing the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook 
Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2004. I am pleased that 
Representative Johnson of Connecticut introduced companion legislation 
in the House of Representatives.
  The Lower Farmington River is a 40-mile stretch between the 
Collinsville Dam in Burlington and the Rainbow Dam in Windsor. The 
flood plains on either side of the river support large amphibian, bird, 
insect, and reptile populations, with many species that are on the 
State of Connecticut's list of endangered, threatened and special 
concern species. Biologists have stated that sections of this stretch 
of river have regionally and possibly globally significant plant 
communities, making the river one of the most thriving and diverse 
ecosystems in Connecticut.
  The river is also significant for its cultural heritage. Numerous 
Tunxis and River Indian tribe archaeological sites are located 
throughout the flood plain. During the 18th and 19th centuries the 
river was used extensively as a conduit for commerce and many towns 
along the river flourished due to complex mill and canal systems 
associated with the river.
  Besides environmental and historical benefits, the Lower Farmington 
River provides excellent opportunities for recreation including 
canoeing, kayaking, and rowing. The river also passes through the 
Tariffville Gorge, which is unique in Southern New England, in that it 
supports Class II-IV whitewater kayaking twelve months a year and has 
hosted the Olympic trials.
  However, the Farmington River is beginning to show evidence of 
declining water quality. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River would 
ensure that the river and surrounding watershed are protected under a 
locally controlled river management plan, which works to preserve a 
river's natural and significant resources.
  I am confident of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook's 
significance and community support. The Connecticut towns of 
Farmington, Simsbury, Bloomfield, Burlington, Canton, Avon, East 
Granby, and Windsor have joined with the Farmington River Watershed 
Association in requesting designation as a Wild and Scenic River. 
Property owners along the river support designation in order to 
preserve this natural resource that flows by and near their property. 
Connecticut is a small state, at just over 5,500 square miles, and is 
densely populated. Our citizens are committed to balancing conservation 
and growth. That is why this designation is so important. While the 
state and local groups have done exceptional work so far, this 
designation would bring in Federal technical assistance and foster 
coordination among the many concerned groups.
  In 1994, a 14-mile stretch of the Upper Farmington River was 
designated as a Wild and Scenic River and it has been a remarkable 
success story. Representatives of the five affected towns meet 
regularly with Federal, State and local organizations to implement a 
river management plan that all parties adopted. Our legislation 
proposes to study the feasibility of designating the lower section of 
the Farmington River and the Salmon Brook as part of the Act. The Wild 
and Scenic River Program has been a successful public and private 
partnership to preserve certain select rivers in a free flowing state 
and the Lower Farmington River and the Salmon Brook are significant 
natural resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2663

       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 ``Lower Farmington River and 
     Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL SEGMENT OF FARMINGTON RIVER 
                   AND SALMON BROOK IN CONNECTICUT FOR STUDY FOR 
                   POTENTIAL ADDITION TO NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC 
                   RIVERS SYSTEM.

       (a) Designation.--Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(__) Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook, 
     Connecticut.--The segment of the Farmington River downstream 
     from the segment designated as a recreational river by 
     section 3(a)(156) to its confluence with the Connecticut 
     River, and the segment of the Salmon Brook including its 
     mainstream and east and west branches.''.
       (b) Time for Submission.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of 
     the study required by the amendment made by subsection (a).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Smith):
  S. 2671. A bill to extend temporary State fiscal relief, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague from Oregon, Mr. Smith, to introduce the State Fiscal Relief 
Act of 2004. This legislation will extend the Federal fiscal relief 
enacted last year in order to give states a much needed boost as they 
continue to struggle to recover from the persisting economic downturn.
  Over the last three years, states have experienced the worst fiscal 
crisis since World War II. The loss of state tax revenue has caused 
substantial state budget deficits, which totaled over $250 billion in 
fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004. These shortfalls forced states to 
consider raising taxes or making substantial cuts to critical programs 
such as public education, health care, and public safety. As my 
colleagues know, Federal efforts to stimulate economic growth can be 
futile if states are forced to cut spending and increase taxes. We 
recognized this last year, and we did something about it. We enacted 
legislation that provided $20 billion in federal assistance to the 
states--$10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion for general revenue 
grants.
  Some of my colleagues have since questioned the benefit of this type 
of federal assistance to the States. They have charged that the relief 
was not stimulative and that states did not use the additional 
resources appropriately. Well, I encourage my colleagues to take a very 
careful look at the facts. When you analyze all the available data on 
the $20 billion fiscal relief package enacted last year, only one 
logical conclusion can be reached--during the worst stages of the 
economic downturn, when many Americans lost their jobs, states were 
able to step up and fill major gaps in programs and services because 
they had the benefit of federal fiscal relief. My home state of West 
Virginia used the $125 million it received in federal assistance to 
resolve budget shortfalls and prevent cuts in Medicaid. That was the 
goal of our efforts all along--to reduce state budget deficits and 
prevent cuts to critical programs and services--and states used this 
temporary assistance as it was intended.
  In West Virginia and States across the country, fiscal relief 
strengthened state economies and protected our most vulnerable citizens 
by helping to reduce the massive spending cuts and tax increases states 
would otherwise have had to make. The Medicaid portion of fiscal relief 
was particularly important in helping to stabilize State budgets. As 
many of my colleagues are aware, Medicaid spending provides a critical 
form of economic stimulus in addition to delivering essential health 
services to our most vulnerable citizens. The Medicaid program supports 
jobs in every state. It helps keep hospitals and nursing homes 
operating in our communities. Every dollar invested in Medicaid results 
in an almost three-fold return in state economic benefit.
  In January, the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured 
released a study which confirms that, because of the timeliness of the 
Medicaid assistance, all fifty states were able to maintain their 
Medicaid eligibility levels. This means that access to critical health 
services and programs for pregnant women, children, the elderly, and 
workers who lost their jobs and employer-sponsored health coverage was 
preserved. Without these increased Medicaid payments to States, the 
number of uninsured Americans would have been far greater over the past 
several years.
  Unfortunately, when we passed fiscal relief last year, we did not 
include appropriate safeguards to make sure this

[[Page S8234]]

Federal assistance would remain available to States if the economic 
downturn lasted longer than anticipated. Many who supported the $20 
billion fiscal relief package hoped the economy would rebound quickly 
and that federal assistance to the States would not be necessary beyond 
fiscal year 2004. Well, the fact of the matter is that the economy 
remains weak, and fiscal relief is still necessary.
  While states are beginning to report stronger revenue growth, it is 
clear they are not out of the woods yet. State revenues are still far 
below pre-recession levels and are growing at a sluggish pace. In 
April, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that 
states are struggling with an aggregate budget deficit of $36 billion 
going into fiscal year 2005. Eliminating fiscal relief now will deal a 
serious blow to the states as they struggle to climb out of the 
economic downturn.
  To remedy this problem, the bill we are introducing today provides 
$4.8 billion over 15 months to help states maintain the coverage they 
are currently providing through Medicaid. This additional funding, 
which is still temporary, will finish the job we started last year. It 
will help states weather the entirety of the economic downturn without 
having to cut vital programs and services for low-income women, 
children, and seniors. While I would have liked to have incorporated 
even more money for enhanced Medicaid payments to states, I recognize 
the federal budget realities currently before us. The $4.8 billion 
included in our bill represents a workable phase-down transition from 
the $10 billion states received last year, and I know it will go a long 
way to preserve health care coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries during 
this ongoing recession.
  In addition to providing $4.8 billion for Medicaid, our bill also 
reimburses states for the $1.2 billion in net costs they will incur in 
fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 as a result of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. As I stated when 
I voted against this bill, the Medicare Modernization Act has several 
major flaws that must be addressed. One such flaw is the fact that the 
new law undermines state revenues in the midst of their efforts to 
rebuild their economies. The State Fiscal Relief Act will correct that 
mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to 
stand up for the millions of Americans who are working at low-wage 
jobs, who benefit from the numerous public programs and services that 
fiscal relief has helped to maintain, and who are in the process of 
reinvigorating our economy.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in offering such an essential piece of 
legislative. This bill will extend a portion of the short-term 
assistance package that Congress provided to States and territories 
last May, because as most of our constituents realize, our economy may 
have rebounded, but prosperity has not reached all Americans. This 
proposal will continue to help States fund Medicaid, one of their most 
critical and also most expensive programs. The bill also provides 
funding necessary to ensure that Congress meets its commitment to help 
states transition seniors into the new Medicare prescription drug 
benefit program.
  I am quite certain this proposal will be controversial. On the one 
hand, many people who represent seniors and other vulnerable 
populations that receive their health care through the Medicaid and 
Medicare programs will argue that this bill does not provide enough 
help to states to prevent programs and benefit cuts. On the other hand, 
many of my colleagues will complain that the federal government already 
provided $20 billion in fiscal assistance last year through the 
economic stimulus package. In developing this bill, I tried to take an 
approach that balanced the concerns expressed by both sides.
  I agree that state economies are recovering and that they do not need 
an additional $20 billion in federal assistance. In my home State of 
Oregon, unemployment is dropping and State income tax receipts are 
higher than projected a few short months ago. However, that doesn't 
mean Oregon's economy is out of the woods yet. Oregon's 6.8 percent 
unemployment rate continues to be significantly higher than that of the 
national average of 5.6 percent. And that gets to the heart of why I 
have introduced this bill providing a second, though significantly 
reduced, round of State fiscal relief.
  It is clear to me that States still need help. They need help meeting 
the increased obligations that come during economic downturns and 
recoveries. And while our nation's economy is improving, which is due 
in large part to the President's leadership last year when he 
challenged Congress to pass an economic stimulus package, it has not 
yet fully recovered. So more must be done to protect the programs that 
people turn to when they are in need, programs like Medicaid.
  Now I know some will argue that last year's money was wasted, that it 
didn't do anything to boost the nation's economy. They might even cite 
a recent report released by the General Accounting Office that said as 
much. Well, I have to question how $10 billion in funding that went to 
the nation's largest health care program didn't result in a positive 
outcome. Health care is approximately a $1.6 trillion industry in the 
United States and in 2003 it was the second largest employment sector 
in the country--the fourth largest in Oregon. When you consider the 
significance of this industry on our nation's economy it seems unlikely 
that the government's effort to forestall program cuts in Medicaid, the 
largest health care program, would not have a positive effect on our 
economy.
  Certainly, if you think about large corporations that have millions, 
even billions, of dollars in revenue each year this money may not mean 
much. But I can tell you, to the beneficiaries and small providers in 
Oregon, like the Community Health Centers, this infusion of federal 
funding prevented significant cuts to their Medicaid benefits and 
reimbursement rates.
  Now States, just as they are starting to see their economies recover 
and are realizing increased income tax revenue, are faced with the 
prospect of losing all of this Federal assistance. That is why I have 
introduced this bill, because I understand the benefit to state 
economies that results from an extension of this temporary financial 
assistance. We are almost there, but I believe more assistance is 
needed and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this 
bill and help our states weather this economic storm.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Graham of Florida, and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2672. A bill to establish an Independent National Security 
Classification Board in the executive branch, and for other purposes; 
to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators 
Lott, Graham of Florida, and Snowe in introducing legislation to create 
an independent National Security Classification Board. We believe it is 
time to clear the fog of secrecy by creating an independent board to 
review current and make recommendations for new standards and 
procedures for the classification of information for national security 
purposes.
  Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea that democracy works best 
with the full disclosure of accurate information. Today, some might 
find that notion quaint. But it is one that bears consideration--
because the principle of open government so dear to America's founders 
is being tested today as never before. The culture of secrecy that grew 
out of the Cold War has now become woven into the very fabric of our 
daily lives.
  Information that the American people have a right to know--indeed, 
information that the American people need to know to make informed 
decisions about the kind of government they want and the kind of 
country this should be--is being withheld by the Federal government. It 
is being buried in a virtual bunker marked ``do not enter,'' sealed off 
from public view with a big red stamp--marked ``Classified.'' And too 
often that big red stamp is used not to hide state secrets, but to 
protect political backsides at great cost to our open and democratic 
society.
  A very revealing speech was delivered three weeks ago by the head of 
the Information Security Office, which oversees classification and 
declassification policies, Mr. William Leonard. Known

[[Page S8235]]

sometimes as the ``secrecy czar,'' he complained that the 
classification system for national security has lost touch with the 
basics; that some agencies don't know how much information they 
classify, or whether they are classifying more or less than they once 
did; whether they are classifying too much or too little. He called 
today's classification system ``a patchwork quilt'' that is the result 
of a hodgepodge of laws, regulations and directives. ``In reality,'' he 
said ``the Federal Government has so many varieties of classification 
that it can make Heinz look modest . . .''
  Two important reports confirm Mr. Leonard's argument that the 
classification system is out of control. The reports, the forthcoming 
9-11 Commission report and last week's Senate Intelligence Committee on 
Iraq, show the Administration's determination to blanket the Federal 
government in secrecy. Even more important than the information that is 
published in these reports is the information withheld from the public 
and redacted from the reports.
  These reports demonstrate a serious imbalance of power between the 
public and the officials who wield the ``top secret'' stamp. They raise 
troubling questions about whether those who control the classification 
of information for national security purposes have misused this 
authority to shield officials from the glare of public accountability 
and to stifle public debate about politically sensitive parts of the 
war on terrorism.
  This is not the first time our country has grappled with the trade-
offs between the need to protect the public and the public's need to 
know. But the automatic default to secrecy rather than public 
accountability is not part of our history. Scholarly studies about 
which material should be classified and at what level fill libraries. 
According to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an expert on 
secrecy in government, the first real Congressional debate about 
protecting national secrets occurred during consideration of the Alien 
and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed to silence opposition to war with 
France. ``It was,'' as Senator Moynihan wrote in Secrecy, ``our 
nation's first experience with how war or the threat of war changed the 
balance between private liberty versus public order, an instability 
that was eerily reenacted 119 years later.'' ``Indeed, much of the 
structure of secrecy now in place in the U.S. government took shape in 
just under eleven weeks in the spring of 1917, while the Espionage Act 
was debated and signed into law.'' Eighty years later, Senator Moynihan 
would note that 6,610,154 million secrets were created in one year 
alone. In fact, only a small portion, or 1.4 percent, were created 
pursuant to statutory authority, the Atomic Energy Act; Senator 
Moynihan labeled the other 98.6 percent ``pure creatures of 
bureaucracy,'' created via Executive Orders.

  One of the ``creatures'' in the classification menagerie was set free 
to roam through the work of the 9-11 Commission and the Senate 
Intelligence Committee's report. The American people should not be 
fooled--pure bureaucracy refused to allow full public disclosure of the 
decisions and materials used by the 9-11 Commission to prepare its 
report. Pure bureaucracy also redacted nearly half of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee's review of Intelligence on Iraq. The 
``creature'' has overreached.
  Since President Roosevelt issued the first national security 
classification directive in 1940, the American people have often 
demonstrated a high tolerance for secrecy in military and foreign 
affairs, even in some cases where it has been abused. However, the 
rising tide of secrecy has reached the point where it threatens to 
drown our system of checks and balances, and calls out for a complete 
rethinking of the system used to classify information for national 
security purposes.
  Today the Executive Branch exerts almost total control over what 
should or should not be classified. Congress has no ability to 
declassify material. There is no self-correcting mechanism in the 
system. Even if Members of Congress wanted to share information with 
their constituents, it's so complicated for Congress to release 
information to the public that nobody's ever tried to use the 
convoluted processes. The Executive Branch has a little known group 
that can review classification issues, but it is seldom used and open 
only to Executive Branch employees, not to Members of Congress or the 
public.
  What does all of this mean in practice? It means that with the thump 
of a stamp marked ``secret,'' some bureaucrat in the belly of a federal 
building has prevented the families of the victims of 9-11 from knowing 
exactly what happened to their loved ones. It means the American people 
may never know who gave the orders dictating how prisoners at Abu 
Ghraib could be treated. It means these decisions cannot be appealed, 
even by Congress. It means there is no independent review of the 
classification decisions by the Executive Branch.
  With no chance of unbiased review, classification decisions are ready 
and ripe for abuse. Agencies wishing to hide their flaws and 
politicians of both parties wishing to make political points can abuse 
the existing classification guidelines to their advantage. I want to 
change that.
  President Kennedy said the time to repair the roof is when the sun is 
shining. In the realm of secrecy, storm clouds are approaching. The 
bureaucracies in our government that deal with secrets are by nature 
cautious when it comes to protecting information pertinent to our 
nation's security. They err on the side of caution and they are very 
territorial about it, treating secrets as if they are assets to be 
traded. This is an understandable impulse. But erring too far and too 
often on the side of caution keeps a lot of information hidden that 
could safely enlighten public debate. Even worse, overclassification of 
information is dangerous. If agencies and bureaucracies aren't sharing 
information among themselves, important clues can be missed. Their 
mission to keep citizens safe can be jeopardized by classification 
itself.

  The tragedy of 9-11, the war on terrorism and the United States' 
invasion of Iraq have offered ample opportunity to argue for 
classification of just about any document on the grounds of national 
security. Additionally, there are those who feel that the current 
Administration took office with an unhealthy penchant for secrecy 
already firmly in place. In its first two years, Bush Administration 
officials made 44.5 million decisions to classify records and related 
documents, according to the Information Security Oversight office, part 
of the National Archives and Records Administration. This is about the 
same number of classification decisions made during the last four years 
of the Clinton Administration.
  The Atlanta Journal reported recently that ``federal, state and local 
governments are shutting down access to public records in what some 
experts say is the most expansive assault on open government in the 
nation's history.'' The Bush Administration has even expanded the 
number of officials with the power to classify documents for purposes 
of national security beyond the 13 agencies that operated under the 
national security classification system to include the secretaries of 
agriculture, health and human services and the EPA Administrator.
  I for one do not subscribe to the view that there is an inherent 
conflict between the Executive Branch's accountability to Congress and 
the American people on the one hand, and the Constitutional role of the 
President as Commander in Chief on the other.
  I believe a balance can and must be struck between the public's need 
for sound, cleareyed analysis and the Executive's desire to protect the 
nation's legitimate security interests. I believe we can fight 
terrorism ferociously without sacrificing personal privacy. There is no 
room in this equation for the use of classification to insulate 
officials and agencies from political pressure. As a member of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee I have had lengthy discussions with my 
colleagues about how to achieve such a balance.
  In my view this balance can be achieved only through a broad overhaul 
of the national security classification system. Legislation that I will 
be introducing shortly will accomplish this through the establishment 
of an Independent National Security Classification Board. The Board 
would be made up of three individuals, knowledgeable in national 
security classification, appointed by the President

[[Page S8236]]

with the advice and consent of the Senate.
  The task of the Independent Board would be to review and make 
recommendations on overhauling the standards and process used in the 
classification system for national security information. The Board 
would submit proposed new standards and processes to both Congress and 
the Executive Branch for comment and revision, and then implement the 
new standards and process once they have had the opportunity to 
comment. The Board would then begin to implement the new system, 
reviewing and making recommendations on current and new national 
security classifications, subject to Executive Branch veto that must be 
accompanied by a public, written explanation.

  The balance in this proposal assures that the public and Congress 
have access to an independent Board for national security 
classification matters while leaving undisturbed the Commander in 
Chief's constitutional prerogative in military and foreign policy 
matters through the power to appoint the Board and to veto the Board's 
classification decisions.
  The Founding Fathers conceived of the Federal government to serve the 
American people. Sometimes that is done by keeping secrets, by securing 
information that could put Americans in harm's way if it became public. 
Information should be classified to protect the homeland. But when 
information is withheld to protect political careers and entrenched 
bureaucracies, that's not a service to the American people. It's a 
perversion of a policy intended to save lives, a perversion that 
weakens our democracy and could even endanger our people. It's time to 
throw open the curtains and let the sun shine in on American democracy 
and on the governmental process much brighter than it does today. 
That's what I intend to do with my legislation. The American people 
deserve no less.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2672

       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 ``Independent National 
     Security Classification Board Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to establish in the executive 
     branch an Independent National Security Classification 
     Board--
       (1) to review the standards and procedures used in the 
     classification system for national security information;
       (2) to propose and submit to Congress and the President for 
     comment new standards and procedures to be used in the 
     classification system for such information;
       (3) to establish the new standards and procedures after 
     Congress and the President have had the opportunity to 
     comment; and
       (4) to review, and make recommendations with respect to, 
     classifications of current and new information made under the 
     applicable classification system.

     SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL SECURITY CLASSIFICATION BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--The Independent National Security 
     Classification Board (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Board'') is established as an independent agency in the 
     executive branch.
       (b) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of one member 
     appointed by the President, one member jointly recommended by 
     the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate and 
     appointed by the President, and one member jointly 
     recommended by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and 
     appointed by the President, each by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate. Each member shall be knowledgeable on 
     classification matters.
       (c) Term of Members.--Each member of the Board shall be 
     appointed for a term of 5 years. A member may be reappointed 
     for one additional 5-year term. A member whose term has 
     expired shall continue to serve on the Board until a 
     replacement has been appointed.
       (d) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Board shall not affect 
     its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment.
       (e) Separate Office.--The Board shall have its own office 
     for carrying out its activities, and shall not share office 
     space with any element of the intelligence community or with 
     any other department or agency of the Federal Government.
       (f) Chairman.--The Board shall select a Chairman from among 
     its members.
       (g) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman.
       (h) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (i) Availability of Information.--The decision-making 
     process of the Board may be classified, but the final 
     decisions of the Board and the reports submitted under this 
     Act shall be made available to the public.
       (j) Initial Appointments and Meeting.--
       (1) Initial appointments.--Initial appointments of members 
     of the Board shall be made not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Initial meeting.--The Board shall hold its first 
     meeting not later than 30 days after the date on which all 
     members of the Board have been appointed.
       (k) Website.--The Board shall establish a website not later 
     than 90 days after the date on which all members of the Board 
     have been appointed.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF BOARD.

       (a) Review of Classification System.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall conduct a thorough review 
     of the classification system for national security 
     information, including the policy, procedures, and practices 
     of the system. The Board shall recommend reforms of such 
     system to ensure--
       (A) the protection of the national security of the United 
     States;
       (B) the sharing of information among Government agencies; 
     and
       (C) an open and informed public discussion of national 
     security issues.
       (2) Scope of review.--
       (A) Consultation.--The Board shall consult with the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Armed Services, 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on International Relations 
     of the House of Representatives in determining the scope of 
     its review of the classification system.
       (B) Review.--The Board shall submit a report describing the 
     proposed scope of review to the President and the committees 
     of Congress referred to in subparagraph (A) for comment.
       (C) Revisions.--Not later than 30 days after receiving the 
     report under subparagraph (B)--
       (i) the President shall notify the Board in writing of any 
     revisions to such scope of review; and
       (ii) each committee of Congress referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) may submit to the Board, in writing, any comments of the 
     committee on the proposed scope of review.
       (b) Adoption of National Security Information 
     Classification System.--
       (1) Authority.--The Board shall prescribe the 
     classification system for national security information, 
     which shall apply to all departments and agencies of the 
     United States.
       (2) Findings and recommendations.--The Board shall, in 
     accordance with the scope of review developed under 
     subsection (a)(2), review the classification system for 
     national security information and submit to the President and 
     Congress its findings and recommendations for new procedures 
     and standards to be used in such classification system.
       (3) Classification system.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date on which all members of the Board have been 
     confirmed by the Senate, the Board shall adopt a 
     classification system for national security information, 
     incorporating any comments received from the President and 
     considering any comments received from Congress. Upon the 
     adoption of the classification system, the system shall be 
     used for the classification of all national security 
     information.
       (c) Review of Classification Decisions.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall, upon its own initiative 
     or pursuant to a request under paragraph (3), review any 
     classification decision made by an Executive agency with 
     respect to national security information.
       (2) Access.--The Board shall have access to all documents 
     or other materials that are classified on the basis of 
     containing national security information.
       (3) Requests for review.--The Board shall review in a 
     timely manner the existing or proposed classification of any 
     document or other material the review of which is requested 
     by--
       (A) the head or Inspector General of an Executive agency 
     who is an authorized holder of such document or material; or
       (B) the chairman or ranking member of--
       (i) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, or the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate; or
       (ii) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     International Relations, or the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
       (4) Recommendations.--
       (A) In general.--The Board may make recommendations to the 
     President regarding decisions to classify all or portions of 
     documents or other material for national security purposes or 
     to declassify all or portions of documents or other material 
     classified for such purposes.
       (B) Implementation.--Upon receiving a recommendation from 
     the Board under subparagraph (A), the President shall 
     either--
       (i) accept and implement such recommendation; or
       (ii) not later than 60 days after receiving the 
     recommendation if the President does not accept and implement 
     such recommendation, transmit in writing to Congress and

[[Page S8237]]

     have posted on the Board's website a notification in 
     unclassified form of the justification for the President's 
     decision not to implement such recommendation.
       (5) Exemption from freedom of information act.--The Board 
     shall not be required to make documents or materials reviewed 
     under this subsection available to the public under section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as 
     the Freedom of Information Act).
       (6) Regulations.--The Board shall prescribe regulations to 
     carry out this subsection.
       (7) Executive agency defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF BOARD.

       (a) Hearings.--The Board may hold such hearings, sit and 
     act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to 
     carry out this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Board may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Board considers necessary to carry out 
     this Act. Upon request of the Chairman of the Board, the head 
     of such department or agency shall furnish such information 
     to the Board.
       (c) Administrative Support Services.--Upon request of the 
     Board, the Administrator of General Services shall provide to 
     the Board, on a reimbursable basis, the administrative 
     support necessary for the Board to carry out its duties under 
     this Act.
       (d) Postal Services.--The Board may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (e) Gifts.--The Board may accept, use, and dispose of gifts 
     or donations of services or property.

     SEC. 6. BOARD PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Executive Schedule Level IV.--Section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
        ``Members, Independent National Security Classification 
     Board.''.
       (b) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman of the Board may, without 
     regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and 
     terminate an executive director and such other additional 
     personnel as may be necessary to enable the Board to perform 
     its duties under this Act. The employment of an executive 
     director shall be subject to confirmation by the Board.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairman of the Board may fix the 
     compensation of the executive director and other personnel 
     without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the 
     rate of pay for the executive director and other personnel 
     may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (c) Detail of Government Employees.--Any employee of the 
     Federal Government may be detailed to the Board without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Board 
     $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be 
     necessary thereafter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2673. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 1001 Williams Street, Ignacio, Colorado, as the 
``Leonard C. Burch Post Office Building''; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation to 
designate the U.S. Post Office located at 1001 Williams Street in 
Ignacio, CO, as the Leonard C. Burch Post Office Building.
  Anyone who ever met the man knew they were in the presence of someone 
special. Leonard Burch had a vision. He had the imagination to look 
beyond a destitute tribe with little hope, and see a people with 
resources, and determination, and a real opportunity to build a better 
future if they would only grasp it. Many people have dreams, but 
Leonard had that rare ability to make other people catch his vision, 
believe in it, and work just as hard for it as he did.
  Leonard C. Burch died August 1, 2003. He was 69 years old. Leonard 
was chairman of the Tribal Council for more than 32 years. Under his 
leadership, the Southern Utes became an economic force in and beyond 
the Four Corners and the largest employer in La Plata County. Those 
thirty-seven years have seen the transformation of a people, the 
transformation of a region, and all of it largely due to his 
extraordinary leadership.
  Burch was credited with bringing his tribe out of poverty. Through 
his efforts, the tribe became a major player in the energy development 
market with assets of $1.5 billion. As part of the Council for Energy 
Resource Tribes, Burch was instrumental in improving energy development 
throughout Indian Country. He advocated for greater tribal control over 
tribal resources.
  Burch's leadership went beyond the tribe. He set an example for young 
people. Burch was invited by five separate U.S. Presidents to 
conferences on American Indian policies at the White House and received 
numerous awards for his commitment to regional water resource 
development.
  We will all miss Leonard's wisdom and inspiration. It is a fitting 
tribute that the postal facility in Ignacio be named after a true 
warrior. I invite anyone who believes that one man can't make a 
difference, to take a drive southeast of Durango, and witness what one 
Leonard Burch can do.
  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. 2673

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

     SECTION 1. LEONARD C. BURCH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 1001 Williams Street, Ignacio, Colorado, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Leonard C. Burch Post 
     Office Building''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Leonard C. Burch Post Office Building''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 2675. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the availability of the cash method of accounting for small business, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill I hope 
will be the first in a series of proposals to simplify the tax code for 
small business owners. Once enacted, these provisions will reduce not 
only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but that they also 
will reduce the administrative burden that saddles small companies in 
trying to meet this obligation.
  The proposal that I am introducing today, will simplify the tax code 
by permitting small business owners to use the cash method of 
accounting for reporting their income if they generally earn less than 
$10 million during the tax year. Currently, only those taxpayers that 
earn less than $5 million per year are able to use the cash method. By 
increasing this threshold to $10 million, more small businesses will be 
relieved of the burdensome record keeping requirements that currently 
require them to use a different accounting method to report their 
income.
  Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let 
me first explain why it is so critical to begin considering ways to 
simplify the tax code. As you know, small businesses are the backbone 
of our Nation's economy. According to the Small Business 
Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, 
employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 
percent of the private-sector output.
  Yet, the despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-
creators for our Nation's economy, the current tax system imposes an 
unreasonable burden on small businesses attempting to comply with the 
current tax code. This code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on 
all taxpayers in terms of satisfying reporting and record-keeping 
obligations, but small businesses are disadvantaged most, even more 
than large companies, in terms of money and time spent satisfying their 
tax obligations.
  For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office 
of Advocacy, small businesses spend more than 8 billion hours each year 
filing-out government reports, and they spend more than 80 percent of 
this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that 
companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $6,975 per 
employee in tax compliance costs--nearly 60 percent more than companies 
with more than 500 employees spend.

[[Page S8238]]

  These statistics are disconcerting for several reasons. First, the 
fact that small businesses are required to spend so much money on 
compliance costs means they have less earnings to reinvest into their 
business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on 
new equipment or on worker training, which, unfortunately, has an 
adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole.
  Second, the inordinate amount of time small business owners are 
forced to devote to the completion of paperwork means they have less 
time to spend doing what they do best-namely running their business and 
creating jobs.
  I do not mean to suggest that the challenges small business confront 
in regard to tax reporting and compliance are unique to this group, or 
that these companies should receive a free pass. In order to benefit 
from the freedoms and protections that our great country provides, 
individuals and businesses alike are required to pay taxes, and this 
duty carries with it certain administrative and opportunity costs. What 
I am asking for is a fairer, simpler tax code that allows small 
companies to satisfy their obligation without having to expend the 
amount of resources that they do currently, resources that might be 
invested in more productive ways.
  For that reason, the package of proposals that I will be introducing 
will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business 
owners, it will also seek to simplify existing rules under the tax 
code. By simplifying the tax code, small business owners will be able 
to satisfy their tax obligation in a less costly, more efficient 
manner, allowing them to devote more time and resources to their 
primary business goals.
  As I mentioned earlier, the provision that I am introducing today 
will permit more taxpayers to use the cash method of accounting, as 
opposed to depending on accrual or other hybrid method. The same law I 
referenced earlier which currently permits only those taxpayers earning 
less than $5 million in gross receipts during the tax year to use the 
cash method in reporting their income also precludes taxpayers in 
possession of inventory from using the simpler cash method. As a 
result, thousands of small businesses which possess inventories, but 
which might otherwise be entitled to report their income and expenses 
under the cash method of accounting are also required to follow the 
accrual or some sort of hybrid accounting method. The result, once 
more, is the imposition of undue financial hardship and unreasonable 
administrative burdens.
  My bill changes these existing rules, increasing the gross receipts 
test under current law to $10 million for small businesses and indexing 
this higher threshold to account for inflation. Given that the current 
$5 million threshold, it makes little sense to preserve an outdated 
benchmark in this most important provision when the sensible adjustment 
that I propose will allow thousands of small businesses presently 
hobbled by unnecessary paperwork to use the cash method of accounting.
  My bill also changes current law to permit even those taxpayers with 
inventory to qualify for the cash method of accounting. It is important 
to note, however, that my bill will not simply give these taxpayers an 
opportunity to recover costs associated with these otherwise 
inventoriable assets in the year of purchase, but that the bill will 
require these taxpayers to account for such costs as if they were a 
material or supply that is not incidental. This standard already exists 
under current law, and it is one with which most small businesses are 
already familiar. As such, this less-burdensome standard should ease 
the existing compliance burden for eligible taxpayers and allow them to 
devote more time and resources to their business.
  Very importantly, these changes will not reduce the amount of taxes a 
small business pays by even one dollar. Indeed, the overall amount of 
taxes a qualifying small business pays will remain the same. Rather, 
this bill simply permits more taxpayers to report income and account 
for costs in the year of the receipt or expenditure. Clearly, this 
method makes compliance easier and simpler for small taxpayers, and it 
will reduce both the time and monetary expenditures spent today to 
comply with the current tax code.
  Finally, this proposal is revenue neutral. In addition to the 
provision that modifies the income tax rules, my bill would enact 
Federal legislation to stop an abusive tax shelter that exists 
currently whereby taxpayers avoid State unemployment taxes. 
Specifically, States would be required to enact laws that prevent the 
avoidance of State unemployment tax and that also impose penalties on 
taxpayers and their advisors who engage in these scams. Consequently, 
my bill provides a revenue-neutral proposal that simplifies the tax 
code for small business owners by cracking down on taxpayers who 
otherwise try to avoid their State unemployment tax obligations.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2675

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF CASH ACCOUNTING RULES FOR SMALL 
                   BUSINESS.

       (a) Cash Accounting Permitted.--
       (1) In general.--Section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to general rule for methods of accounting) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Certain Small Business Taxpayers Permitted to Use 
     Cash Accounting Method Without Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible taxpayer shall not be 
     required to use an accrual method of accounting for any 
     taxable year.
       ``(2) Eligible taxpayer.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     a taxpayer is an eligible taxpayer with respect to any 
     taxable year if--
       ``(A) for all prior taxable years beginning after December 
     31, 2003, the taxpayer (or any predecessor) met the gross 
     receipts test of section 448(c), and
       ``(B) the taxpayer is not subject to section 447 or 448.''.
       (2) Expansion of gross receipts test.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 448(b) of such 
     Code (relating to entities with gross receipts of not more 
     than $5,000,000) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' in the 
     text and in the heading and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
       (B) Conforming Amendments.--Section 448(c) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``$5,000,000'' each place it appears in the 
     text and in the heading of paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``$10,000,000'', and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2005, the dollar 
     amount contained in subsection (b)(3) and paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection shall 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 in which the taxable 
     year begins, by substituting `calendar year 2004' for 
     `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

     If any amount as adjusted under this subparagraph is not a 
     multiple of $100,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100,000.''.
       (b) Clarification of Inventory Rules for Small Business.--
       (1) In general.--Section 471 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to general rule for inventories) is amended 
     by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Small Business Taxpayers Not Required to Use 
     Inventories.--
       ``(1) In general.--A qualified taxpayer shall not be 
     required to use inventories under this section for a taxable 
     year.
       ``(2) Treatment of taxpayers not using inventories.--If a 
     qualified taxpayer does not use inventories with respect to 
     any property for any taxable year beginning after December 
     31, 2003, such property shall be treated as a material or 
     supply which is not incidental.
       ``(3) Qualified taxpayer.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `qualified taxpayer' means--
       ``(A) any eligible taxpayer (as defined in section 
     446(g)(2)), and
       ``(B) any taxpayer described in section 448(b)(3).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subpart D of part II of subchapter E of chapter 1 of 
     such Code is amended by striking section 474.
       (B) The table of sections for subpart D of part II of 
     subchapter E of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 474.
       (c) Effective Date and Special Rules.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003.
       (2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any 
     taxpayer changing the taxpayer's method of accounting for any 
     taxable year under the amendments made by this section--
       (A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the 
     taxpayer;

[[Page S8239]]

       (B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent 
     of the Secretary of the Treasury; and
       (C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken 
     into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account 
     over a period (not greater than 4 taxable years) beginning 
     with such taxable year.

     SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF UNEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE UPON TRANSFER OR 
                   ACQUISITION OF A BUSINESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 303 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 503) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k)(1) For purposes of subsection (a), the unemployment 
     compensation law of a State must provide--
       ``(A) that if an employer transfers its business to another 
     employer, and both employers are (at the time of transfer) 
     under substantially common ownership, management, or control, 
     then the unemployment experience attributable to the 
     transferred business shall also be transferred to (and 
     combined with the unemployment experience attributable to) 
     the employer to whom such business is so transferred,
       ``(B) that unemployment experience shall not, by virtue of 
     the transfer of a business, be transferred to the person 
     acquiring such business if--
       ``(i) such person is not otherwise an employer at the time 
     of such acquisition, and
       ``(ii) the State agency finds that such person acquired the 
     business solely or primarily for the purpose of obtaining a 
     lower rate of contributions,
       ``(C) that unemployment experience shall (or shall not) be 
     transferred in accordance with such regulations as the 
     Secretary of Labor may prescribe to ensure that higher rates 
     of contributions are not avoided through the transfer or 
     acquisition of a business,
       ``(D) that meaningful civil and criminal penalties are 
     imposed with respect to--
       ``(i) persons that knowingly violate or attempt to violate 
     those provisions of the State law which implement 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) or regulations under subparagraph 
     (C), and
       ``(ii) persons that knowingly advise another person to 
     violate those provisions of the State law which implement 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) or regulations under subparagraph 
     (C), and
       ``(E) for the establishment of procedures to identify the 
     transfer or acquisition of a business for purposes of this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `unemployment experience', with respect to 
     any person, refers to such person's experience with respect 
     to unemployment or other factors bearing a direct relation to 
     such person's unemployment risk;
       ``(B) the term `employer' means an employer as defined 
     under the State law;
       ``(C) the term `business' means a trade or business (or an 
     identifiable and segregable part thereof);
       ``(D) the term `contributions' has the meaning given such 
     term by section 3306(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(E) the term `knowingly' means having actual knowledge of 
     or acting with deliberate ignorance of or reckless disregard 
     for the prohibition involved; and
       ``(F) the term `person' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 7701(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Study and Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of Labor shall conduct a study of 
     the implementation of the provisions of section 303(k) of the 
     Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a)) to assess 
     the status and appropriateness of State actions to meet the 
     requirements of such provisions.
       (2) Report.--Not later than July 15, 2006, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall submit to the Congress a report that contains the 
     findings of the study required by paragraph (1) and 
     recommendations for any Congressional action that the 
     Secretary considers necessary to improve the effectiveness of 
     section 303(k) of the Social Security Act.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall, with respect to a State, apply to certifications for 
     payments (under section 302(a) of the Social Security Act) in 
     rate years beginning after the end of the 26-week period 
     beginning on the first day of the first regularly scheduled 
     session of the State legislature beginning on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands;
       (2) the term ``rate year'' means the rate year as defined 
     in the applicable State law; and
       (3) the term ``State law'' means the unemployment 
     compensation law of the State, approved by the Secretary of 
     Labor under section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.

     SEC. 3. USE OF NEW HIRE INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN 
                   ADMINISTRATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     653(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Information comparisons and disclosure to assist in 
     administration of unemployment compensation programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, for purposes of administering an 
     unemployment compensation program under Federal or State law, 
     a State agency responsible for the administration of such 
     program transmits to the Secretary the names and social 
     security account numbers of individuals, the Secretary shall 
     disclose to such State agency information on such individuals 
     and their employers maintained in the National Directory of 
     New Hires, subject to this paragraph.
       ``(B) Condition on disclosure by the secretary.--The 
     Secretary shall make a disclosure under subparagraph (A) only 
     to the extent that the Secretary determines that the 
     disclosure would not interfere with the effective operation 
     of the program under this part.
       ``(C) Use and disclosure of information by state 
     agencies.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State agency may not use or disclose 
     information provided under this paragraph except for purposes 
     of administering a program referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Information security.--The State agency shall have 
     in effect data security and control policies that the 
     Secretary finds adequate to ensure the security of 
     information obtained under this paragraph and to ensure that 
     access to such information is restricted to authorized 
     persons for purposes of authorized uses and disclosures.
       ``(iii) Penalty for misuse of information.--An officer or 
     employee of the State agency who fails to comply with this 
     subparagraph shall be subject to the sanctions under 
     subsection (l)(2) to the same extent as if such officer or 
     employee was an officer or employee of the United States.
       ``(D) Procedural requirements.--State agencies requesting 
     information under this paragraph shall adhere to uniform 
     procedures established by the Secretary governing information 
     requests and data matching under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Reimbursement of costs.--The State agency shall 
     reimburse the Secretary, in accordance with subsection 
     (k)(3), for the costs incurred by the Secretary in furnishing 
     the information requested under this paragraph.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 2676. A bill to amend chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, 
to provide for the issuance of a semipostal stamp in order to provide 
funding for childhood drinking prevention and education, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation creating the childhood drinking prevention semi-postal 
stamp.
  Alcohol is the number one substance used and abused by America's 
children. Nearly a third of children begin drinking before the age of 
13, and forty percent of children who begin drinking by age 15 will 
develop alcohol abuse or dependence later in life.
  I do not believe most parents or adults intentionally ignore this 
issue, however many Americans do not realize the prevalence and 
seriousness of childhood drinking. Several national surveys, including 
those conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 
demonstrate the serious consequences associated with early alcohol use.
  For example, in 2002, 1.5 million youths between the ages of 12 to 17 
needed treatment for alcohol abuse. Early alcohol use is more likely to 
kill or injure young people than all illegal drugs combined.
  If the onset of drinking is delayed, a child's risk of serious 
alcohol problems could be decreased or even prevented. That is why I am 
pleased to propose the passage of a semi-postal stamp on childhood 
drinking prevention. A semi-postal stamp will publicize this important 
children's health issue in every home, school, and community across the 
nation.
  Profits from the childhood drinking prevention stamp would be 
dedicated to support education and prevention efforts. I would also 
provide a further platform for millions of Americans to raise awareness 
about the importance of keeping children alcohol free.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important 
legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2676

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

     SECTION 1. SEMIPOSTAL STAMP TO BENEFIT CHILDHOOD DRINKING 
                   PREVENTION AND EDUCATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 414 the following:

[[Page S8240]]

     ``Sec. 414a. Special postage stamps to benefit childhood 
       drinking prevention and education

       ``(a) In this section the term `childhood drinking' means 
     the consumption of alcoholic beverages by children who are 
     between 9 and 15 years of age.
       ``(b) In order to afford the public a convenient way to 
     contribute to funding for childhood drinking prevention and 
     education, the Postal Service shall establish a special rate 
     of postage for first-class mail under this section.
       ``(c)(1) The rate of postage established under this 
     section--
       ``(A) shall be equal to the regular first-class rate of 
     postage, plus a differential of not to exceed 25 percent;
       ``(B) shall be set by the Governors in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Governors shall by regulation prescribe (in 
     lieu of the procedures under chapter 36); and
       ``(C) shall be offered as an alternative to the regular 
     first-class rate of postage.
       ``(2) The use of the special rate of postage established 
     under this section shall be voluntary on the part of postal 
     patrons.
       ``(d)(1) Amounts becoming available for childhood drinking 
     prevention and education under this section shall be paid to 
     the Department of Health and Human Services. Payments under 
     this section shall be made under such arrangements as the 
     Postal Service shall by mutual agreement with the Department 
     of Health and Human Services establish in order to carry out 
     the purposes of this section, except that, under those 
     arrangements, payments to the Department of Health and Human 
     Services shall be made at least twice a year.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term `amounts becoming 
     available for childhood drinking prevention and education 
     under this section' means--
       ``(A) the total amounts received by the Postal Service that 
     it would not have received but for the enactment of this 
     section, reduced by
       ``(B) an amount sufficient to cover full costs incurred by 
     the Postal Service in carrying out this section, including 
     those attributable to the printing, sale, and distribution of 
     stamps under this section,

     as determined by the Postal Service under regulations that it 
     shall prescribe.
       ``(e) It is the sense of the Congress that nothing in this 
     section should--
       ``(1) directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in total 
     Federal funding for childhood drinking prevention and 
     education below the level that would otherwise have been 
     received but for the enactment of this section; or
       ``(2) affect regular first-class rates of postage or any 
     other regular rates of postage.
       ``(f) Special postage stamps under this section shall be 
     made available to the public beginning on such date as the 
     Postal Service shall by regulation prescribe, but in no event 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(g) The Postmaster General shall include in each report 
     rendered under section 2402 with respect to any period during 
     any portion of which this section is in effect information 
     concerning the operation of this section, except that, at a 
     minimum, each shall include--
       ``(1) the total amount described in subsection (d)(2)(A) 
     which was received by the Postal Service during the period 
     covered by such report; and
       ``(2) of the amount under paragraph (1), how much (in the 
     aggregate and by category) was required for the purposes 
     described in subsection (d)(2)(B).
       ``(h) Section 416 shall not apply to this section. For 
     purposes of section 416 (including any regulation prescribed 
     under subsection (e)(1)(C) of that section), the special 
     postage stamp issued under this section shall not apply to 
     any limitation relating to whether more than 1 semipostal may 
     be offered for sale at the same time.
       ``(i) This section shall cease to be effective 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this section.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 4 
     of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 414 and inserting the following:

``414. Special postage stamps to benefit breast cancer research.
``414a. Special postage stamps to benefit childhood drinking prevention 
              and education.''.

       (2) Amendment to heading.--The heading for section 414 of 
     title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 414. Special postage stamps to benefit breast cancer 
       research''.

                          ____________________