A bill to designate Poland as a program country under the visa waiver program established under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Mr. President, in 1996, over eight years ago, the Senate passed without opposition the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to make the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the most important provisions of SBREFA is a requirement that agencies produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses meet the requirements of their regulations. Unfortunately, over the years, agencies have done a poor job of meeting this requirement. Consequently, small businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulation.

The GAO found that agencies have ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to satisfy it. GAO also found that the language of SBREFA is unclear in some places about what is actually required. That is why today I am introducing the Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2004 to close those loopholes and make it clear that we were serious when we first told agencies we want them to produce quality compliance assistance materials to help small businesses understand how to deal with regulations.

My bill is drawn directly from the GAO recommendations and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement--not to add anything new. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will produce will be suggestion about how to meet a regulations requirements, not further requirements, or subject to enforcement. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or undercut an agency's ability to enforce its regulations to the full extent they currently enjoy. Bad actors must be brought to justice, but if the only trigger for compliance is the threat of enforcement, then agencies will never achieve the impact their regulations must have to be effective.

The key to helping small businesses comply is to provide assistance-- show them what is necessary and how they will be able to tell when they have met their obligations. Too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or have the resources to figure out the answers to these questions. This puts them at a disadvantage compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. SBA's Office of Advocacy has determined that compliance with regulations cost small businesses with less than 20 employees almost $7,000 per employee, compared to almost $4,500 for companies with more than 500 employees. If an agency cannot describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This was the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was included in SBREFA originally, and this reason is just as valid today as it was in 1996.

Specifically, my bill would do the following: Clarify when a guide is required: To clarify when an agency must prepare a compliance guide section 212 of SBREFA would be amended to require a guide whenever the agency does not certify the rule under section 605(b) of title 5, United States Code (i.e. whenever an agency determines that a rule will have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''). This would avoid confusion about whether the agency should produce a compliance guide when the agency produces a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis voluntarily (i.e. even though the agency certified that the regulation would not have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'').

Clarify how a guide shall be designated: Section 212 currently says that agencies must ``designate'' the publications prepared under the section as small entity compliance guides. However, the form in which those designations should occur is not clear. This term would be changed to ``entitle.'' Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that the agencies develop. This would also aid in using online searches--a technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, agencies

would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity Compliance Guide.''

Clarify how a guide shall be published: Section 212 currently says agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but does not indicate where or how they should be published. At least one agency has published the guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the guides. Agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their compliance guides available through their websites in an easily accessed way. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small businesses or associations with small business members that will be affected by the regulation.

Clarify when a guide shall be published: Section 212 does not indicate when the compliance guides should be published. This means that even if an agency was required to produce a compliance guide, they can claim that they have not violated that requirement since there is no deadline established for when they had to produce that guide. Agencies would be instructed to publish the compliance guides coincident with, or as soon as possible after, the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements.

Clarify the term ``compliance requirements'': The term ``compliance requirements'' also needs to be clarified. At a minimum, this term means what a small business has to do to satisfy the regulation, and when they will know they have met these requirements. This should include a description of the procedures a small business might use to meet the requirements. If, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that testing would be conducted. The bill makes clear that the procedural description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the requirements through a different approach.

It is time we got serious about making sure small businesses have the assistance they need to deal with the maze of federal regulations we expect them to handle on a daily basis. The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act will make a significant contribution to that effort.

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

Mr. President, this evening the Senate is expected to consider H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. While there are significant problems with this bill, I believe it is in the best interest of ensuring the continuity of government that the Senate pass the bill, as received from the House, without amendment, before we begin this extended recess.

The most troubling problem with this bill is that it may have the unintended consequence of disenfranchising overseas military voters who are serving this Nation in combat. So in taking this action tonight, let me suggest that our work will not be done. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the House to review this legislation in light of these concerns and to consider adopting technical corrections to this bill to address its unintentional consequences.

The bill before the Senate today is, at best, a stopgap measure which attempts to provide a way to reconstitute the House of Representatives in the event that in excess of 100 vacancies occur in its membership. Unlike vacancies in the Senate, which under the Seventeenth Amendment can be immediately filled, the House has no way to reconstitute itself short of holding elections. In essence, H.R. 2488 requires the States to hold expedited special elections to fill vacancies which occur under extraordinary circumstances.

The House-passed bill provides that upon the announcement by the Speaker of the House that more than 100 vacancies exist in the membership of the House, the States affected must hold a special election within 45 days of the announcement, unless there is a regularly scheduled general election scheduled within 75 days of the announcement. This overly optimistic time line all but ensures that overseas military voters and overseas voters will not have their ballots counted in such an election.

In an attempt to address the issue of overseas military voters and other overseas voters, the House adopted language which calls on the States, but does not require them, to issue absentee ballots or voting material to overseas military voters within 15 days of the Speaker's announcement. However, the bill then requires such States to accept and process such ballots for up to 45 days from the date that the State transmitted the ballot to the voter. On its face, those deadlines would require that an election be held no sooner than 60 days after an announcement by a Speaker of the House in order to ensure that such absentee military ballots are counted.

However, the situation may be much worse. Because the House bill does not require States to transmit ballots to overseas military voters by any specific date, under certain State laws, such voters can receive absentee ballots up to literally the day before the election. In such a case, a State would be required to accept the overseas military ballot up to 45 days after that date, or 90 days after the Speaker's announcement.

The obvious result of these two provisions is to potentially extend the date of the election beyond the required 45 days after the Speaker's announcement--ranging from 46 days to 90 days. And therein lies the problem: are overseas military ballots that are received by the State from 1 to 90 days after the actual election date still counted, or are they ignored unless the election is close?

The unintended consequence of this bill is to tell our brave men and women in uniform, who are literally putting their lives on the line for this Nation in combat overseas, that while they may be able to cast a vote, there is no guarantee that their vote will be counted. That is simply an unacceptable result.

On the other hand, if the result is to hold an election open until all possible overseas ballots are received, then this bill does not provide for expedited elections at all. In fact, the result may be the inability of our Government to function for as long as 90 days after a catastrophe. That would be contrary to the stated purpose of the bill.

And that is why our work is not done. This bill may be a necessary interim measure, but to ensure that there is no lapse in the authority of the House, and the ability of Congress, to exercise its constitutional responsibilities, may require a constitutional amendment providing for an appointment to fill a vacancy. In the meantime, until an amendment to the Constitution can be adopted and ratified providing for the immediate reconstitution of the House, this measure provides some assurance that our representative form of government will continue.

Numerous organizations have called on the House to adopt a constitutional approach, not the least of which is the Continuity of Government Commission, chaired by our distinguished former colleague, Alan Simpson, and the respected Lloyd Cutler. While I respect the concerns of my House colleagues that we preserve the House as an elected body, the Framers did not intend that such a noble principle become the undoing of the people's representative branch of government.

We must find a rational and workable way to ensure that our Government continues to function despite the intent of terrorists and others who would render the people's House silent. But we must do it in a way that ensures

that all voters, and particularly those military voters who are serving overseas during a time of war, have an equal opportunity to not only cast a vote, but to have that vote counted.

Mr. President, I rise very briefly to offer another unanimous consent request. This is a unanimous consent request on a piece of legislation that Senator Mikulski and I introduced earlier this year regarding Polish visa waivers.

A visa waiver is a provision given in law to allow people from a country with which the United States has good relationships to come into this country for a temporary period of time as visitors, tourists, without having to obtain a visa. In other words, this waives the visa requirement that is generally imposed on people coming from other countries to America. I believe we have done this with 27 other countries because of the unique relationship we have with them and the bond that the countries have with the U.S.

Poland, unfortunately, has not been granted that status. If you look at the continent of Europe and at the great allies that we have on the continent of Europe, obviously, the two that come to mind--in my mind at least--are the Brits and the Italians. But Poland has shown, since its release from the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, a remarkable affinity for the United States and has shown tremendous strides and advances both in terms of democracy, economy, and in their culture. It is very much a country that is leaning and facing west. It is, to me, a real injustice to the people of that country, who have been our steadfast supporters, particularly in the most recent

conflict in Iraq, that we would not present them the opportunity we do virtually every other country in Europe.

Senator Mikulski agrees, I think, with the statements I have made, and she has said so on the floor of the Senate. We have been working in the past couple of months to clear this legislation so it can pass the Senate and be sent to the House, with the hope, at this late date, of becoming law but, if not, accelerating the opportunity for it to become law next year. Even at this late date, the hope is that once the bill would get to the House, there would be the kind of support we have seen in the Senate to pass it. The support is nearly unanimous.

As we all know, at this point in time in the Senate, nearly unanimous isn't good enough. We need unanimous consent, or all Members of the Senate to agree. I can speak on behalf of the Republican side of the aisle. I have spoken to all Senators, or their offices, and every Republican Senator has agreed to allow this bill to clear the Senate and to pass today. We were willing to pass this bill before we broke in October. We were willing to give this bill a chance to become law and be signed by this President. I am hopeful that he would sign this legislation.

But I have been informed that in spite of the good efforts of Senator Mikulski, we may not be able to clear this legislation on the other side of the aisle. That is a great disappointment to me and I know to Senator Mikulski. I know it is a great disappointment to many Polish Americans--9.3 million Polish persons. Over 100,000 Poles per year come to this country to visit relatives and friends. Yet we cannot extend this, I argue, minimal courtesy to those who have allied with us and have shown their good hand of friendship toward us.

Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent, in the hopes that maybe even later after this consent request, which I am told will be objected to, others will reconsider, and perhaps we can later tonight, or tomorrow, or Saturday, or however long we will be here, be able to work through this problem and get unanimous consent on this vitally important piece of legislation for not just the 9.3 million Poles in this country, but for all of us in America who would like to extend a further hand of friendship and accord to the people of Poland who have been such steadfast allies of our great country.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 715, S. 2844.

Thank you, Mr. President. I know the Senator from Oklahoma intends to speak.

At this point, I ask unanimous consent that an explanation of this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I said before, I hope we can get agreement. I know there are one, or maybe more, Senators on the other side of the aisle who have found a concern with this. I ask that while this is somewhat unusual in the way we put forth this legislation, it is vitally important for us to send a very strong and positive signal to one of our strongest allies in the world that we stand with them and accept them as one of our closest and dearest allies, and we will treat them accordingly, with respect to the visitation of Polish people who visit relatives and friends in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act, with Senator Boxer as cosponsor.

This legislation authorizes the use of up to $15 million in Federal funds for ongoing efforts to restore the Angel Island Immigration Station located on Angel Island within the San Francisco Bay.

I offer this as companion legislation to H.R. 4469 which has been introduced by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and to date has 45 cosponsors. Last week this bill was reported out of the House Resources Committee by unanimous consent.

The Angel Island Immigration Station is an important piece of American

history, especially to our Nation's Asian American and immigrant communities.

In the mid 19th Century millions of people, including ancestors of my own staff, came to America in pursuit of the American dream. Most people are familiar with Ellis Island and the stories of immigrants coming to America and seeing the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, but often forgotten are the experiences of those who made it to America by way of Angel Island. Just like those who came to New York City, there are many stories of triumph and tribulation associated with Angel Island.

However, for the Chinese and those from other Asian countries the story goes a bit further.

The economic downturn in the 1870s brought political pressures to deal with the increasing population of Chinese who were coming through the Golden Gate in search of a better life. Amongst the harshest of measures taken was the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

The passage of this law and its subsequent implementation led to the creation of a national system to regulate the immigration of the Chinese.

Part of this process included opening the Angel Island Immigration Station in 1910 on Angel Island. The purpose of this new facility was to isolate Chinese immigrants from the City of San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area.

After a difficult journey across the Pacific Ocean, potential immigrants were brought to the Station where they faced separation from their family, embarrassing medical examinations, grueling interrogations and long detainments that lasted months, even years, in living conditions that were considered deplorable.

Testaments to these experiences can be found today on the wooden walls of the barracks. Many of the detainees told their stories through poems that they carved on the barrack walls.

Using allegories and historical references, they described their aspirations for coming to America as well as expressed their anger and sadness at the treatment they received.

Concerns about the safety of the Station were realized when part of the Administration Building burned down in 1940 and all those being held were moved to a mainland facility.

Three years later Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. For the next 20 years the Station remained mostly unused except for a short term during World War II, when it was used as a prisoner of war camp.

In 1963, Angel Island became a State park and the California Department of Parks and Recreation assumed stewardship of the Immigration Station.

In 1997, the Station was a declared a National Historic Landmark and in 1999, Save America's Treasures named the Angel Island Immigration Station one of its Official Projects and provided $500,000 for the preservation of poems carved into the walls.

The Station is supported by the people of California as well as numerous private interests. The voters of California voted in 2000 to set aside $15 million for restoration of the Station through Proposition 12 and in addition approximately $1.1 million in private funds has been raised so far.

The amount authorized by this bill and the committed State resources will raise about half the amount needed to restore the Station. The remaining money will be raised through private means making this a true public-private partnership.

Today, approximately 200,000 visits are made each year to Angel Island by ferry from San Francisco, Tiburon and Alameda. In addition, 60,000 visits are made to the Immigration Station, about half of which are students are on guided tours.

The resources secured so far have set in motion designing and planning efforts to restore the Station.

The bill I am introducing today will allow the State park to accept Federal funding to complete the restoration of the Angel Island Immigration Station, so that the stories of immigration on Angel Island will be preserved for future generations.

Mr. President, by now everyone is well aware of the destruction Florida has endured over the past 45 days. First, Tropical Storm Bonnie struck the panhandle. Then Hurricane Charley crashed into Florida's west coast. That was followed by Hurricane Frances, which wreaked havoc throughout the State. And last week Hurricane Ivan tore through the panhandle. As a result of these storms, today 61 of the State's 67 counties have been declared disaster areas.

Floridians are grateful for the Senate's quick action in providing the initial $2 billion in relief funds. They also look forward to the Senate's quick consideration of the President's supplemental request for additional assistance. As important as this Federal assistance is, however, it represents only a fraction of the money needed for Florida's families to rebuild.

The Insurance Information Institute estimates that insurance companies will pay out more than the $15.5 billion in insurance claims paid as a result of Hurricane Andrew. Of course, that amount is not the entirety of losses

Floridians have suffered. In fact, as a result of the magnitude of the claims incurred from Hurricane Andrew Floridians will be responsible for a larger share of the losses from these storms than they incurred in 1992.

Many Floridians will face thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs as a result of these storms. Those families with money in a retirement account, e.g. 401(k) or IRA, are quite likely to be forced to look to that money to rebuild their homes and their lives. Doing so, however, will come at a significant cost. First, any funds withdrawn are subject to the income tax. That's appropriate, since these funds have not been taxed previously.

In addition to the income tax due on these withdrawals, taxpayers under age 59\1/2\ will face a 10 percent penalty for early withdrawal. Under normal circumstances this penalty serves a very worthwhile purpose. It encourages workers to leave funds in their retirement accounts for their intended purposes. The situation in Florida is far from normal, however, and in this instance the penalty serves as a ``ransom'' imposed by the Federal government on workers access to funds in times of desperation.

The bill I am introducing today with Senator Nelson is a small but important step that we can take to help Floridians help themselves. It waives the 10 percent penalty for families that have suffered a loss as a result of a disaster. Although it was inspired by the storms that have ravaged our State, it is not exclusive to the victims of these storms.

The penalty waiver is available to any taxpayer who suffered a loss as a result of a major disaster declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act. To qualify for this relief the taxpayer must have sustained a loss that has not been compensated by insurance or otherwise. The bill also gives taxpayers a five-year window within which they can reinvest these funds for their retirement.