[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.
____________________