[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 102 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5834-S5838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Snowe, 
        and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 3160. A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant 
College Program Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was order to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3160

       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 ``National Sea Grant College 
     Program Amendments Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES

       Except as otherwise expressly provided therein, whenever in 
     this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Section 202(a) (33 U.S.C. 1121(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (1) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(D) encourage the development of preparation, forecast, 
     analysis, mitigation, response, and recovery systems for 
     coastal hazards;
       ``(E) understand global environmental processes and their 
     impacts on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources; and'';
       (2) by striking ``program of research, education,'' in 
     paragraph (2) and inserting ``program of integrated research, 
     education, extension,''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     through the national sea grant college program, offers the 
     most suitable locus and means for such commitment and 
     engagement through the promotion of activities that will 
     result in greater such understanding, assessment, 
     development, management, and conservation of ocean, coastal, 
     and Great Lakes resources. The most cost-effective way to 
     promote such activities is through continued and increased 
     Federal support of the establishment, development, and 
     operation of programs and projects by sea grant colleges, sea 
     grant institutes, and other institutions, including strong 
     collaborations between Administration scientists and research 
     and outreach personnel at academic institutions.''.
       (b) Purpose.--Section 202(c) (33 U.S.C. 1121(c)) is amended 
     by striking ``to promote research, education, training, and 
     advisory service activities'' and inserting ``to promote 
     integrated research, education, training, and extension 
     services and activities''.
       (c) Terminology.--Subsections (a) and (b) of section 202 
     (15 U.S.C. 1121(a) and (b)) are amended by striking 
     ``utilization,'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``management,''.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 203 (33 U.S.C. 1122) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``utilization,'' and 
     inserting ``management,'';
       (2) in paragraph (11) by striking ``advisory services'' and 
     inserting ``extension services'';
       (3) in each of paragraphs (12) and (13) by striking ``(33 
     U.S.C. 1126)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) The term `regional research and information plan' 
     means a plan developed by one or more sea grant colleges or 
     sea grant institutes that identifies regional priorities.''.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Elements.--Section 204(b) (33 U.S.C. 1123(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by amending in paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) sea grant programs that comprise a national sea grant 
     college program network, including international projects 
     conducted within such programs and regional and national 
     projects conducted among such programs;'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) administration of the national sea grant college 
     program and this title by the national sea grant office and 
     the Administration;''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) any regional or national strategic investments in 
     fields relating to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources 
     developed in consultation with the Board and with the 
     approval of the sea grant colleges and the sea grant 
     institutes.''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 204(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1123(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``Within 6 months of the 
     date of enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 1998, the'' and inserting ``The''.
       (c) Functions of Director of National Sea Grant College 
     Program.--Section 204(d) (33 U.S.C. 1123(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``long range'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``(A)(i) evaluate'' and inserting ``(A) 
     evaluate and assess'';
       (B) by striking ``activities; and'' and inserting 
     ``activities;''; and
       (C) by striking clause (ii); and
       (3) in paragraph (3)(B)--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses 
     (iii) through (v), respectively, and by inserting after 
     clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) encourage collaborations among sea grant colleges 
     and sea grant institutes to address regional and national 
     priorities established under subsection (c)(1);''; and
       (B) in clause (iii) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``encourage'' and inserting ``ensure''.

     SEC. 6. PROGRAM OR PROJECT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.

       Section 205 (33 U.S.C. 1124) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``States or regions.'' in subsection (a)(2) 
     and inserting ``States, regions, or the Nation.''; and
       (2) by striking the matter following paragraph (3) in 
     subsection (b) and inserting the following:

     ``The total amount that may be provided for grants under this 
     subsection and subsection 208(b) during any fiscal year shall 
     not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent of the total funds 
     appropriated for such year under section 212.''.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION SERVICES BY SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND SEA 
                   GRANT INSTITUTES.

       Section 207(a) (33 U.S.C. 1126(a)) is amended in each of 
     paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(B) by striking ``advisory 
     services'' and inserting ``extension services''.

[[Page S5835]]

     SEC. 8. FELLOWSHIPS.

       Section 208(a) (33 U.S.C. 1127) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 
     Amendments of 2002, and every 2 years thereafter,'' in 
     subsection (a) and inserting ``Every 2 years,''; and
       (2) by striking ``year.'' in subsection (b) and inserting 
     ``year and is not subject to Federal cost share 
     requirements''.

     SEC. 9. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Redesignation of Sea Grant Review Panel as Board.--
       (1) Redesignation.--The sea grant review panel established 
     by section 209 of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1128), as in effect before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, is redesignated as the National Sea 
     Grant Advisory Board.
       (2) Membership not affected.--An individual serving as a 
     member of the sea grant review panel immediately before the 
     enactment of this Act may continue to serve as a member of 
     the National Sea Grant Advisory Board until the expiration of 
     such member's term under section 209(c) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1128(c).
       (3) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to such 
     sea grant review panel is deemed to be a reference to the 
     National Sea Grant Advisory Board.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) In general.--Section 209 (33 U.S.C. 1128) is amended by 
     striking so much as precedes subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 209. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There shall be an independent 
     committee to be known as the National Sea Grant Advisory 
     Board.''.
       (B) Definition.--Section 203(9) (33 U.S.C. 1122(9)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(9) The term `Board' means the National Sea Grant 
     Advisory Board established under section 209.'';
       (C) Other provisions.--The following provisions are each 
     amended by striking ``panel'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Board'':
       (i) Section 204 (33 U.S.C. 1123).
       (ii) Section 207 (33 U.S.C. 1126).
       (iii) Section 209 (33 U.S.C. 1128).
       (b) Duties.--Section 209(b) (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Board shall advise the Secretary and 
     the Director concerning--
       ``(A) strategies for utilizing the sea grant college 
     program to address the Nation's highest priorities regarding 
     the understanding, assessment, development, management, and 
     conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources;
       ``(B) the designation of sea grant colleges and sea grant 
     institutes; and
       ``(C) such other matters as the Secretary refers to the 
     Board for review and advice.
       ``(2) Biennial report.--The Board shall report to the 
     Congress every two years on the state of the national sea 
     grant college program. The Board shall indicate in each such 
     report the progress made toward meeting the priorities 
     identified in the strategic plan in effect under section 
     204(c). The Secretary shall make available to the Board such 
     information, personnel, and administrative services and 
     assistance as it may reasonably require to carry out its 
     duties under this title.''.
       (c) Membership, Terms, and Powers.--Section 209(c)(1) (33 
     U.S.C. 1128(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``coastal management,'' after ``resources 
     management,''; and
       (2) by striking ``utilization,'' and inserting 
     ``management,''.
       (d) Extension of Term.--Section 209(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1128(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) The term of office of a voting member of the Board 
     shall be 4 years. The Director may extend the term of office 
     of a voting member of the Board once by up to 1 year.''.
       (e) Establishment of Subcommittees.--Section 209(c) (33 
     U.S.C. 1128(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) The Board may establish such subcommittees as are 
     reasonably necessary to carry out its duties under subsection 
     (b). Such subcommittees may include individuals who are not 
     Board members.''.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 212 of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1131) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a)(1) and inserting the 
     following: ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title--
       ``(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(B) $105,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(C) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       ``(D) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
       ``(E) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(F) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``biology and control of zebra mussels and 
     other important aquatic'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``biology, prevention, and control of aquatic''; and
       (B) by striking ``blooms, including Pfiesteria piscicida; 
     and'' in subparagraph (C) and inserting ``blooms; and'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(1) by striking ``rating under section 
     204(d)(3)(A)'' and inserting ``performance assessments'';
       (4) by striking subsection (c)(2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) regional or national strategic investments authorized 
     under section 204(b)(4);''.

     SEC. 11. REPEAL OF ANNUAL COORDINATION REPORT REQUIREMENT.

       Section 9 of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 
     Amendments of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 857-20) is repealed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH:
  S. 3162. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
relief to improve the competitiveness of United States corporations and 
small businesses, to eliminate tax incentives to move jobs and profits 
overseas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  MR. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, when the Senate reconvenes in January 
2009 for the 111th Congress, we will have an historic opportunity, 
through fundamental tax reform, to transform the U.S. economy in a 
manner that will make our nation stronger and more prosperous for 
generations. A number of factors make the 111th Congress the occasion 
for a perfect storm for the Tax Code. At the beginning of the next 
Congress, a new President will take office and will be looking to enact 
major tax changes. At the end, the 2001 and 2003 tax relief will 
expire, resulting in an unprecedented tax increase on the American 
people. And in between, the reach of the deeply flawed alternative 
minimum tax--or AMT--will threaten to hit tens of millions of middle-
class Americans unless Congress enacts major tax legislation. Finally, 
the competitive pressures of a global economy will force us to change 
our uncompetitive and inefficient methods of business taxation, 
including one of the highest corporate marginal rates in the world.
  I am not proposing today a comprehensive tax reform bill that would 
touch every part of the Tax Code, but I am introducing legislation that 
addresses one large piece of tax reform, in the hopes of starting a 
conversation that will inform policymakers as we develop a more 
comprehensive reform in the next couple of years. Today, I am 
introducing the Manufacturing, Assembling, Development, and Export in 
the USA--or MADE in the USA--Tax Act. The purpose of my legislation is 
to provide tax relief to improve the competitiveness of U.S. 
corporations and small businesses and to eliminate incentives that 
favor foreign competition and encourage companies to move jobs and 
profits overseas.
  A number of factors contribute to a company's decision about where to 
locate activity and jobs, including wages, workforce skills, 
transportation costs, and local regulations. But there is no doubt that 
taxes are an important factor. Recent economic research concludes that 
in a global economy, workers bear the brunt of higher corporate tax 
rates, through lower wages and fewer jobs. Therefore, it is imperative 
that we have a Tax Code that makes the United States an attractive 
place to locate production, research, and other activity. While the 
MADE in the USA Tax Act would not address the ``wage pull'' that sends 
jobs to places like China and India, it would deal with the ``tax 
push'' that encourages jobs to leave the United States.
  The MADE in the USA Tax Act would eliminate tax breaks that encourage 
companies to move jobs overseas or that benefit foreign competitors and 
then use that revenue to cut tax rates on large and small businesses 
that invest and create jobs in the United States. The centerpiece of 
the legislation is a one-fifth reduction in the Federal corporate rate, 
to 28 percent from 35 percent. Of the 30 member countries of the 
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development--which includes 
the major industrialized nations of North America, Europe, and Asia--
the United States has the second highest combined Federal-State 
corporate tax rate at 39.3 percent, lower only than Japan's rate of 
39.5 percent. The average is 27.6 percent, and Ireland has the lowest 
rate at 12.5 percent.
  Even Communist China, our biggest economic rival in the 21st century, 
recently cut its corporate tax rate to 25 percent. It will be that much 
harder to compete with China for jobs and investment when businesses 
operating in the United States have to pay a tax rate 15 percent higher 
than they would have to pay in China.
  In fact, a constituent of mine from Norwalk, OH, Tom Secor, who owns 
his

[[Page S5836]]

own small business, came to my office and told a story about a business 
trip he made to China. He said that he saw an editorial in a Chinese 
newspaper that was discussing all the concerns that Americans have with 
Chinese competition. The conclusion of the editorial was that the 
Americans could solve most of their problems with Chinese competition 
if they would just reform their own Tax Code. Imagine that: even 
Communist China knows that the United States needs tax reform to stay 
competitive, but for some reason we refuse to learn that lesson 
ourselves.
  In addition to slashing the corporate rate on U.S. production, my 
legislation would also take steps to make small businesses more 
competitive and simplify the tax rules for individuals operating in the 
global economy. Specifically, my legislation would increase the 
domestic activities deduction for partnerships, S corporations, and 
sole proprietorships to 12 percent from 9 percent; make permanent the 
2003 expansion in small business expensing; simplify the international 
tax rules for Americans working abroad by repealing complex and 
punitive rules enacted in 2006; and repeal the burdensome 3 percent 
withholding requirement for contractors, also enacted in 2006.
  These tax reforms, which will help create high-paying jobs in the 
United States, will be paid for by repealing a number of existing tax 
breaks that favor foreign competition and that encourage companies to 
move jobs and profits overseas. Among those tax breaks I would 
eliminate are tax shelters that allow foreign competitors to hide their 
U.S. income offshore, creating an unlevel playing field for domestic 
businesses such as small manufacturers and domestic insurance 
companies; tax credits for moving our Nation's technological 
innovation--such as patents, copyrights, and ``know-how''--overseas, 
along with the high-wage manufacturing jobs that accompany that 
intellectual property; tax loopholes that encourage U.S. corporations 
to reincorporate as foreign corporations; a tax exemption for 
executives of offshore hedge funds if the executives put their money in 
certain deferred compensation plans; and tax breaks for foreign oil and 
gas production.
  Reducing the tax rates on corporate and small business income should 
lead to job creation and wage increases for American workers. Paying 
for these tax cuts by eliminating tax breaks for foreign production and 
offshore tax shelters means we can accomplish these goals in a fiscally 
responsible manner. My legislation is intended to be revenue neutral, 
as I believe that we can enact progrowth tax policy without increasing 
the national debt.
  In 1984, President Ronald Reagan declared to the American people that 
the Tax Code was fundamentally unfair and that he was going to reform 
it. President Reagan held his belief in the unjustness of the Tax Code 
deep in his heart. He knew that hundreds of targeted tax subsidies for 
the benefit of powerful interests forced average Americans to pay 
higher marginal rates and reduced economic growth. He saw tax reform 
not as a retreat from his 1981 tax relief agenda but, rather, as a 
logical continuation and enhancement of that agenda. The Tax Reform Act 
of 1986 was the culmination of the quest he began in 1981 to create a 
Tax Code with low marginal rates that raised the necessary revenue to 
fund the government with the least possible interference in our free 
market economy.
  We must enact fundamental tax reform to help make the Tax Code 
simple, fair, transparent, and economically efficient. According to the 
President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, headed by former 
Senators Connie Mack and John Breaux, only 13 percent of taxpayers file 
without the help of either a tax preparer or computer software. Since 
enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986--legislation intended to simplify 
the filing process for taxpayers--over 15,000 provisions have been 
added to the Internal Revenue Code.
  It is not just a matter of saving taxpayers time and effort. This is 
about saving taxpayers real money. The Tax Foundation has estimated 
that comprehensive tax reform could save Americans as much as $265 
billion in compliance costs associated with preparing their returns. 
Now, that would be a real tax reduction that wouldn't cost the Treasury 
one dime.
  I have been working on tax reform for years. In 2003, I attached an 
amendment to the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act that 
would have created a blue ribbon commission to study fundamental tax 
reform. The amendment was adopted by voice vote but later was removed 
in conference.
  In the autumn of 2004, I offered my tax reform commission amendment 
again, this time to the American Jobs Creation Act. The Senate again 
adopted my amendment. During conference negotiations, the White House 
contacted me and requested that I withdraw my amendment because the 
President was preparing to take a leadership role by appointing his own 
tax reform panel. I enthusiastically agreed to defer to his leadership, 
and I withdrew my amendment. It seemed to me that the tax reform 
bandwagon was finally starting to roll.
  In January 2005, President Bush announced the creation of an all-star 
panel, led by former Senators Connie Mack and John Breaux, and that 
panel spent most of the year engaging the American public to develop 
proposals to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more conducive to 
economic growth. In November 2005, the panel issued its final report. 
While not perfect in anyone's mind, the panel's two plans provided a 
starting point for developing tax reform legislation that would 
represent a huge improvement over the current system. The panel's 
proposals belong as a key part of the national discussion on 
fundamental tax reform.
  Some of my colleagues will suggest that we can just increase marginal 
rates to raise the revenue we need. But in a competitive global 
economy, I can't understand why we would choose such a self-defeating 
approach. Higher marginal rates on an already-broken tax system would 
only discourage economic ingenuity and reduce U.S. competitiveness.
  Tinkering with the current Tax Code won't get it done. Tinkering is 
what got us into this mess in the first place. It is time to rip the 
Tax Code out by its roots and replace it with something that works. We 
must create a new tax system that is conducive to job creation and 
economic growth. We should start by addressing one of the biggest 
problems with the current code: it rewards moving production activity--
and the good-paying jobs that accompany such activity--overseas. It 
taxes domestic production heavily but taxes foreign production lightly. 
It imposes the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world 
but collects one of the smallest amounts of corporate tax as a share of 
the economy. Such a system sounds absolutely perverse, but that is what 
we have in the United States. The MADE in the USA Tax Act is intended 
to fix that.
  I know there is bipartisan support in this Chamber to move forward on 
fundamental tax reform. It probably won't happen this year, but that 
doesn't mean that we shouldn't get started right away. We need to start 
setting the table so that a new President and a new Congress can hit 
the ground running in 2009 and enact comprehensive tax reform that 
makes the code simple, fair, and progrowth. I hope my colleagues will 
take a close look at the MADE in the USA Tax Act and join me in trying 
to make it a key part of our future efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 3164. A bill to amend tile XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
reduce fraud under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, ``the first important rule of fraud 
control is: What you see is not the problem. It is what we don't see 
that really does the damage, and the efficacy of control systems 
depends upon how well they uncover, and then suppress, the invisible 
bulk of the problem.'' Such are the words of the preeminent expert on 
health care fraud, Harvard, Kennedy School of Government Professor, 
Malcolm Sparrow.
  Just last week, the Washington Post ran a front-page article, which I 
would ask to be entered into the record, ``Medical Fraud a Growing 
Problem: Medicare Pays Most Claims Without Review.'' The story detailed 
how one

[[Page S5837]]

woman, defrauded the Government out of $105 million using just a laptop 
while sitting in her Mediterranean-style townhouse.
  While the lottery's slogan is ``All you need is a dollar and dream.'' 
This woman discovered something better. Maybe Medicare should adopt the 
slogan ``All you need is a Provider Number and a dream.''
  Quite simply, Medicare is not sophisticated enough to address the 
fraud that runs rampant through it. Every year, Medicare's anemic fraud 
controls let slip by an array of schemes that cost the Medicare program 
and taxpayers $60 billion, if not more. That is 20 percent of all 
Medicare spending.
  Often, as pointed out by the Washington Post article, Medicare pays 
claims with little or no review as to why or where the checks are going 
or to whom. One phantom company, comprising nothing more than two 
rented mailboxes and a phone number was paid $2.1 million over a 6 
month period. In another case, the owner of the fraudulent company was 
an unemployed tow truck operator who used the identities of dozens of 
dead patients. Again, ``All you need is a Provider Number and a 
dream.''
  Medicare fraud is not limited to one segment of the health care 
sector. There are numerous examples of fraud conducted by physicians, 
dentists, health systems, laboratories, teaching hospitals, patients, 
and billing specialists to name a few. While I would agree that most of 
these groups are operating on the straight and narrow, the truth 
remains that the losses associated with Medicare fraud are helping 
drive the program to bankruptcy.
  Unfortunately, conducting Medicare fraud has such a low risk of 
getting caught and less severe punishment yet high reward that it has 
even attracted organized crime. Again, ``All you need is a Provider 
Number and a dream.''
  Usually, the only way Medicare is able to recoup a small portion of 
the annual $60 billion in losses is by expending more resources on 
investigations and law enforcement activities through the Office of 
Inspector General and Department of Justice. While these agencies have 
done a commendable job in combating fraud, to a large extent it is good 
money chasing bad.

  Sometimes systems are set-up to fail. In this case, the Medicare 
fraud prevention program is not only set-up to fail, it is nearly non-
existent.
  We need to go from ``pay and chase'' to ``detect and prevent.'' 
Medicare needs to be mobile and it needs to be focused on preventing 
criminals from ever getting paid in the first place. Medicare needs a 
system that will continually, as Malcolm Sparrow said: ``uncover, and 
then suppress.''
  Today, I am proud to join Senator Martinez in what I hope is the 
first in a line of necessary common sense solutions to this problem. 
The Seniors and Taxpayers Obligation Protection Act or STOP Act, will 
protect honest taxpayers, seniors, and providers, by strengthening the 
Medicare program itself.
  To prevent fraud, the STOP Act employs lessons from the private 
sector and moves Medicare into the 21st century. For example, Medicare 
may be the only program, company, or industry left in the country that 
still thinks it is a good idea to use social security numbers for 
identification. In a time where a stolen social security number is a 
stolen identity, Medicare has not stopped printing it on identification 
cards that are sent through the mail.
  Even worse, when seniors report that their social security number is 
being used fraudulently to bill for services in Medicare that they 
didn't receive, Medicare has no ability to stop paying claims on that 
social security number or provide the senior with a new number. 
Medicare has ignored the warnings of the Government Accountability 
Office and the pleas of groups like AARP and Consumers Union to change 
this practice. Passage of the STOP Act will mean Medicare can ignore it 
no longer.
  The STOP Act requires physicians in high risk areas to review the 
claims they submitted, similar to how you or I would review our credit 
card statement at the end of the month to ensure there are no mistaken 
or fraudulent charges.
  It implements prepayment fraud detection methods, such as site 
visits, data analysis, and integrity reviews, so that a guy with a 
mailbox can no longer rely on ``All you need is a Supplier Number and a 
Dream.''
  It ensures providers are billing for only those services for which 
they are qualified.
  It tracks the usage of durable medical equipment and it conducts a 
study on the implementation prospects of real-time claims analysis 
technology.
  Yes, many acts of fraud may be invisible, but it doesn't make them 
undetectable, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should just turn a 
blind eye. I hope my colleagues and members of the health sector will 
join Senator Martinez and me in stepping up to the task of being part 
of the solution. Our seniors, our providers, and our taxpayers deserve 
better accountability from Medicare.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 3167. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the 
conditions under which veterans, their surviving spouses, and their 
children may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would end an arbitrary process through which our own Government takes 
away the Second Amendment rights of American veterans.
  As most of my colleagues know, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 
Act prohibits the sale of firearms to those who have been ``adjudicated 
as a mental defective.''
  The Government maintains a database on these individuals called the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS.'' The 
Brady Law and the NICS database aims to prevent those who may pose a 
danger to society or themselves from purchasing a firearm.
  Gun shop owners use NICS to screen customers before selling a 
firearm. Needless to say, it is a serious matter to have one's name on 
the NICS. Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process 
before their right to bear arms is taken away.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, surviving spouses, 
and children, the process is neither rigorous nor fair.
  Since 1999, VA has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to 
the FBI for inclusion on the NICS.
  None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined 
to be a danger to themselves or others. They were listed in NICS 
because they could not manage their financial affairs. We should not 
take away a Constitutional right because someone can't balance a 
checkbook or pay their bills on time.
  This practice is arbitrary, unfair, and applies a double standard.
  VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine 
one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided disability 
compensation, pension, and other benefits. For example, a veteran may 
be assigned a fiduciary if they have credit problems.
  The VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in 
the manner in which they were intended. Nothing involved with VA's 
appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an 
individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person 
should own a firearm.
  Yet that is exactly what happens if VA appoints a fiduciary. Over 
116,000 individuals have been listed in NICS since 1999 because they 
were appointed a fiduciary. This includes veterans, surviving spouses, 
and even children.
  This process is not only arbitrary, it is unfair. Taking away a 
Constitutional right is a serious action and veterans should be 
afforded due process under the law. At the very least, we should expect 
such decisions to be made by a competent judicial authority and not by 
civilian government employees.
  The current practice is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries 
fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns 
fiduciaries to help beneficiaries, yet the Social Security 
Administration does not send their names to the NICS.
  Why are we singling out those who fought for this country and those 
who sacrificed while their spouse or parent served?

[[Page S5838]]

  My legislation would end this arbitrary and unfair practice that 
strips the finest men and women of this country of their right to bear 
arms. This legislation would require a judicial authority to determine 
that an individual is a danger to themselves or others before their 
Second Amendment rights are taken away.
  I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous 
people. I am here to ask that we treat our veterans fairly and we take 
the rights of our veterans seriously.
  No matter where my colleagues fall on the gun issue, I hope we can 
all agree that we need a process that is consistent and fair. Our 
veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They deserve to enjoy 
the rights they fought so hard to protect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 3170. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
modify the conditions for the release of products from the Northeast 
Home Heating Oil Reserve Account, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S5838, June 19, 2008, in the First Column, the following 
appears: ``By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kennedy): 
S. 3170. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
modify the conditions for the release of products from the 
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Account, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.''
  
  The online version was corrected to read: ``By Ms. SNOWE (for 
herself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kerry): S. 3170. A bill to amend the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act to modify the conditions for 
the release of products from the Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve Account, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.''


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a bill I am 
introducing with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to amend the Northeast 
Home Heating Oil Reserve program. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her 
tremendous leadership on the problem this bill is designed to address, 
which is a critically important issue for our region that we have 
worked together on for many years. That issue is the skyrocketing price 
of heating oil, which millions of families in the Northeast are 
dependent on to heat their homes through our long, cold winters.
  According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency, 
EIA, 6.2 million of the 8 million households in the U.S. that use 
heating oil to heat their homes are in the Northeast, or approximately 
78 percent. As crude oil and gasoline prices have risen higher and 
higher, the cost of heating oil has risen as well. Currently, heating 
oil is far and away the costliest method of heating homes, costing 
families an average of nearly $2000 per year, and much more in the 
coldest areas. Overall, heating a home with heating oil costs twice the 
national average of all fuels combined, yet most families in the 
Northeast have little choice. Even in some of our region's cities, 
there are no natural gas lines or other sources of home heating 
available to residents.
  This dependence on heating oil is stretching many families' budgets 
to the breaking point. Where once low and moderate income families 
could struggle through the winter, soaring heating oil prices are 
forcing people to choose between heating their homes, driving their 
cars to and from work, and putting food on the table for their 
families. The EIA estimated that this year, it will cost $1,962 to heat 
a home with oil, a 33 percent increase from last year and a 117 percent 
increase since 2004. In just 4 short years, the cost of heating a home 
with oil has gone up more than $1000 dollars! Many families and seniors 
living on fixed incomes simply cannot bear this burden.
  That is why Senator Snowe and I are proposing a price trigger to 
provide for oil to be released from the Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve. This is a 2-million barrel reserve I originally worked to 
create in 2000, along with my colleague from Maine and other Senators 
from the Northeast, to protect the residents of the region from severe 
price shocks to the heating oil market. Given the record heating oil 
prices we are experiencing today, we believe it would be reasonable to 
use this reserve to try to cushion those dependent on heating oil to 
get through the winter. From November through March, the Secretary of 
Energy would conduct a survey to determine the price of a gallon of 
heating oil on the first of each month. If the price meets or exceeds 
$4 per gallon, this would trigger an immediate release of 20 percent of 
the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. This oil would then be sold on 
the open market to lower the price of heating oil in the region.
  The revenue raised by the sale would then be devoted to the 
Weatherization Assistance Program to help low income heating oil 
customers increase the energy efficiency of their homes. Experience has 
shown that properly weatherizing homes can increase their energy 
efficiency by 20-30 percent, reducing energy consumption and lowering 
monthly utility bills. However, most low and middle income families 
cannot afford the upfront investment necessary to reap these benefits. 
The Weatherization Assistance Program is an enormously successful 
program designed to help families make that initial investment.
  This bill will not solve our Nation's energy crisis, nor will this 
alone solve the problem of high heating oil prices in the Northeast. As 
the Senator from Maine well knows, we need to devote far more money to 
programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and we 
need to take a serious look at restructuring our Nation's comprehensive 
energy policy. But this legislation is a very good first step toward 
easing the pain so many residents of the Northeast and my State of 
Connecticut are feeling. I urge my colleagues to support us in this 
effort.

                          ____________________