[Pages S1354-S1365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Lott):
S. 2287. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
increase and permanently extend the expensing of certain depreciable
business assets for small businesses; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
allows small businesses to expense more of their equipment and business
assets, which will create incentives to invest in new technology,
expand their operations, and most important, create jobs. Small
businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy and I
believe this bill strengthens their ability to lead the way. I am
pleased to join my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Trent Lott, as
we work to move this important initiative for small businesses from
legislation to law.
As the Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I drafted this bill in response to the repeated
requests from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the
Nation to allow them to expense more of their investments like the
purchase of essential new equipment. The bill modifies the Internal
Revenue Code and would double the amount a small business can expense
from $100,000 to $200,000, and make the provision permanent as
President Bush also proposed this change in his fiscal year 2007 tax
proposals. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all
employers, creating 75 percent of net new jobs and contributing 51
percent of private-sector output, their size is the only `small' aspect
about them.
By doubling and making permanent the current expensing limit and
indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two
important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to
write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting
five, seven or more years to recover their costs through depreciation.
That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time
small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with complex
and confusing depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will
contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community,
which economic experts have repeatedly stressed is essential to the
long-term vitality of our economy.
Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for
this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased to $800,000
in new assets purchases. At the same time, small business capital
investment will be pumping more money into the economy. Accordingly,
this is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole.
This legislation is a tremendous opportunity to help small
enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and
leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation as we work
with the President to enact this investment incentive into law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2287

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE AND PERMANENT EXTENSION FOR EXPENSING FOR
SMALL BUSINESS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation)
is amended by striking ``$25,000 ($100,000 in the case of
taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008)'' and
inserting ``$200,000''.
(b) Increase in Qualifying Investment at Which Phaseout
Begins.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of such Code
(relating to reduction in limitation) is amended by striking
``$200,000 ($400,000 in the case of taxable years beginning
after 2002 and before 2008)'' and inserting ``$800,000''.
(c) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 179(b)(5)(A) of such
Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``after 2003 and before 2008'' and
inserting ``after 2007'', and
(B) by striking ``the $100,000 and $400,000 amounts'' and
inserting ``the $200,000 and $800,000 amounts'', and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``calendar year 2002'' and
inserting ``calendar year 2006''.
(d) Revocation of Election.--Section 179(c)(2) of such Code
(relating to election irrevocable) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Revocability of election.--Any election made under
this section, and any specification contained in any such
election, may be revoked by the taxpayer with respect to any
property, and such revocation, once made, shall be
irrevocable.''.
(e) Off-the-Shelf Computer Software.--Section
179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code (relating to section 179
property) is amended by striking ``and before 2008''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 2288. A bill to modernize water resources planning, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources
Planning and Modernization Act of 2006, a bill that will bring our
water resources policy into the 21st century. I am pleased to be joined
in this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We
have worked together for some time to modernize the Army

[[Page S1355]]

Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued
commitment to this issue.
While the bill I introduce today builds on previous bills we have
introduced, it also reflects a recognition that we must respond to the
tragic events of the recent past and make thoughtful and needed
adjustments to all aspects of water resources planning. The entire
process, starting with the principles upon which the plans are
developed all the way to discussions of where we invest limited Federal
resources, requires attention and revision. Congress cannot afford to
authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and
passed the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From
ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect
our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national
priority.
As we all know, our nation is staring down deficits that just a few
years ago were unimaginable. Our current financial situation demands
pragmatic approaches and creative collaborations to save taxpayer
dollars. The bill I introduce today provides a unique opportunity to
endorse such approaches and such collaborations.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 represents
a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and
significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed
or low priority Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way
to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support
from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union,
Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife
Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for
Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the
bill has the backing of a strong, creative coalition.
Several years have passed since I tried to offer an amendment to the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to require independent review
of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. Much has changed since the 2000
debate, and yet too much remains the same. We now have more studies
from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability
Office, and others--even the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy--to point to in support of our efforts. We have also
had a disaster of historic proportion. Hurricane Katrina highlighted
problems that we would be irresponsible to ignore.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 can be
broadly divided into five parts: focusing our resources, identifying
vulnerabilities, updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning
guidelines, guaranteeing sound projects and responsible spending, and
valuing our natural resources.
Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To
address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources
Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing
Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects
within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The
prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal register for the
public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill,
comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied
perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the
prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the
tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing
public transparency in decision making both needed and reasonable
improvements to the status quo.
Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be
a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources
Council to identify and report to Congress on the Nation's
vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to
human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the
country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements
to the Nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better
address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a
government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are
available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we
must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such
action, the legislation specifies that the administration will submit a
response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the
recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90
days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have
this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage
reduction programs, languish like others before it.
The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water
projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the corps'
principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not
been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water
Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of
Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the corps' planning
principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars.
Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of
a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and
the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple
steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project
costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project
should move forward.
To ensure that corps' water resources projects are sound, the bill
requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over
$25 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected State, those
which the head of a Federal agency has determined may lead to a
significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has
found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review
should not increase the length of time required for project planning
but would protect the public both those in the vicinity of massive
projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects.
We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as
wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help to
buffer communities from storms and filter contaminants out of our
water. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water
Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 requires that corps'
water resources projects meet the same mitigation standard as required
by everyone else under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted
stronger mitigation standards, the corps must meet those standards. I
feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live
up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the corps has not
completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that
mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are
accounted for in corps' projects, and that the public is able to track
the progress of mitigation projects.
Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help
restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal
and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects,
while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in
1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress
ensuring that the corps sought ``actual reform, in the further
prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for
actual reform is stronger than ever.
My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do
not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of
those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management
cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the corps can
continue to contribute to our environment and our economy without
wasting taxpayer dollars.
I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but
unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need
for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future corps' projects
produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities,
and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the
corps the tools it needs to a better job and focuses the attention of
Congress

[[Page S1356]]

on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the
environment deserve.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2288

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 ``Water Resources Planning and
Modernization Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Water
Resources Council established under section 101 of the Water
Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MODERNIZATION
POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States that all water
resources projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers
shall--
(1) reflect national priorities for flood damage reduction,
navigation, and ecosystem restoration; and
(2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains, minimize
vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain must be
used, protect and restore the extent and functions of natural
systems, and mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural
systems.

SEC. 4. MEETING THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES.

(a) Report on the Nation's Flood Risks.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Council
shall submit to the President and Congress a report
describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage
from flooding and related storm damage, including the risk to
human life, the risk to property, and the comparative risks
faced by different regions of the country. The report shall
assess the extent to which the Nation's programs relating to
flooding are addressing flood risk reduction priorities and
the extent to which those programs may unintentionally be
encouraging development and economic activity in floodprone
areas, and shall provide recommendations for improving those
programs in reducing and responding to flood risks. Not later
than 90 days after the report required by this subsection is
published in the Federal Register, the Administration shall
submit to Congress a report that responds to the
recommendations of the Council and includes proposals to
implement recommendations of the Council.
(b) Prioritization of Water Resources Projects.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to Congress
an initial report containing a prioritized list of each water
resources project of the Corps of Engineers that is not being
carried out under a continuing authorities program,
categorized by project type and recommendations with respect
to a process to compare all water resources projects across
project type. The Council shall submit to Congress a
prioritized list of water resources projects of the Corps of
Engineers every 2 years following submission of the initial
report. In preparing the prioritization of projects, the
Council shall endeavor to balance stability in the rankings
from year to year with recognizing newly authorized projects.
Each report prepared under this paragraph shall provide
documentation and description of any criteria used in
addition to those set forth in paragraph (2) for comparing
water resources projects and the assumptions upon which those
criteria are based.
(2) Project prioritization criteria.--In preparing a report
under paragraph (1), the Council shall prioritize each water
resource project of the Corps of Engineers based on the
extent to which the project meets at least the following
criteria:
(A) For flood damage reduction projects, the extent to
which such a project--
(i) addresses the most critical flood damage reduction
needs of the United States as identified by the Council;
(ii) does not encourage new development or intensified
economic activity in flood prone areas and avoids adverse
environmental impacts; and
(iii) provides significantly increased benefits to the
United States through the protection of human life, property,
economic activity, or ecosystem services.
(B) For navigation projects, the extent to which such a
project--
(i) produces a net economic benefit to the United States
based on a high level of certainty that any projected trends
upon which the project is based will be realized;
(ii) addresses priority navigation needs of the United
States identified through comprehensive, regional port
planning; and
(iii) minimizes adverse environmental impacts.
(C) For environmental restoration projects, the extent to
which such a project--
(i) restores the natural hydrologic processes and spatial
extent of an aquatic habitat;
(ii) is self-sustaining; and
(iii) is cost-effective or produces economic benefits.
(3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that to
promote effective prioritization of water resources projects,
no project should be authorized for construction unless a
final Chief's report recommending construction has been
submitted to Congress, and annual appropriations for the
Corps of Engineers' Continuing Authorities Programs should be
distributed by the Corps of Engineers to those projects with
the highest degree of design merit and the greatest degree of
need, consistent with the applicable criteria established
under paragraph (2).
(c) Modernizing Water Resources Planning Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Council, in coordination with the National Academy of
Sciences, shall propose revisions to the planning principles
and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of
Engineers to improve the process by which the Corps of
Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects.
(2) Public participation.--The Council shall solicit public
and expert comment and testimony regarding proposed revisions
and shall subject proposed revisions to public notice and
comment.
(3) Revisions.--Revisions proposed by the Council shall
improve water resources project planning through, among other
things--
(A) focusing Federal dollars on the highest water resources
priorities of the United States;
(B) requiring the use of modern economic principles and
analytical techniques, credible schedules for project
construction, and current discount rates as used by all other
Federal agencies;
(C) discouraging any project that induces new development
or intensified economic activity in flood prone areas, and
eliminating biases and disincentives to providing projects to
low-income communities, including fully accounting for the
prevention of loss of life as required by section 904 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281);
(D) eliminating biases and disincentives that discourage
the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources
development and management, and fully accounting for the
flood protection and other values of healthy natural systems;
(E) utilizing a comprehensive, regional approach to port
planning;
(F) promoting environmental restoration projects that
reestablish natural processes;
(G) analyzing and incorporating lessons learned from recent
studies of Corps of Engineers programs and recent disasters
such as Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest Flood of
1993; and
(H) ensuring the effective implementation of the National
Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy established
by this Act.
(d) Revision of Planning Guidelines.--Not later than 180
days after submission of the proposed revisions required by
subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement the
recommendations of the Council by incorporating the proposed
revisions into the planning principles and guidelines,
regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers. These
revisions shall be subject to public notice and comment
pursuant to subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
``Administrative Procedure Act''). Effective beginning on the
date on which the Secretary carries out the first revision
under this paragraph, the Corps of Engineers shall not be
subject to--
(1) subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17); and
(2) any provision of the guidelines entitled ``Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies'' and dated 1983, to
the extent that such a provision conflicts with a guideline
revised by the Secretary.
(e) Availability.--Each report prepared under this section
shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to
the Committees on Environment and Public Works and
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
(f) Water Resources Council.--Section 101 of the Water
Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a) is amended in the
first sentence by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Chairperson of the Council on Environmental
Quality,'' after ``Secretary of Transportation,''.
(g) Funding.--In carrying out this section, the Council
shall use funds made available for the general operating
expenses of the Corps of Engineers.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE PROJECT PLANNING.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'' means a
State that is located, in whole or in part, within the
drainage basin in which a water resources project is carried
out and that would be economically or environmentally
affected as a result of the project.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
Independent Review appointed under subsection (c).
(3) Study.--The term ``study'' means a feasibility report,
general reevaluation report,

[[Page S1357]]

or environmental impact statement prepared by the Corps of
Engineers.
(b) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each study
for each water resources project described in paragraph (2)
is subject to review by an independent panel of experts
established under this section.
(2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project
shall be subject to review under this section if--
(A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than
$25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
(B) the Governor of an affected State requests in writing
to the Secretary the establishment of an independent panel of
experts for the project;
(C) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the
project determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on cultural, environmental, or
other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency, and
requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an
independent panel of experts for the project; or
(D) the Secretary determines that the project is
controversial based upon a finding that--
(i) there is a significant dispute regarding the size,
nature, or effects of the project;
(ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the economic
or environmental costs or benefits of the project; or
(iii) there is a significant dispute regarding the
potential benefits to communities affected by the project of
a project alternative that was not fully considered in the
study.
(3) Written requests.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which the Secretary receives a written request of any
party, or on the initiative of the Secretary, the Secretary
shall determine whether a project is controversial.
(c) Director of Independent Review.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Army shall
appoint in the Office of the Inspector General of the Army a
Director of Independent Review. The term of a Director
appointed under this subsection shall be 6 years, and an
individual may serve as the Director for not more than 2
nonconsecutive terms.
(2) Qualifications.--The Inspector General of the Army
shall select the Director from among individuals who are
distinguished experts in engineering, hydrology, biology,
economics, or another discipline relating to water resources
management. The Inspector General of the Army shall not
appoint an individual to serve as the Director if the
individual has a financial interest in or close professional
association with any entity with a financial interest in a
water resources project that, on the date of appointment of
the Director, is under construction, in the preconstruction
engineering and design phase, or under feasibility or
reconnaissance study by the Corps of Engineers. The Inspector
General of the Army may establish additional criteria if
necessary to avoid a conflict of interest between the
individual appointed as Director and the projects subject to
review.
(3) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of
experts to review each water resources project that is
subject to review under subsection (b).
(d) Establishment of Panels.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days before the release
of a draft study subject to review under subsection
(b)(2)(A), and not later than 30 days after a determination
that a review is necessary under subparagraph (B), (C), or
(D) of subsection (b)(2), the Director shall establish a
panel of experts to review the draft study. Panels may be
convened earlier on the request of the Chief of Engineers.
(2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the
Director for a project shall be composed of not less than 5
nor more than 9 independent experts (including 1 or more
engineers, hydrologists, biologists, and economists) who
represent a range of areas of expertise.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall apply
the National Academy of Science's policy for selecting
committee members to ensure that members of a review panel
have no conflict with the project being reviewed.
(4) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the
National Academy of Sciences in developing lists of
individuals to serve on panels of experts under this section.
(5) Notification.--To ensure that the Director is able to
effectively carry out the duties of the Director under this
section, the Secretary shall notify the Director in writing
not later than 120 days before the release of a draft study
for a project costing more than $25,000,000 or for which a
preliminary assessment suggests that a panel of experts may
be required.
(6) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of
pay to be determined by the Inspector General of the Army.
(7) Travel expenses.--A member of a panel of experts under
this section shall be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an
employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or
regular place of business of the member in the performance of
the duties of the panel.
(e) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a
water resources project under this section shall--
(1) review each draft study prepared for the project;
(2) assess the adequacy of the economic, scientific, and
environmental models used by the Secretary in reviewing the
project and assess whether the best available economic and
scientific data and methods of analysis have been used;
(3) assess the extent to which the study complies with the
National Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy
established by this Act;
(4) evaluate the engineering assumptions and plans for any
flood control structure whose failure could result in
significant flooding;
(5) receive from the public written and oral comments
concerning the project;
(6) submit an Independent Review Report to the Secretary
that addresses the economic, engineering, and environmental
analyses of the project, including the conclusions of the
panel, with particular emphasis on areas of public
controversy, with respect to the study; and
(7) submit a Final Assessment Report to the Secretary that
briefly provides the views of the panel on the extent to
which the final study prepared by the Corps adequately
addresses issues or concerns raised by the panel in the
Independent Review Report.
(f) Deadlines for Panel Reports.--A panel shall submit its
Independent Review Report under subsection (e)(6) to the
Secretary not later than 90 days after the close of the
public comment period or not later than 180 days after the
panel is convened, whichever is later. A panel shall submit
its Final Assessment Report under subsection (e)(7) to the
Secretary not later than 30 days after release of the final
study. The Director may extend these deadlines for good cause
shown.
(g) Recommendations of Panel.--
(1) Consideration by secretary.--If the Secretary receives
an Independent Review Report on a water resources project
from a panel of experts under subsection (e)(6), the
Secretary shall, at least 30 days before releasing a final
study for the project, take into consideration any
recommendations contained in the report, prepare a written
explanation for any recommendations not adopted, and make
such written explanations available to the public, including
through posting on the Internet.
(2) Inconsistent recommendations and findings.--
Recommendations and findings of the Secretary that are
inconsistent with the recommendations and findings of a panel
of experts under this section shall not be entitled to
deference in a judicial proceeding.
(3) Submission to congress and public availability.--After
receiving an Independent Review Report under subsection
(e)(6) or a Final Assessment Report under subsection (e)(7),
the Secretary shall immediately make a copy of the report
available to the public. The Secretary also shall immediately
make available to the public any written response by the
Secretary prepared pursuant to paragraph (1). Copies of all
independent review panel reports and all written responses by
the Secretary also shall be included in any report submitted
to Congress concerning the project.
(h) Record of Decision.--The Secretary shall not issue a
record of decision or a report of the Chief of Engineers for
a water resources project subject to review under this
section until, at the earliest, 14 days after the deadline
for submission of the Final Assessment Report required under
subsection (e)(7).
(i) Public Access to Information.--The Secretary shall
ensure that information relating to the analysis of any water
resources project by the Corps of Engineers, including all
supporting data, analytical documents, and information that
the Corps of Engineers has considered in the justification
for and analysis of the project, is made available to the
public on the Internet and to an independent review panel, if
a panel is established for the project. The Secretary shall
not make information available under this paragraph if the
Secretary determines that the information is a trade secret
of any person that provided the information to the Corps of
Engineers.
(j) Costs of Review.--
(1) In general.--The cost of conducting a review of a water
resources project under this section shall not exceed--
(A) $250,000 for a project, if the total cost of the
project in current year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
(B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current
year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive these cost limitations
if the Secretary determines that the waiver is appropriate.
(k) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to
a panel of experts established under this section.

SEC. 6. MITIGATION.

(a) Mitigation.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to the Congress'' and
inserting ``to Congress, and shall not choose a project
alternative in any final record of decision, environmental
impact statement, or environmental assessment,'', and by
inserting in the second sentence ``and other habitat types''
after ``bottomland hardwood forests''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S1358]]

``(3) Mitigation requirements.--
``(A) Mitigation.--To mitigate losses to flood damage
reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a
water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that
mitigation for each water resources project complies fully
with the mitigation standards and policies established by
each State in which the project is located. Under no
circumstances shall the mitigation required for a water
resources project be less than would be required of a private
party or other entity under section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
``(B) Mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation plan for a
water resources project required under paragraph (1) shall
include, at a minimum--
``(i) a detailed plan to monitor mitigation implementation
and ecological success, including the designation of the
entities that will be responsible for monitoring;
``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the
mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful,
prepared in consultation with the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Director of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each
State in which the project is located;
``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in
land to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a
determination that land and interests are available for
acquisition;
``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation
sites, and types and amount of restoration activities to be
conducted, to permit a thorough evaluation of the likelihood
of the ecological success and aquatic and terrestrial
resource functions and habitat values that will result from
the plan; and
``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if
monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not
achieving ecological success as described in the ecological
success criteria.
``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
``(A) In general.--Mitigation under this subsection shall
be considered to be successful at the time at which
monitoring demonstrates that the mitigation has met the
ecological success criteria established in the mitigation
plan.
``(B) Evaluation and reporting.--The Secretary shall
consult annually with the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each State in which
the project is located, on each water resources project
requiring mitigation to determine whether mitigation
monitoring for that project demonstrates that the project is
achieving, or has achieved, ecological success. Not later
than 60 days after the date of completion of the annual
consultation, the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service or the Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as appropriate, shall, and each State in
which the project is located may, submit to the Secretary a
report that describes--
``(i) the ecological success of the mitigation as of the
date of the report;
``(ii) the likelihood that the mitigation will achieve
ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan;
``(iii) the projected timeline for achieving that success;
and
``(iv) any recommendations for improving the likelihood of
success.

The Secretary shall respond in writing to the substance and
recommendations contained in such reports not later than 30
days after the date of receipt. Mitigation monitoring shall
continue until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation
has met the ecological success criteria.''.
(b) Mitigation Tracking System.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
recordkeeping system to track, for each water resources
project constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary
and for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
(A) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat
types affected by the project, project operation, or
permitted activity;
(B) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the
project, project operation, or permitted activity;
(C) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been
completed for the project, project operation, or permitted
activity; and
(D) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out
for the project, project operation, or permitted activity.
(2) Required information and organization.--The
recordkeeping system shall--
(A) include information on impacts and mitigation described
in paragraph (1) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
(B) be organized by watershed, project, permit application,
and zip code.
(3) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall make
information contained in the recordkeeping system available
to the public on the Internet.

SEC. 7. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Chief's Reports.--The Chief of Engineers shall not
submit a Chief's report to Congress recommending construction
of a water resources project until that Chief's report has
been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Army.
(b) Project Tracking.--The Secretary shall assign a unique
tracking number to each water resources project, to be used
by each Federal agency throughout the life of the project.
(c) Report Repository.--The Secretary shall maintain at the
Library of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study,
final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation
report, record of decision, and report to Congress prepared
by the Corps of Engineers. These documents shall be made
available to the public for review, and electronic copies of
those documents shall be permanently available, through the
Internet website of the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feingold
in introducing the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of
2006. This legislation is designed to take a post-Katrina approach to
Army Corps of Engineers projects. It would provide for a more effective
system for selecting and funding Army Corps projects that help to
protect our citizens against damage caused by floods, hurricanes and
other natural disasters.
Last August this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When
Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy
beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Some six
months later, the Gulf Coast region is still largely in the early
stages of attempting to rebuild and recover and there is a long road
ahead. As our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the
reconstruction effort, we must be vigilant in our oversight obligations
and take appropriate actions based on the many lessons learned from
this tragedy.
One area that most would agree deserves needed attention concerns the
Army Corps system. Funding is distributed in a manner that is not
always awarded the most urgent projects. Because of this, citizens can
end up paying for unnecessary and irresponsible Army Corps projects
with their tax dollars and their safety. It is time for us to take a
new approach to how the Army Corps does business. With lessons learned
from Katrina, we can and must shepherd in a new era within the Army
Corps that prioritizes critical projects and allows the American
taxpayers to know that their money is being spent in an effective and
efficient manner.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act is the only Corps
related measure that has been introduced in the Senate since Katrina
tragically struck that truly takes a lessons-learned approach. Any
measure acted upon by this Congress regarding the Corps simply must
account for the most up to date information available. We owe it to the
American public.
Historically, Congress has considered water projects costing many
billions of taxpayer dollars as essential expenditures--regardless of
the environmental costs or public benefits. That is why the
modernization procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more
critical and cost-effective expenditures for Corps water projects that
will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need
for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but
never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as
crucial as it is now.
The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as
the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can
be fixed. The reforms in our bill are based on thorough program
analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts
to build on and improve upon the legislation we have previously
introduced. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator
Feingold and I have shared for years but never before has there been
such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward on these
overdue reforms.
Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today provide for a
process to modify and modernize the Corps planning and approval
procedures to consider economic, public, and environmental objectives.
Independent review of Corps projects and a clear national
prioritization of Corps projects would ensure that the most beneficial
projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of
environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and
monitored.
With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National
Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers,
National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense,

[[Page S1359]]

Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World
Wildlife Fund, the bill has broad interest and impact.
Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to
our Nation's citizens--the hardworking American taxpayers--serve the
common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. BUNNING:
S. 2289. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
increase the per resident payment floor for direct graduate medical
education payments under the Medicare program; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am introducing important
legislation that will have an impact on many of the hospitals in my
State, along with hundreds of hospitals in other States. This
legislation deals specifically with the Medicare payments for Direct
Graduate Medical Education--also known as DGME.
I am pleased that Congressman Ron Lewis from Kentucky's Second
District is the lead sponsor of a companion bill already introduced in
the House of Representatives.
Medicare pays teaching hospitals for its share of the cost of
training new physicians. These payments are known as DGME payments.
Teaching hospitals initially reported their direct costs to the
Department of Health and Human Services in the mid-1980s. These
reported amounts are now the basis for which each teaching hospital is
reimbursed.
Unfortunately, there was a disparity in the types of costs each
hospital reported, which has lead to large disparities in payments
between hospitals. Hospitals are also being reimbursed on data that is
20 years old, at this point.
To help rectify this problem, in 1999 Congress established a floor
for calculating Medicare payments for DGME at 70 percent of the
national average. In 2001, Congress raised the floor to 85 percent of
the national average.
The legislation I am introducing today would bring all of Medicare's
DGME hospitals up 100 percent of the national average. This is an
important change that would help many teaching hospitals in Kentucky
and across the Nation be fairly reimbursed for training our young
doctors.
For example, there are 19 hospitals in Kentucky that currently
receive reimbursements below the national average. This means that
Kentucky hospitals lose more than two million a year because of the
lower reimbursement rate. Across the country, there are about 600
hospitals being reimbursed below the national average.
This legislation takes an important step to ensure that Medicare's
payment policy for teaching hospitals are fair and that these
institutions can continue to do the important work they do. I hope my
colleagues will take a close look at the bill and can support it.
______

By Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Talent):
S. 2290. A bill to provide for affordable natural gas by rebalancing
domestic supply and demand and to promote the production of natural gas
from domestic resources; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am privileged to rise with the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas to introduce a bill today entitled
the Reliable and Affordable Natural Gas Energy Reform Act of 2006
In September of 2005, at the time the Senate was examining a number
of energy proposals under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator
Domenici, I introduced a bill at that time quite similar to this one,
although it included oil. This measure sticks to gas, and gas only, to
enable the several States across our Nation to take such steps under
State law, in combination with the Governors and the respective
legislatures of the several States that desire to explore and the
desire to drill for energy off their shores. That bill as yet is still
on the docket.
Since that time I have had the great pleasure of joining my colleague
from Arkansas to put this bill in. I am delighted that he indicated he
would like to step forward and take the lead. I readily accede to that
request.
So much of the concern about drilling offshore is understandably in--
and I am not here to criticize--the environmental community. I think my
colleague from Arkansas can help me eventually convince the
environmental community that the time has come for offshore drilling.
Two things have occurred in the interim between the 1988 moratorium,
namely advancement in technology so we can safely, by engineering, put
the wells in; and the second is the ever-tightening noose around the
citizens of the United States of America with regard to their energy
sources. The third thing that is occurring is the growing competition
for energy worldwide--India coming on with enormous consumption
requirements, and China with even larger consumption requirements.
I think the time has come that the Congress begin to reexamine its
old policies with regard to those lands offshore of our several States.
At this time, I yield the floor to my colleague from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia
acknowledged, we have a problem when it comes to the high cost of
natural gas. We feel strongly that this bill which we are cosponsoring
can be part of the solution.
About one-quarter of all natural gas is used to produce electricity,
but the rest is used to manufacture plastics that go into things such
as cars, computers, and medical equipment. Fertilizer and
pharmaceutical production is highly dependent on natural gas. In fact,
for nitrogen fertilizer, a total of 93 percent of the production cost
of that fertilizer is the component of natural gas.
The price of natural gas--which, by the way, is one-quarter of the
energy of this country--has more than doubled in the past year and it
is anticipated that over the next 20 years you will see a 40-percent
increase for the usage and need of natural gas in the United States.
Another thing about natural gas that makes it very different than oil
is natural gas is not easy to ship across oceans. Certainly there is
some liquid natural gas technology out there, but a vast majority--all
but a tiny fraction of the natural gas we use in this country--comes
from United States wells, or comes out of Canada. We have a great
reserve of natural gas, not only in the Continental United States, not
only in Alaska, but also off our shores. Most notably, the one that
most people are aware of is in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our legislation will allow the Secretary of the Interior to offer
natural gas leases as part of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing
program.
Let me say this: As Senator Warner of Virginia said a few moments
ago, we are referring only to natural gas. We have been very careful to
make sure this bill does not include petroleum or oil.
I hope no one will be confused by an earlier draft because we
included some references to oil, but we have very carefully taken all
of those out of the bill. I think the bill is very clear on that point
now, that this refers only to natural gas supply and exploration.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment on
that point?
Mr. PRYOR. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we earlier distributed material which
referred to oil which was in an earlier draft. I have been in contact
with the environmental community, and so forth. It is clear to me at
this point in time that we have in this bill just gas. My fervent hope
and belief is that the environmental community will see the
advancements in technology and the tremendous requirements of this
country for natural gas, that we can restrict it to gas.
At a later time, if we are successful in proving that the natural gas
can be drawn and is safe, which I am confident we can do, maybe due to
world circumstances and domestic circumstances we could go back at that
time and revisit the issue of oil.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, another very important point, which is the essence of
this legislation, goes to the moratorium on exploration of the Outer
Continental Shelf. This bill allows that moratorium

[[Page S1360]]

to stay in place until the year 2012. It allows coastal States to,
either out of that moratorium, if they so choose, or if after that
moratorium expires, to opt into continuing that moratorium. It gives
States, legislatures, Governors, State officials, elected officials, et
cetera, the ability to control some of the things that are going on on
their coastlines.
I think that is a very important point here because this could be a
good revenue source for these States. It could be a good economic boom
to some of these States. Certainly we have included revenue sharing,
which I think is important to make this work.
I am very pleased that Senator Warner and I have been able to work
together and come up with what we think is a very commonsense solution,
or at least part of a solution, to a very serious problem our country
is facing.
Arkansas farmers--and I am sure it is true with most other States'
farmers as well--had a difficult and disastrous year last year when it
came to agriculture. One of the main reasons it has been so hard is
their costs have gone up--the high cost of fertilizer and fuel. They
use a lot of natural gas when it comes to drying grain, et cetera. The
high cost of energy is killing our farmers, and it is certainly hurting
our manufacturing sector as well.
The high price of natural gas is bad for the economy, but it is also
bad for our energy security. That is one thing which I don't think we
can overemphasize here today. I think it is critical that we have a
high level of energy security for this country. I am proud to join my
very distinguished colleague from Virginia to do our very best to offer
a solution to help American families and help American businesses.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our committee, under the leadership of
Senator Domenici, is putting forward a proposal. I spoke with him
today. This bill does not, in my judgment--and I hope he concurs
eventually--conflict in any way with the objectives he is trying to
achieve. He is a man who thinks forwardly and is so knowledgeable on
the question of energy, the domestic situation here and the worldwide
implication, and I think eventually he will be looking at something,
and this may be a vehicle on which the Energy Committee will focus as
they take the next step and begin to recognize the need to have some
offshore drilling.
I thank my colleague on the Energy Committee.
I conclude my remarks by saying I am proud of the State of Virginia
and its legislature. In the last session of the Virginia State
legislature in the year 2005, both houses passed legislation
authorizing precisely what we have here. In other words, let us go out
and take a look at the shelf, find out what may or may not be off the
coast of Virginia, and determine the accessibility and the feasibility
and interest among industry to come and participate in the drilling.
But, unfortunately our former Governor--and I get along very well
with Governor Warner--for reasons which he expressed, felt at this time
the legislation shouldn't go forward in this session of the Virginia
General Assembly. Again, the Senate stepped forward and passed
legislation along the lines of what the General Assembly of Virginia
did last year. It is my hope the House will do likewise, and that our
new Governor, Governor Kaine, will take it under consideration, should
both houses act--and hopefully they will act upon it favorably.
Virginia is in a key location, and its citizens could benefit
enormously if in fact earlier analysis of the shelf off of our State is
confirmed as possessing resources of energy, namely natural gas.
I thank my colleague from Arkansas. He is a marvelous working
partner. I look forward to working with him.
I yield the floor.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. 2291. A bill to provide for the establishment of a biodefense
injury compensation program and to provide indemnification for
producers of countermeasures; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kennedy in
introducing a bill, the Responsible Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act, that will correct a grievous mistake made by some of
my Republican colleagues. Our legislation will take responsible steps
to protect the American people from one of the greatest threats facing
our nation--a pandemic flu, bioterror attack or infectious disease
outbreak.
Congress should have no higher priority than protecting the safety,
security, and health of the American people. Public health experts have
warned that a severe avian flu epidemic could lead to worldwide panic,
cost millions of lives, and result in untold economic damage.
In order to prevent these dire projections from becoming a reality,
we have no choice but to be prepared for such an event. One of the
indispensable components of a biodefense plan is the availability of
safe and effective vaccines and medicines. To achieve this goal, a
biodefense plan must have two critical components. First, it must
encourage drug companies to develop and manufacture effective medicines
to counteract a disease or flu. Second, it must encourage first
responders, health care workers, and ordinary citizens to take those
medicines before, during, or after an attack or outbreak.
In December of last year, some of my Republican colleagues inserted
language that contained neither of these critical components into the
Department of Defense Appropriations conference report. This was done
at the last minute, in the middle of the night, without the opportunity
for discussion and debate, and without the knowledge or consent of many
of the conferees.
Unfortunately, this Republican plan will do nothing to protect the
American people. Rather than encouraging companies to make safe and
effective medicines, it will provide a perverse incentive by protecting
those companies that make ineffective or harmful products. And rather
than encouraging Americans to be vaccinated or take a needed
medication, it will discourage them from doing so by failing to provide
guaranteed care for the few who will inevitably be injured by these
products. Make no mistake about it; this plan will fail to protect our
Nation.
I say this with confidence because we have been down this path
before. Three years ago, the Bush administration launched a program to
inoculate millions of first responders against smallpox. Ignoring
public health experts, the administration failed to establish a
compensation program to provide help to those injured by the vaccine.
Doctors, nurses, firefighters and other first responders who would be
on the front lines in the event of a smallpox attack by terrorists were
not willing to roll the dice and risk the future of their families
without compensation for their losses if they were injured, disabled,
or even killed by its side effects. Most refused to participate, and
the program was a failure.
On November 9 of last year, while testifying before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was asked about the
expected success of a biodefense plan that does not include fair
compensation to people injured by the very medicines they thought would
help them. She responded: ``Well, I certainly feel that from the
standpoint of the smallpox vaccination program, that the absence of a
compensation program that was acceptable to the people we were hoping
to vaccinate was a major barrier--and I think we've learned some
lessons from that.''
On November 20 of last year, while appearing on NBC's Meet the Press,
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt said that along
with limits on liability, ``adequate compensation . . . needs to be
made for those who are hurt.''
Many groups representing the public health community and first
responders, including the American Public Health Association, the
American Nurses Association, and the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, have been outspoken about the need for
a compensation program.
Yet despite our past experience, despite the position taken by those
at high levels in the administration, and despite the warnings of those
who would be on the front lines in the event of an outbreak, the
Republican leadership in Congress included language in

[[Page S1361]]

the Defense Appropriations conference report that repeats the mistakes
of the past, and endangers American lives. If and when we have a
vaccine to protect against a pandemic flu, we must provide first
responders with a reasonable assurance that it will be as safe as can
reasonably be expected, and that they and their families will be taken
care of should they be injured. This plan does not provide that
assurance, and once again, first responders will refuse to participate.

Those who inserted this provision into the Conference Report during
late night backroom negotiations claim that it includes compensation.
But make no mistake--there is no guaranteed compensation in this bill.
There is a provision to set up a compensation fund, but there is
absolutely no guarantee that this fund will ever see a penny. The
authors of this provision are claiming to take care of the injured,
without providing any guarantee that it will ever happen. They are
making an empty promise.
Not only will this plan fail to compensate those first responders and
ordinary citizens injured or even killed by a vaccine, but it will also
protect manufacturers even when they act with disregard for the safety
of their products. This is an incredibly dangerous and inappropriate
incentive. We should be encouraging manufacturers to make safe
products, not protecting them when they make products that harm the
American people.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not against the idea of
providing limited liability protection for manufacturers in order to
encourage the development of vaccines and medicines to protect the
American people in the event of an outbreak or bioterror attack. But
such liability protection must adhere to certain principles. First, it
must not protect manufacturers that act with careless disregard for the
safety and effectiveness of their product. And second, because even the
safest vaccine will harm a small percentage of the people who take it,
liability protection must be coupled with an adequate compensation
program so that injured patients are properly cared for and not left
destitute.
The legislation that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today
adheres to these principles. It repeals the Republican provision passed
in December, and replaces it with tried-and-true solutions that will
encourage the production of vaccines and drugs without leaving patients
to fend for themselves if they are injured. Our legislation will ensure
that the reputable and responsible manufacturers of needed medicines--
and the doctors, nurses, and hospitals who administer them in good
faith--will be protected from frivolous lawsuits that might deter them
from making and administering such medicines. But those injured by
these medicines will be justly compensated for their injuries.
Congress has adopted this type of solution in the past. The
compensation program established by our bill is modeled on one of those
past successes--the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The
VICP has successfully incentivized the manufacturers of recommended
childhood vaccines, encouraged families to have their children
vaccinated, and compensated those who are injured.
Senator Kennedy and I spent several months last year negotiating with
Senator Enzi, Senator Burr, Senator Gregg, Senator Frist, and others on
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to try to reach a
bipartisan compromise on this issue. We made several proposals, modeled
on past Congressional action, to protect manufacturers from frivolous
lawsuits while providing fair and adequate compensation to those who
are injured.
Unfortunately, the decision was made to forego this bipartisan
process. Instead, a non-germane provision was inserted into a massive
appropriations bill in the final hours of last session of Congress.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that this language was inserted
after members had signed the Conference Report, some doing so with the
understanding that this language was not included. I am disturbed and
disappointed by this blatant abuse of power and disregard for Senate
procedures. I can only assume that the supporters of this provision
used this tactic because they knew that their plan would not stand up
to public scrutiny and Senate debate.
I am confident that if the Senate were to consider this issue
carefully, we would choose to reject the failed policies of the past,
and enact a policy that really protects the American people--a
biodefense program that encourages manufacturers to make safe and
effective vaccines and medicines, and provides compensation to those
individuals who are injured by those vaccines and medicines.
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 ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2291

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 ``Responsible Public Readiness
and Emergency Preparedness Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act
(division C of the Department of Defense, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-
148)) is repealed.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL BIODEFENSE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--Section 224 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 233) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(q) Biodefense Injury Compensation Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established the Biodefense
Injury Compensation Program (referred to in this subsection
as the `Compensation Program') under which compensation may
be paid for death or any injury, illness, disability, or
condition that is likely (based on best available evidence)
to have been caused by the administration of a covered
countermeasure to an individual pursuant to a declaration
under subsection (p)(2).
``(2) Administration and interpretation.--The statutory
provisions governing the Compensation Program shall be
administered and interpreted in consideration of the program
goals described in paragraph (4)(B)(iii).
``(3) Procedures and standards.--The Secretary shall by
regulation establish procedures and standards applicable to
the Compensation Program that follow the procedures and
standards applicable under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program established under section 2110, except
that the regulations promulgated under this paragraph shall
permit a person claiming injury or death related to the
administration of any covered countermeasure to file either--
``(A) a civil action for relief under subsection (p); or
``(B) a petition for compensation under this subsection.
``(4) Injury table.--
``(A) Inclusion.--For purposes of receiving compensation
under the Compensation Program with respect to a
countermeasure that is the subject of a declaration under
subsection (p)(2), the Vaccine Injury Table under section
2114 shall be deemed to include death and the injuries,
disabilities, illnesses, and conditions specified by the
Secretary under subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(B) Injuries, disabilities, illnesses, and conditions.--
``(i) Institute of medicine.--Not later than 30 days after
making a declaration described in subsection (p)(2), the
Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute of
Medicine, under which the Institute shall, within 180 days of
the date on which the contract is entered into, and
periodically thereafter as new information, including
information derived from the monitoring of those who were
administered the countermeasure, becomes available, provide
its expert recommendations on the injuries, disabilities,
illnesses, and conditions whose occurrence in one or more
individuals are likely (based on best available evidence) to
have been caused by the administration of a countermeasure
that is the subject of the declaration.
``(ii) Specification by secretary.--Not later than 30 days
after the receipt of the expert recommendations described in
clause (i), the Secretary shall, based on such
recommendations, specify those injuries, disabilities,
illnesses, and conditions deemed to be included in the
Vaccine Injury Table under section 2114 for the purposes
described in subparagraph (A).
``(iii) Program goals.--The Institute of Medicine, under
the contract under clause (i), shall make such
recommendations, the Secretary shall specify, under clause
(ii), such injuries, disabilities, illnesses, and conditions,
and claims under the Compensation Program under this
subsection shall be processed and decided taking into account
the following goals of such program:

``(I) To encourage persons to develop, manufacture, and
distribute countermeasures, and to administer covered
countermeasures to individuals, by limiting such persons'
liability for damages related to death and such injuries,
disabilities, illnesses, and conditions.

[[Page S1362]]

``(II) To encourage individuals to consent to the
administration of a covered countermeasure by providing
adequate and just compensation for damages related to death
and such injuries, disabilities, illnesses, or conditions.
``(III) To provide individuals seeking compensation for
damages related to the administration of a countermeasure
with a non-adversarial administrative process for obtaining
adequate and just compensation.

``(iv) Use of best available evidence.--The Institute of
Medicine, under the contract under clause (i), shall make
such recommendations, the Secretary shall specify, under
clause (ii), such injuries, disabilities, illnesses, and
conditions, and claims under the Compensation Program under
this subsection shall be processed and decided using the best
available evidence, including information from adverse event
reporting or other monitoring of those individuals who were
administered the countermeasure, whether evidence from
clinical trials or other scientific studies in humans is
available.
``(v) Application of section 2115.--With respect to section
2115(a)(2) as applied for purposes of this subsection, an
award for the estate of the deceased shall be--

``(I) if the deceased was under the age of 18, an amount
equal to the amount that may be paid to a survivor or
survivors as death benefits under the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Program under subpart 1 of part L of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796 et seq.); or
``(II) if the deceased was 18 years of age or older, the
greater of--

``(aa) the amount described in subclause (I); or
``(bb) the projected loss of employment income, except that
the amount under this item may not exceed an amount equal to
400 percent of the amount that applies under item (aa).
``(vi) Application of section 2116.--Section 2116(b) shall
apply to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, and conditions
initially specified or revised by the Secretary under clause
(ii), except that the exceptions contained in paragraphs (1)
and (2) of such section shall not apply.
``(C) Rule of construction.--Section 13632 (a)(3) of Public
Law 103-66 (107 Stat. 646) (making revisions by Secretary to
the Vaccine Injury Table effective on the effective date of a
corresponding tax) shall not be construed to apply to any
revision to the Vaccine Injury Table made under regulations
under this paragraph.
``(5) Application.--The Compensation Program applies to any
death or injury, illness, disability, or condition that is
likely (based on best available evidence) to have been caused
by the administration of a covered countermeasure to an
individual pursuant to a declaration under subsection (p)(2).
``(6) Special masters.--
``(A) Hiring.--In accordance with section 2112, the judges
of the United States Claims Court shall appoint a sufficient
number of special masters to address claims for compensation
under this subsection.
``(B) Budget authority.--There are appropriated to carry
out this subsection such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter. This subparagraph
constitutes budget authority in advance of appropriations and
represents the obligation of the Federal Government.
``(7) Covered countermeasure.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `covered countermeasure' has the meaning
given to such term in subsection (p)(7)(A).
``(8) Funding.--Compensation made under the Compensation
Program shall be made from the same source of funds as
payments made under subsection (p).''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect as of
November 25, 2002 (the date of enactment of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135)).

SEC. 4. INDEMNIFICATION FOR MANUFACTURERS AND HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS WHO ADMINISTER MEDICAL PRODUCTS
NEEDED FOR BIODEFENSE.

Section 224(p) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
233(p)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Smallpox'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``against smallpox'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``against
smallpox''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (ii);
(4) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Exclusivity; offset.--
``(A) Exclusivity.--With respect to an individual to which
this subsection applies, such individual may bring a claim
for relief under--
``(i) this subsection;
``(ii) subsection (q); or
``(iii) part C.
``(B) Election of alternatives.--An individual may only
pursue one remedy under subparagraph (A) at any one time
based on the same incident or series of incidents. An
individual who elects to pursue the remedy under subsection
(q) or part C may decline any compensation awarded with
respect to such remedy and subsequently pursue the remedy
provided for under this subsection. An individual who elects
to pursue the remedy provided for under this subsection may
not subsequently pursue the remedy provided for under
subsection (q) or part C.
``(C) Statute of limitations.--For purposes of determining
how much time has lapsed when applying statute of limitations
requirements relating to remedies under subparagraph (A), any
limitation of time for commencing an action, or filing an
application, petition, or claim for such remedies, shall be
deemed to have been suspended for the periods during which an
individual pursues a remedy under such subparagraph.
``(D) Offset.--The value of all compensation and benefits
provided under subsection (q) or part C of this title for an
incident or series of incidents shall be offset against the
amount of an award, compromise, or settlement of money
damages in a claim or suit under this subsection based on the
same incident or series of incidents.'';
(5) in paragraph (6)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or under subsection
(q) or part C'' after ``under this subsection''; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A), the following:
``(B) Grossly negligent, reckless, or illegal conduct and
willful misconduct.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
grossly negligent, reckless, or illegal conduct or willful
misconduct shall include the administration by a qualified
person of a covered countermeasure to an individual who was
not within a category of individuals covered by a declaration
under subsection (p)(2) with respect to such countermeasure
where the qualified person fails to have had reasonable
grounds to believe such individual was within such a
category.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Liability of the united states.--The United States
shall be liable under this subsection with respect to a claim
arising out of the manufacture, distribution, or
administration of a covered countermeasure regardless of
whether--
``(i) the cause of action seeking compensation is alleged
as negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, failure
to warn, or other action; or
``(ii) the covered countermeasure is designated as a
qualified anti-terrorism technology under the SAFETY Act (6
U.S.C. 441 et seq.).
``(E) Governing law.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 1346(b)(1) and chapter 171 of title 28, United States
Code, as they relate to governing law, the liability of the
United States as provided in this subsection shall be in
accordance with the law of the place of injury.
``(F) Military personnel and united states citizens
overseas.--
``(i) Military personnel.--The liability of the United
States as provided in this subsection shall extend to claims
brought by United States military personnel.
``(ii) Claims arising in a foreign country.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2680(k) of title
28, United States Code, the liability of the United States as
provided for in the subsection shall extend to claims based
on injuries arising in a foreign country where the injured
party is a member of the United States military, is the
spouse or child of a member of the United States military, or
is a United States citizen.
``(iii) Governing law.--With regard to all claims brought
under clause (ii), and notwithstanding the provisions of
section 1346(b)(1) and chapter 171 of title 28, United States
Code, and of subparagraph (C), as they relate to governing
law, the liability of the United States as provided in this
subsection shall be in accordance with the law of the
claimant's domicile in the United States or most recent
domicile with the United States.''; and
(6) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) Covered countermeasure.--The term `covered
countermeasure', means--
``(i) a substance that is--

``(I)(aa) used to prevent or treat smallpox (including the
vaccinia or another vaccine); or
``(bb) vaccinia immune globulin used to control or treat
the adverse effects of vaccinia inoculation; and
``(II) specified in a declaration under paragraph (2); or

``(ii) a drug (as such term is defined in section 201(g)(1)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), biological
product (as such term is defined in section 351(i) of this
Act), or device (as such term is defined in section 201(h) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) that--

``(I) the Secretary determines to be a priority (consistent
with sections 302(2) and 304(a) of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002) to treat, identify, or prevent harm from any
biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent
identified as a material threat under section 319F-
2(c)(2)(A)(ii), or to treat, identify, or prevent harm from a
condition that may result in adverse health consequences or
death and may be caused by administering a drug, biological
product, or device against such an agent;
``(II) is--

``(aa) authorized for emergency use under section 564 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so long as the
manufacturer of such drug, biological product, or device
has--
``(AA) made all reasonable efforts to obtain applicable
approval, clearance, or licensure; and
``(BB) cooperated fully with the requirements of the
Secretary under such section 564; or

[[Page S1363]]

``(bb) approved or licensed solely pursuant to the
regulations under subpart I of part 314 or under subpart H of
part 601 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on the date of enactment of the National Biodefense
Act of 2005); and

``(III) is specified in a declaration under paragraph
(2).''; and

(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking clause (ii), and inserting the following:
``(ii) a health care entity, a State, or a political
subdivision of a State under whose auspices such
countermeasure was administered;'' and
(vi) in clause (viii), by inserting before the period ``if
such individual performs a function for which a person
described in clause (i), (ii), or (iv) is a covered person''.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr.
Chambliss, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2292. A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary from
excessive rent charges; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak in support of
legislation, cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Cornyn, Chambliss, and
Feinstein, which I am introducing today to address a major problem
affecting the Federal judiciary, specifically excessive rental charges
by the General Services Administration for courthouses and other space
occupied by the courts across the country. This legislation would
prohibit the GSA from charging the Federal judiciary rent in excess of
the actual costs incurred by GSA to maintain and operate Federal court
buildings and related costs.
Unlike many other elements of the Federal Government, the judiciary
is required to pay a large and ever-increasing portion of its budget as
rent to another branch of government, the GSA. In fiscal terms, since
1986, the Federal courts' rental payments to GSA have increased from
$133 million to $926 million in fiscal year 2005. This rental payment
represents an increasing slice of the judiciary's relatively small
overall budget. The percentage of the judiciary's operating budget
devoted to rent payments has escalated from 15.7 percent in fiscal year
1986 to 22 percent in fiscal year 2005. By contrast, only three percent
of the Department of Justice budget goes toward GSA rent, and the
Executive Branch as a whole spends less than two-tenths of one percent
of its budget on GSA rent.
In his 2005 Year-End report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice
John Roberts cited escalating GSA rents as one of the two serious
threats to the independence of the Federal judiciary, the other being
judges' pay. The increased rents, coupled with across-the-board cuts
imposed during fiscal years 2004 and 2005, resulted in a reduction of
approximately 1,500 judicial branch employees as of mid-December when
compared to October 2003, and a 24-month moratorium on courthouse
construction has been imposed.
On May 13, 2005, a bipartisan group of 11 Senators on the Judiciary
Committee wrote to Stephen A. Perry, Administrator of GSA, to exercise
his statutory authority to exempt the judiciary from rental payments in
excess of those required to operating and maintaining Federal court
buildings and related costs. On May 31, 2005, Mr. Perry wrote back and
denied this sensible request. Mr. Perry referred to the judiciary as
``one of our largest and most valued tenants,'' but a more apt
description would have been one of its most valued profit centers.
The judiciary paid $926 million to GSA in fiscal year 2005, but GSA's
actual cost of providing space to the judiciary was only $426 million,
a difference of $500 million. The judiciary in essence is being used as
a profit center by GSA, which accomplishes this by charging for such
fictitious costs as real estate tax which GSA does not in fact pay and
forcing the judiciary to pay for buildings that have been fully
amortized, not only once but several times.
This legislation provides a relatively modest and simple fix to this
near crisis in the Federal judiciary, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
______

By Mr. ALLEN:
S.J. Res. 31. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to require a balancing of
the budget; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on a resolution regarding
a constitutional amendment I am introducing today. It is the third part
of my three-point plan to restore fiscal accountability and common
sense to Washington. It is a resolution, in particular, to amend the
Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget.
The continued growth in Government, coupled with our enormous
deficit, make a balanced budget amendment a vital tool for bringing
this fiscal house back in order and restraining the growing appetite of
the Federal Government to take more money from the people in taxes, and
this is money that is coming from families, working people, from men
and women who run their own small businesses; and also when the Federal
Government is taking more money, it means they can be meddling in more
things that are best left to the people or the States--if Government
needs to be involved at all.
The Federal Government ought to be paying attention and be focused on
its key reasons for being created in the first place by the people in
the States, and that is national defense--making sure the military is
strong and that they have the most advanced equipment and armament for
our men and women in uniform as they secure our freedom. We need a
national missile defense system. Those are the sorts of things that are
the primary responsibility of the Federal Government, as well as key
research areas, whether it is in nanotechnology, aeronautics, or in
other areas working with not just Federal agencies but the private
sector and our colleges and universities.
As this Senate gets to work on the fiscal year 2007 budget, our
country's fiscal discipline and accountability must be improved. We
have a budget deficit not because the Federal Government has a revenue
problem; it is because the Federal Government has a spending problem.
The Government doesn't tax too little, it spends too much. We must
focus our efforts on spending the people's money much smarter, not
taking more of their money because it is convenient or expedient.
Now, to control spending, I have revived a pair of ideas that Ronald
Reagan advocated when he was President. In Ronald Reagan's farewell
address to the American people, he said there were two things he wished
he had accomplished as President, and what he wanted future Presidents,
both Republican and Democrat, to have. They were the line-item veto and
a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
As always, and so often, Ronald Reagan was right. That is why I have
made the line-item veto and the balanced budget amendment the first two
points of my three-point plan to bring fiscal accountability and
responsibility to Washington.
Let's start first with the line-item veto. When I was honored by the
people of Virginia as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I had
the power of the line-item veto. I used it 17 times. I saw how useful a
tool that was as Governor to knock out undesirable, nonessential
spending, or untoward or undesirable policies. It is a power--the line-
item veto--or an authority that actually 46 Governors in the U.S.
enjoy. It is a very powerful tool to cut wasteful spending and
undesirable programs. In fact, after you use it a few times, you don't
have to use it as much, because the legislative branch understands
that, gosh, he actually is going to use that power, and when it comes
to the final budget or appropriations bills, the undesirable or
wasteful programs or spending are not in it.
The President of the United States, in my view, should have the same
power I had as Governor of Virginia, and that is the line-item veto.
Together with Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, last September we
introduced a constitutional amendment to provide the President with
line-item veto authority. It is high time for that. The reason we need
a constitutional amendment is that there were times when we were trying
do it statutorily. I would be in favor of statutory methods, rather
than an amendment, but the Supreme Court struck down the last effort. I
think the President, as well as the Congress, ought to be accountable
for some of these spending items that create such controversy and are
absurd or wasteful. By the way, we need to vote on this. If this goes
to the States, I have no question that the States will

[[Page S1364]]

quickly ratify such a constitutional amendment because, after all, they
give their Governors such power.
Secondly, we need a balanced budget amendment. This is something many
States have, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and virtually the rest of
the States. One of the best ways, in my view, to eliminate the Federal
deficit and limit the size and scope of the Government is to wrestle it
down with the chains of the Constitution.
I would also add that balancing the budget is not just a matter of
making sure that expenditures are equal to revenue; it is about making
sure the Federal Government fulfills its proper, focused,
constitutional role--and not expanding into everything that is not
necessarily a Federal prerogative, but best left to the people or the
States. We all know that a big, bloated Federal Government stifles
innovation, saps initiative, and reduces personal responsibility.
The third part of my plan is a proposal I offered last week, which I
know won't be all that popular in this Chamber, but I think it will be
much appreciated and understood by real people in the real world.
I have proposed legislation that provides a powerful incentive for
Senators and Congressmen to perform their jobs on time, as people do in
the private sector. We have a full-time legislature here and we go into
session on January 3. One of our prime responsibilities is to pass
appropriations bills before the next fiscal year, which is October 1.
But it is, to me, deplorable that full-time legislators cannot get
their job done on time by October 1. Then, of course, we end up with
continuing resolutions, and several months later, some time after
Thanksgiving but before Christmas, all kinds of unknown, unscrutinized
spending occurs. It gets passed in the dead of night, thinking nobody
will notice what is in all these appropriations bills--and actually a
lot of people don't know what is in those appropriations bills.

That is why I want to impose on Congress what I call the ``paycheck
penalty.'' The paycheck penalty says to Members of Congress, if you
fail to pass all your appropriations measures by the start of the
fiscal year, October 1, which is your job, what you are paid to do,
your paychecks will be withheld until you complete your job.
Now, taken together, these three measures will eliminate the need to
raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. The tax reductions enacted in the
last 5 years have helped our country get out of recession. It has
incented more investment, created many new jobs--in fact, 4.5 million
new jobs--in the private sector; thereby, from all this economic growth
and prosperity and more people working in businesses, large, medium,
and small doing better, tax receipts to the Government have increased.
To illustrate the point, from 2004 to 2005, tax receipts to the Federal
Government grew at a rate of 14.5 percent, or $274 billion. This growth
is more than twice the rate of economic growth. So the economic growth
is strong, but the tax revenues are twice as much to the Federal
Government. To further this point, the President's budget forecasts
that tax revenues will grow an additional 6.1 percent, or $132 billion,
from 2005 to 2006.
From the tax cuts of the Reagan administration to the tax cuts we
passed in this new century, the fact is that lower taxes stimulate
economic growth, stimulate job creation, and stimulate expansion, which
in turn increases revenues to the Federal Government. More important,
low taxes make this country more competitive for investment and jobs
here, rather than people going to invest in places such as China or
elsewhere in the world. When people are able to keep more of what they
earn, they spend it, save it, invest it, they may expand their
business, and they may get more innovative capital equipment, and the
fact is lower taxes make this country more competitive and people more
prosperous.
The opportunity created by Americans spending the fruits of their own
labor, as opposed to the Government, is the path to bringing fiscal
sanity to the Federal budget. So to avoid future pressure for
counterproductive, harmful tax increases, and to achieve a balanced
budget, we must make these dramatic changes in how the Federal
Government spends the taxpayers' money: the line-item veto, balanced
budget amendment, and the paycheck penalty for Members of Congress who
have not done their jobs on time.
As we closed 2005, Madam President, the Federal Government was
responsible for a gross Federal debt of $8.2 trillion. One must ask,
how did we get here? Consider these statistics from the last 5 years:
Federal spending has increased 33 percent. In 2005, the per-household
spending by our Government has grown to $21,878 per year. That figure
is compared to the per-household tax, on average, of $19,062 per year,
leaving an annual per-household deficit of about $2,800. The macro
result is an annual budget deficit in the hundreds of billions of
dollars.
We are in a time of war, this war on terror, and enormous national
disasters have also befallen our country in Louisiana, Alabama, Texas,
and in Florida, in the past year. That is why I am introducing this
resolution. Even when those occur, this amendment does require the
Federal Government to achieve a balanced budget within 5 years of
ratification by the States. Each year, the budget deficit would be
reduced by 20 percent, until the Federal budget is balanced. This is a
phased-in approach, which is realistic and provides needed time for
Congress to amend the budget and appropriations processes to provide
for a balanced budget. I fully understand that national and global
events can significantly affect our country's budgetary needs. Thus, I
have included a provision that allows for a waiver in the event of war.
However, to ensure deficits resulting from a war do not continue in
perpetuity, the provision provides for a 5-year window following the
end of the conflict to reduce any deficits that may have accumulated.
Domestic catastrophes can also wreak havoc on the Federal
Government's budget, as well as those of the States in Louisiana,
Mississippi and, to some extent Florida, which we have recently seen
devastated by hurricanes. To address such circumstances, the resolution
also includes a provision that would allow expenditures in excess of
revenues, provided three-fifths of each House of Congress approves,
which I think Congress would have done in these situations if this were
in effect last year and presently.
Now the risks of budget deficits and national debt are well known:
the collapse of the dollar, a significant reduction in national
savings, and the inability to fund programs vital to the Nation's
security and well-being. It also means if you are putting in more and
more tax revenues to finance the debt, there is less money there for
key areas such as national defense, homeland security, education,
research in science, and also engineering. So to prevent these events,
we need an institutional mechanism to get this overspending under
control.
Based on past performance, it will take, of course, a change in the
Constitution. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we need to bind the
Congress with a change in the Constitution to prevent present
Congresses from burdening future generations with perpetual debt.
I believe all of us, if we look at it seriously and responsibly,
recognize and grasp the seriousness of this problem. I am hopeful that
this Senate will be able to make the difficult choices to make sure
that the next generation of Americans is not burdened with overwhelming
debt or higher taxes from a burdensome, large Federal Government. A
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I sincerely believe from
my experiences as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, will be a
very valuable, useful, and effective tool in making that goal a
reality. The same applies to the line-item veto authority for the
President. I also believe very strongly that this Senate and the other
body, the House, can get the appropriations bills done on time by
October 1. If not, I think paychecks ought to be withheld until it is
done.
So I hope that my colleagues recognize the seriousness, the
importance, and the urgency of these responsible measures, these ideas.
These measures include getting our fiscal house in order, protecting
the taxpayers from tax increases in the future, and making sure this
country is the world capital of innovation. These measures include
investment by the private sector, more competitiveness compared to
other

[[Page S1365]]

countries because of lower taxes, Federal regulatory policies, sound
energy policy with more development and exploration here at home, as
well as using clean coal and advanced nuclear and biofuels and new
technologies. We also must make sure our fiscal house is in order for
Americans to compete and succeed in the future.
I urge my colleagues to consider this resolution and join me in this
effort for America's future.

____________________