[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''.
____________________