[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[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.

                          ____________________