[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 25 (Thursday, March 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1645-S1657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, 
        Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2354. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
reduce the coverage gap in prescription drug coverage under part D of 
such title based on savings to the Medicare program resulting from the 
negotiation of prescription drug prices; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague and cosponsor Senator Susan Collins as we introduce the 
Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006.
  For years now, I have advocated for providing seniors with meaningful 
prescription drug coverage. Seniors in this country should never have 
to choose between their meals and their medications.
  Unfortunately, Congress created a Medicare prescription drug plan 
that is confusing and contains a huge coverage gap. These are some of 
the reasons that I did not support the legislation that created this 
program. But this flawed plan is what passed. Our job now is to help 
seniors by fixing the underlying law. I have spoken with Medicare 
beneficiaries across Florida and they are understandably concerned 
about the new prescription drug benefit. One issue of great concern to 
Floridians is the large gap in coverage called the ``doughnut hole.''
  The Medicare drug benefit contains a large coverage gap during which 
beneficiaries continue to pay premiums but get no drug coverage at all. 
For most plans, Medicare will pay 75 percent of initial drug costs up 
to $2,250 after a $250 deductible. But then the program pays nothing 
until drug expenses reach $5,100. This lack of coverage for drug 
spending is often called Medicare's doughnut hole.
  More than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries are projected to 
have drug spending that falls in the doughnut hole's range, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Millions of beneficiaries 
will pay premiums yet receive no coverage during this time. This is 
simply unacceptable.
  In response, we are introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap 
Reduction Act of 2006 which will reduce the impact of the doughnut hole 
on Medicare beneficiaries.
  Our bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to 
negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for lower drug prices. 
Unfortunately, the law that created the new Medicare drug program 
actually prohibits the Secretary from using the purchasing power of 
over 40 million seniors to negotiate for lowers prescription drug 
prices. The savings generated from allowing negotiations would then be 
applied towards reducing the doughnut hole, providing more drug 
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.
  A recent analysis was conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins 
Center for Hospital Finance and Management on the Medicare doughnut 
hole. They concluded that ``the gap in coverage could be completely 
eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans' 
Administration, or Department of Defense and 75 percent of the gap 
could be eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Federal 
Ceiling Price.'' Our bill gives the Secretary authority similar to 
entities like the Veterans' Administration and the Department of 
Defense, to negotiate contracts and obtain the lowest possible 
prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Allowing the Federal Government to utilize market forces to negotiate 
for lower prescription drug prices and using these savings to alleviate 
the impact of the doughnut hole is a common-sense approach to providing 
Medicare beneficiaries with affordable prescription drugs.
  This issue boils down to just one goal--helping seniors. We urge all 
of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this 
effort to help lower prescription drug costs for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  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. 2354

       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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug 
     Gap Reduction Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. REDUCING COVERAGE GAP.

       Section 1860D-2(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-102(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (4), subject to the increase described 
     in paragraph (7)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Increase of initial coverage limit based on medicare 
     savings due to negotiation of drug prices.--For each year 
     (beginning with 2006), the Secretary shall increase the 
     initial coverage limit for the year specified in paragraph 
     (3) so that the aggregate amount of increased expenditures 
     from the Medicare Prescription Drug Account as a result of 
     such increase under this paragraph in the year (as estimated 
     by the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services) is equal to the aggregate amount of 
     reduced expenditures from such Account that the Office of the 
     Actuary estimates will result in the year as a result of

[[Page S1646]]

     the application of the amendment made by section 3(a) of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006.''.

     SEC. 3. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION 
                   DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection 
     (i) (relating to noninterference) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (4), in order to 
     ensure that beneficiaries enrolled under prescription drug 
     plans and MA-PD plans pay the lowest possible price, the 
     Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other 
     Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to 
     negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D 
     drugs, consistent with the requirements and in furtherance of 
     the goals of providing quality care and containing costs 
     under this part.
       ``(2) Mandatory responsibilities.--The Secretary shall be 
     required to--
       ``(A) negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered 
     part D drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan under 
     subsection (g); and
       ``(B) participate in negotiation of contracts of any 
     covered part D drug upon request of an approved prescription 
     drug plan or MA-PD plan.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (2) shall 
     be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1) to the mandatory responsibilities under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) No particular formulary or price structure.--In order 
     to promote competition under this part and in carrying out 
     this part, the Secretary may not require a particular 
     formulary or institute a price structure for the 
     reimbursement of covered part D drugs.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Frist, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. McCain, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 2355. A bill to amend chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, 
to prohibit the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless 
permitting (on one's land) the construction or use of a tunnel or 
subterranean passageway between the United States and another country; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, our borders are our Nation's first 
line of defense. They are the key to our homeland, and ensuring their 
integrity is vital to our national security.
  But there are some who seek to create a means of entering our country 
illegally. For years, they've tried to go around the border 
checkpoints. Now they are trying to go under them through sophisticated 
border tunnels.
  In fact, there have been 40 border tunnels financed and constructed 
since 9/11--to move humans, drugs, and weapons under the border. 
Twenty-one of these were on the California-Mexico border--eight since 
January of this year.
  This is a serious issue not just for San Diego and California, but 
for the entire country.
  Surprisingly, there is no law on the books now that makes it a crime 
to construct, finance, build, or use a tunnel into the United States.
  Last week, I toured a recently discovered tunnel in San Diego with 
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, Police Chief Bill Lansdowne, Sheriff 
Bill Kolender and various Federal Government officials from the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  This tunnel is the largest, most sophisticated underground passageway 
ever discovered; approximately half a mile long (8 football fields); at 
its deepest point, more than nine stories below ground; equipped with a 
drainage system, cement flooring for traction, lighting, and a pulley 
system; disguised as a produce distribution company known as ``V & F 
Distributors, LLC''; and accessible only through a small office inside 
this warehouse, covered by four square tiles.
  The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement began investigating 
the case two years ago, and raided the tunnel last month from the 
Mexican side not knowing if or where an opening on the U.S. would be 
found. They discovered over 2,000 pounds of marijuana on the Mexican 
side of the border and approximately 300 on the U.S. side.
  The legislation which I am introducing today--joined by Senator Kyl 
as the Republican lead, as well as Senators Frist, Cantwell, Boxer, 
Hutchison, McCain, Bingaman and Domenici--throws the book at those who 
build these tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United 
States.
  It would: criminalize the construction or financing of an 
unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international 
border into the United States with a term of imprisonment up to 20 
years; punish those who recklessly permit others to construct or use an 
unauthorized tunnel on their land with a term of imprisonment of up to 
10 years; punish those who use a tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons, 
drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods by doubling the sentence for the 
underlying offense; in addition to imprisonment, ensure that assets 
involved in the offense, or any property traceable to the offense, may 
be subject to forfeiture; and instruct the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
to promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for criminal 
penalties for persons convicted under this bill, and to take into 
account the gravity of this crime when considering the base offense 
levels.
  The legislation is critical. We must secure every aspect of our 
borders.
  Since 9/11: forty border tunnels have been discovered in the United 
States; all but one have been on the southern border; twenty-one of the 
tunnels were along the California-Mexico border; eight of the tunnels 
were discovered in San Diego since the beginning of the year; these 
tunnels range in complexity from simple ``gopher holes'' a few feet 
long at the border to massive drug-cartel built mega-tunnels, costing 
hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to construct.
  The need for this legislation is urgent. We must secure every aspect 
of our borders, including those we can't always see. And it is in our 
national security interest that we find these tunnels and prosecute 
those who construct, finance or recklessly permit the use of these 
tunnels on their land or property to the fullest extent of the law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 2355

       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 ``Border Tunnel Prevention 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF BORDER TUNNEL OR PASSAGE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages

       ``(a) Any person who knowingly constructs or finances the 
     construction of a tunnel or subterranean passage that crosses 
     the international border between the United States and 
     another country, other than a lawfully authorized tunnel or 
     passage known to the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
     subject to inspection by the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement, shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 
     years.
       ``(b) Any person who recklessly permits the construction or 
     use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection (a) on 
     land that the person owns or controls shall be imprisoned for 
     not more than 10 years.
       ``(c) Any person who uses a tunnel or passage described in 
     subsection (a) to unlawfully smuggle an alien, goods (in 
     violation of section 545), controlled substances, weapons of 
     mass destruction (including biological weapons), or a member 
     of a terrorist organization (as defined in section 
     212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi))) shall be subject to twice the 
     penalty that would have otherwise been imposed had the 
     unlawful activity not made use of such a tunnel or 
     passage.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages.''.

       (c) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(6) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``554,'' before 
     ``1425,''.

     SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with 
     this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall 
     promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for 
     increased penalties for persons convicted of offenses 
     described in section 554 of title 18, United States Code, as 
     added by section 1.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the United 
     States Sentencing Commission shall--

[[Page S1647]]

       (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines, policy 
     statements, and official commentary reflect the serious 
     nature of the offenses described in section 554 of title 18, 
     United States Code, and the need for aggressive and 
     appropriate law enforcement action to prevent such offenses;
       (2) provide adequate base offense levels for offenses under 
     such section;
       (3) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances 
     that might justify exceptions, including--
       (A) the use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection 
     (a) of such section to facilitate other felonies; and
       (B) the circumstances for which the sentencing guidelines 
     currently provide applicable sentencing enhancements;
       (4) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives, other sentencing guidelines, and statutes;
       (5) make any necessary and conforming changes to the 
     sentencing guidelines and policy statements; and
       (6) ensure that the sentencing guidelines adequately meet 
     the purposes of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of 
     title 18, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 2356. A bill to prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to 
military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``War 
Profiteering Prevention Act of 2006.'' This bill creates criminal 
penalties for war profiteers and cheats who, for ill-gotten gain, would 
exploit the United States Government's taxpayer-funded war and 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. I am 
pleased that Senator Dorgan has also included this legislation in the 
``Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006'' 
that is also being introduced today.
  I previously introduced this legislation in 2003. It came to be 
cosponsored by 21 Senators, including Senators Clinton, Dodd, 
Feinstein, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Wyden, Dayton, 
Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kohl, Lieberman and Reid. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously accepted these 
provisions during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87 
billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 
2004, and it passed the Senate. It was the right thing to do then, and 
it is the right thing to do now.
  Regrettably, the Republican leadership in the House stripped this 
legislation out of that appropriations bill, and we regrettably have 
been witnessing the results in the meantime. Billions appropriated for 
the continuing war efforts and for reconstruction are unaccounted for, 
and fraud has been rampant. The recent report of the special inspector 
general confirms that U.S. taxpayer funds appropriated for 
reconstruction have been lost and diverted.
  There are, of course, anti-fraud laws to protect against waste of tax 
dollars at home. But none expressly prohibits war profiteering, and 
none expressly confers jurisdiction for fraud overseas. This bill would 
criminalize ``war profiteering''--overcharging taxpayers in order to 
defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or 
reconstruction efforts. It would prohibit any fraud against the United 
States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in 
connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction 
activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to criminal 
penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or 
twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.
  The bill also prohibits false statements connected with the provision 
of goods or services in connection with a war or reconstruction effort. 
This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up 
to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the 
illegal gross profits of the crime. These are strong and focused 
sanctions that are narrowly tailored to punish and deter fraud or 
excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the 
United States Government's war or reconstruction efforts.
  Congress has sent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to Iraq 
with too little accountability and too few financial controls. 
Disturbingly, there are widespread reports of waste, fraud and war 
profiteering in Iraq, and the special inspector general examining the 
use of reconstruction funds in Iraq recently found that billions of 
taxpayer dollars remain unaccounted for.

  For example, a recent report on 60 Minutes revealed that more than 
$50 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds have gone to private contractors 
hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and 
rebuild in Iraq. This is more than the entire annual budget of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  In addition, just this week, the New York Times, reported that the 
Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary--Kellogg Brown & 
Root--for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid 
contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though 
the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in 
charges as potentially excessive or unjustified. That article further 
notes that the Army's decision to pay all but 3.8 percent of these 
questionable charges lies well outside the normal practice of the 
military.
  The recent revelations about contract fraud and abuse in Iraq make 
clear that the approach to reconstruction in Iraq has been a formula 
for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would take 
advantage of the chaos of war to defraud American taxpayers.
  We also need to strengthen the tools available to federal prosecutors 
to combat war profiteering. Despite well-publicized allegations of 
fraud and war profiteering in Iraq, so far the Government has brought 
only one case to recover these funds--a civil lawsuit brought under the 
False Claims Act. That case involves a contractor accused of 
overcharging the Government millions of dollars under a contract to 
help distribute new Iraqi currency during the first months after the 
collapse of the Hussein government. The Government's ability to recover 
funds in that case is being questioned by the defendant, however, who 
argues that legal technicalities may constrain current law from 
reaching all of the conduct of contractors working in Iraq or elsewhere 
overseas. This bill would address this problem by providing clear 
authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover 
excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. It should already be 
law, but three years ago the House Republican leadership rejected it.
  Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be expended carefully and 
purposefully and protected from waste. The message sent by this bill is 
that any act taken to financially exploit the crisis situation in Iraq 
or elsewhere overseas for exorbitant financial gain is unacceptable, 
reprehensible--and criminal. Such deceit demeans and exploits the 
sacrifices that our military personnel and National Guard are making in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  When U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of 
reconstruction contracts--where contracts are awarded in a system that 
offers little competition and even less accountability--concerns about 
wartime profiteering are a grave matter. Historical efforts to stem 
such profiteering have been successful: Congress implemented excessive-
profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars, 
and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach, 
President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``ar few 
do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.'' Then, as now, our 
Government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for 
reconstruction efforts that allow so many others to profit unfairly.
  There is urgency to this important measure because criminal statutes 
cannot be applied retroactively. These controls should have been put in 
place at least three years ago; they need to be in place now. I urge 
that the Senate make prompt passage of this legislation a high 
priority. I hope that this time the House Republican leadership will 
have learned the hard lessons of the last three years and that, this 
time, they will allow this bill's enactment, on behalf of the Nation's 
taxpayers. 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. 2356

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

[[Page S1648]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``War Profiteering Prevention 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF PROFITEERING.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1039. War profiteering and fraud relating to military 
       action, relief, and reconstruction efforts

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever, in any matter involving a 
     contract or the provision of goods or services, directly or 
     indirectly, in connection with a war, military action, or 
     relief or reconstruction activities within the jurisdiction 
     of the United States Government, knowingly and willfully--
       ``(A)(i) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or 
     artifice to defraud the United States; or
       ``(ii) materially overvalues any good or service with the 
     specific intent to defraud and excessively profit from the 
     war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities;
     shall be fined under paragraph (2), imprisoned not more than 
     20 years, or both; or
       ``(B)(i) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
     scheme, or device a material fact;
       ``(ii) makes any materially false, fictitious, or 
     fraudulent statements or representations; or
       ``(iii) makes or uses any materially false writing or 
     document knowing the same to contain any materially false, 
     fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry;

     shall be fined under paragraph (2) imprisoned not more than 
     10 years, or both.
       ``(2) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under 
     paragraph (1) may be fined the greater of--
       ``(A) $1,000,000; or
       ``(B) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from 
     the offense, not more than twice the gross profits or other 
     proceeds.
       ``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under 
     this section.
       ``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this 
     section may be brought--
       ``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;
       ``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the 
     offense took place; or
       ``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or 
     provider of goods or services is located.''.
       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``1039. War profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief, 
              and reconstruction efforts.''.

       (b) Civil Forfeiture.--Section 981(a)(1)(C) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``1039,'' after 
     ``1032,''.
       (c) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(2)(B) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1030'' and 
     inserting ``1030, or 1039''.
       (d) RICO.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting the following: ``, section 1039 
     (relating to war profiteering and fraud relating to military 
     action, relief, and reconstruction efforts)'' after 
     ``liquidating agent of financial institution),''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 2357. A bill to provide for economic security and prosperity; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these have not been easy times for vast 
numbers of Americans. In many ways, the American dream is in peril for 
millions of our fellow citizens as global forces have caused the 
economy to shift against them.
  Complacency is not the answer. Few things more affect the way we live 
than our shrinking and rapidly changing world. Unless we begin to 
address this immense challenge more effectively, the Nation will pay a 
high price for years and years to come. Now is the right time to 
reinvest in America's future, which is why I am today introducing the 
Right TRACK Act.
  American families across the Nation know the problem. It is measured 
in jobs moving overseas, stagnant or even falling wages and benefits, 
our schools losing ground compared to other nations, and fewer 
opportunities to attain the American dream. Indeed, the course we are 
on today is a course that will make the American dream the impossible 
dream.
  America cannot move forward if we cut back on investments in 
education, invention, and innovation, as the administration has 
proposed. We cannot compete in the world if our companies and our 
workers are saddled with soaring costs for health care. We cannot 
advance if we fail to invest in our own employees by paying them a 
decent wage, by taking steps to enable companies to keep jobs here at 
home, and by investing wisely in our own economic growth.
  The 20th century was widely hailed as the American century, but the 
21st century is up for grabs. No nation is guaranteed a future of 
lasting prosperity. We have to work for it. We have to sacrifice for 
it.
  We have a choice. We can continue to be buffeted by the harsh winds 
of the global economy or we can think anew and guide the currents of 
globalization with a new progressive vision that strengthens America 
and equips our citizens to move confidently to the future.
  Competing better in a race to the bottom is not the answer. Equality 
of opportunity--a bedrock principle of our democracy--is suffering 
already. Today, children born of parents in the bottom 20 percent of 
income have only a 1 in 15 chance of reaching the top 20 percent in 
their lifetimes. Also disturbing is the fact that those born in the 
middle are more likely to sink to the bottom than to rise to the top. 
And those born at the top are likely to stay at the top.
  We cannot and should not compete by lowering wages. Instead, we must 
open new doors and new avenues for all Americans to make the most of 
their God-given talents and rekindle the fires of innovation in our 
society. By doing so, we can turn this era of globalization into a new 
era of opportunity for America.
  As Thomas Jefferson said, ``Every generation needs a new 
revolution.'' And I believe the revolution for this generation is to 
master our own destiny in the new global economy.
  What is most required is a new vision for America's future in the 
global community. Our goal is to rekindle the American Dream, so that 
if people work hard and play by the rules, they can succeed in life, be 
better off than their parents, live in good neighborhoods, raise strong 
families in safe surroundings, work in decent jobs with decent pay and 
decent benefits and a decent retirement.
  To do all that, we must make a commitment to lifelong education, to 
prepare every man, woman, and child for the new world of intensifying 
competition and increasingly sophisticated technologies.
  We must create high-quality jobs for the years ahead by investing in 
research and development, encouraging innovation, and modernizing all 
aspects of our infrastructure.
  We must level the playing field for American businesses and 
employees, to ensure fair worldwide competition and preserve good jobs 
in the United States.
  And we must make a fair commitment to assist and care for workers and 
communities harmed by the forces of globalization.
  We can do all that, but only if we make the right choices, and the 
time to start is now.
  I strongly believe that our highest priority must be a world class 
education for every American. We must seek a future where America 
competes with other nations, not by reducing our employees' pay and 
outsourcing their jobs but by raising their skills.
  As a Nation, we must invest in Americans by ensuring access to the 
highest quality educational opportunities. We must make the American 
worker and manager the best educated, best trained, and most capable in 
the world. We need to nourish the capacities of every person in the 
nation.
  To do that, we must begin in the earliest years. Research proves 
conclusively that what we do for children's early education and 
development does more to ensure their later success in school than any 
other investment we can make. It is far less costly to society to spend 
millions to put young children on the right track from the start, 
instead of spending billions to rescue them from the wrong track later. 
In fact, one study concludes that in the long run, we save $13 for 
every dollar invested in the early education of our youngest citizens. 
Prevention works in health care, and it can work in education too.
  For generations, we have treated education as a three-legged stool--
elementary and middle school, high school, and college. To create a 
solid foundation for the future, we have to add a fourth leg--early 
childhood education.
  In elementary and secondary education, the No Child Left Behind Act 
was a pioneering reform that held great promise when it was signed into 
law by President Bush 4 years ago.

[[Page S1649]]

  No Child Left Behind was not just an abstract goal. It was a moral 
commitment to every parent and every child and every school in America, 
and I was proud to stand with President Bush when he signed it. It soon 
became clear, however, that to the administration, it was more a slogan 
than a promise. Too many parents, too many children, too many schools 
are still waiting for the help we pledged.
  We can't reform education without the resources needed to pay for the 
reforms. Promises alone won't provide the qualified teachers, high 
standards in every classroom, good afterschool activities, and the 
range of supplemental services that every good school needs if it is to 
provide the right help for students who need it.
  No Child Left Behind was also a promise that every child counts--
Black or White or Brown, rich or poor. It was a promise that disabled 
children too will have the qualified teachers and individual support 
they need to succeed in school and in life.
  We must also do more to help students prepare for college, afford 
college, be admitted to college and complete college. In 1950, when I 
graduated from school, only 15 percent of jobs required some 
postsecondary training. Today, the number is over 60 percent and rising 
rapidly.
  However, we are witnessing a growing gulf in college attendance 
between the rich and poor. The gap is shameful. Each year, 400,000 
college-ready students don't attend a 4-year college because they can't 
afford it. Never before has the financial challenge of attending 
college been greater for young students.
  It is time for America to agree that cost must never be a barrier to 
college education. Every child in America should be offered a contract, 
when they reach eighth grade, making clear that if they work hard, 
finish high school, and are accepted for college, we will guarantee 
them the cost of earning a degree. The Right TRACK Act authorizes 
Federal grants to States to support the creation of ``Contract for 
Educational Opportunity'' grants to cover students' unmet need up to 
the cost of attendance at 2-year and 4-year public colleges in that 
State.
  Perhaps nowhere is it more obvious that we are falling behind than in 
math and science. For a nation that prides itself on innovation and 
discovery, the downward slide is shocking. In recent years, we have 
dropped to 28th in the industrial world in math education. Each year, 
China graduates three times as many engineers as we do. Other nations 
are gaining on us because they give higher priority to education.
  The last time America was shocked into realizing we were unacceptably 
behind in math and science was in 1958, when the Soviet Union launched 
Sputnik. Republican President Eisenhower and a Democratic Congress 
responded by passing the National Defense Education Act, and almost 
overnight we doubled the Federal investment in education.
  In fact, throughout our history, we have remade American education to 
conquer the challenges of each time. In the mid-1800s, with the 
Industrial Revolution in full swing, we created free and mandatory 
public schools before most other nations did. And to stay ahead, we 
rapidly established public high schools at the start of the last 
century to keep pace with a growing economy.
  Once again, we did something comparable at the end of World War II. 
We passed the GI Bill of Rights and gave every returning veteran the 
chance for a college education. The Nation reaped a $7 return for every 
dollar it invested in their education. The result was the ``greatest 
generation,'' and it would never have happened without the GI bill.
  That is the kind of initiative we need today, because the need is 
just as great. We need a new Education Bill of Rights, a new National 
Defense Education Act, for our own day and generation in science and 
math.
  Let's make college free for students training to become math or 
science teachers.
  Let's make college and graduate school free for low- and middle-
income math and science students.
  Let's see that our standards are internationally competitive, so that 
our high school graduates can succeed in this new economy. Let's offer 
incentives and other support for schools to develop and implement 
rigorous standards and courses in math and science.
  The Right TRACK Act responds to each of these challenges. The 
legislation provides grants to low- and middle-income students studying 
in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, as well as 
critical-need foreign languages. The bill provides larger grants to 
students studying to become teachers in these fields who agree to work 
in a high poverty school for at least 4 years. It also provides 
teachers with tax credits, increased loan forgiveness as additional 
incentives to continue to teach where they are needed the most and 
invests in teacher training programs supporting their continuing 
education.

  The Right TRACK Act also provides resources to states to create P-16 
Preparedness Councils to help States with their efforts to improve 
State standards and ensure that they are aligned with the expectations 
of colleges, employers, and the armed services. The bill also provides 
funding to States working in collaboration to establish common 
standards and assessments.
  The bill also directs resources to high need schools so they can 
invest in math, science, engineering, and technology textbooks and 
laboratories to ensure their students have equal access to a curriculum 
that will provide them with the skills they need to be successful in 
the 21st century global economy.
  It is becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed 
to and immersed in other languages and cultures. In recent years, 
foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the 
public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of 
security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the 
globalization of the U.S. economy. American businesses increasingly 
need employees experienced in foreign languages and international 
cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. Foreign language 
proficiency is a consideration in 44 percent of hiring decisions and 66 
percent of retention decisions. Currently, the U.S. Government requires 
34,000 employees with foreign language skills in 100 languages across 
more than 80 Federal agencies.
  The Right TRACK Act responds to these needs by providing grants for 
elementary and secondary critical-need language programs, summer 
institutes to improve teachers' knowledge and instruction of foreign 
languages and international content, and study abroad and foreign 
language study opportunities for high school students, undergraduate, 
and graduate students.
  We must also continue to invest in our current workforce. The Right 
TRACK Act builds on existing formula funds for job training with 
competitive grants to support innovative strategies to meet emerging 
labor market needs.
  From our earliest days as a nation, education has been the engine of 
the American dream. Our country is home to the greatest universities in 
the world, and our education system has produced the world's leading 
scientists, writers, musicians, and inventors. We cannot let these 
achievements stall now. Slogans aren't strong enough. We have to put 
first things first and give children, parents, schools, communities and 
States the support they need to refuel the amazing engine of education 
and keep our country great in the years ahead.
  Beyond education, we must recognize that the foundation of our 
prosperity in this global world is to remain on the cutting edge of 
technology and medical and scientific breakthroughs in the years ahead 
and translate those advances into reliable products and services. A 
strong and fully developed infrastructure will provide the backbone for 
that success.
  America has always been a world leader in research and development, 
but we can no longer take our success for granted. Even in highly 
skilled industries, where our technology and infrastructure have 
preserved our competitive advantage we are increasingly at risk today. 
Rapidly growing economies in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America 
are now formidable competitors, developing their economies into engines 
of growth based not just on low wages but on well-educated citizens, 
advanced infrastructure, and well-run businesses.
  In Bangalore, India, a G.E. center employs more than 2,200 Ph.D.s. 
These workers are not sewing buttons on

[[Page S1650]]

shirts; they are carrying out advanced research on jet engines and 
developing mathematical models for investment. An Intel research and 
development center in the same city employs 3,000 engineers designing 
the next generation of computer chips.
  However, despite increasing international competition, the Federal 
commitment to research outside the defense arena has declined under the 
Bush administration. Of particular concern is the drop in funding for 
basic research. Much of the research conducted by private companies is 
focused on getting a product quickly to market. That is not the basic 
research that lays new foundations for new discoveries. Funding for 
basic research has declined in the past few years at the National 
Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department 
of Energy, and other key scientific agencies. And overall the Federal 
investment in research which once exceeded one percent of our GDP is 
now less than half a percent.
  We cannot allow this trend to continue. The Right TRACK Act will help 
America maintain its position as the leader in innovation. The Right 
TRACK Act will not only make the R&D credit permanent but expand it to 
encourage small businesses, universities, and Federal laboratories to 
collaborate on research. And it will increase R&D funding for major 
Federal research agencies by 10 percent that we double it in 7 years.
  Innovation is important for its own sake, but it is also what creates 
jobs. We are currently seeing our investment in R&D paying dividends in 
high growth, high technology industries such as nanotechnology. We need 
to help usher these new technologies out of the laboratory and into the 
marketplace. The Right TRACK Act would encourage investment in 
nanotechnology businesses and increase support for critical programs at 
the Department of Commerce that help manufacturers adopt and 
commercialize new technologies.
  We also must invest in innovation and infrastructure--highways, mass 
transit, new sources of clean energy, health I.T., and more. The Right 
TRACK Act will authorize funds for capital improvements to Amtrak and 
expands and increases tax credits for school renovation and 
construction that will equip schools with 21st century technology.
  These investments not only improve the quality of our lives, but they 
also create the quality jobs that drive our economy forward.
  Broadband infrastructure is a perfect example. Two years ago, 
President Bush declared that every American should have access to 
affordable broadband technology by the year 2007. But the 
administration still has no plan to get us there. In the meantime, we 
have fallen to 16th in the world in broadband access behind countries 
such as Japan and the Netherlands that have broadband speeds four and 
five times faster than ours.
  Widespread use of basic broadband would add $500 billion to our 
economy and create 1.2 million jobs. Clearly, this is the kind of 
infrastructure we should invest in to produce good jobs and economic 
growth in the future. The Right TRACK Act also puts us on the ``right 
track'' to take full advantage of that economic opportunity.
  We also live in an age exploding with medical miracles. A generation 
ago, few could possibly have imagined the advances in science and 
biology that have revolutionized the practice of medicine. No one today 
can predict how new discoveries in the life sciences will improve our 
lives and change the world, but we can be certain the effects will be 
profound.
  Thanks to the genius and dedication of scientists, doctors, and 
business leaders, the potential of medical research is virtually 
limitless. Diagnosing a faulty heart valve or blocked artery once meant 
risky and traumatic exploratory surgery. Today, doctors make the 
diagnosis with a miniature camera and fiber optic cable, and the 
patient can walk out of the office moments later.
  A few years ago, it seemed inconceivable that anyone could decipher 
the entire genetic code--the very blueprint of life. But today, doctors 
across the globe can read that sequence on their computer screens and 
use the information to search for new ways to treat cancer, diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other major illnesses.
  Continuing at the forefront of the life sciences may well be the most 
important way for America to retain its leadership in the world economy 
in the coming years.
  Another of the fundamental challenges of the global economy is that 
our companies are losing business and our people are losing jobs 
because they are not competing on a level playing field.
  Foreign governments manipulate their currencies to give their 
products an unfair advantage. They refuse to enforce basic labor 
protections like a minimum wage. They use abhorrent practices like 
child labor and forced labor. As a result, these countries can produce 
goods much more cheaply and dominate the global marketplace.
  Our own trade deficit is skyrocketing because we are producing less 
at home and buying more from other nations. Last year, we imported a 
record $726 billion more than we exported--an alltime high.
  We can't continue down this reckless path. It is too damaging to our 
economy. Over $2.2 trillion of our national debt today is owed to 
foreign investors and foreign governments. America has always 
controlled its own destiny but when foreigners are bankrolling our 
Government, our destiny is no longer in our hands.
  It is not just our companies that suffer--our workers are also 
struggling because the playing field is so uneven. More and more of our 
companies are shipping U.S. jobs overseas. Fifty-four percent of 
America's top companies have already done so. Even governments are part 
of the offshoring bandwagon. In my home State of Massachusetts, the 
State government has hired contractors that used workers from India to 
process Medicaid data and answer questions about food stamps.
  The Nation as a whole has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs 
since 2001. The pain is widespread--48 States have lost manufacturing 
jobs under President Bush. These are not just blue-collar jobs. 
Millions of high-paying, white-collar jobs are also at risk of being 
shipped overseas, especially in the fields of medicine and computers.
  The disappearance of these good jobs is reducing our standard of 
living and threatening the very existence of the American middle class. 
President Bush's so-called economic recovery has the worst job creation 
record of any recovery since World War II.
  Those fortunate enough to have jobs are finding that their wages are 
stagnant even though other costs are soaring. College tuition is up 46 
percent since 2001. Housing costs are up 49 percent. Health insurance 
is up 58 percent. Gasoline is $2.33 a gallon--40 percent higher than it 
was 5 years ago.
  The foundation of the America dream is weakening. That is because 
more of what our economy produces in this recovery now goes to business 
profits and executive suite salaries, and less to employees, than at 
any time since such records began in 1929. Wages are down, but profits 
are up by more than 60 percent.
  There is a better way. We need policies that reject the Walmart-
ization of the American workforce.
  We must level the playing field in the competition for good jobs and 
demonstrate leadership in promoting fair wages for workers around 
the world. This is not just an economic issue--it is a moral issue. The 
Right TRACK Act will help raise living standards worldwide by 
prioritizing the elimination of forced labor and child labor in U.S. 
trade agreements and providing incentives for multinational 
corporations to treat their foreign workers with respect. It will also 
level the playing field for American businesses by ensuring that 
countries cannot manipulate their currencies to give their goods an 
unfair advantage in the global market.

  Rejecting the race to the bottom also means reaffirming our 
commitment to workers here at home. We must stop rewarding companies by 
giving them favorable tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. The Right 
TRACK Act corrects this nonsensical policy by eliminating the tax 
loophole that allows companies to avoid paying taxes on money they have 
earned overseas. The act also addresses the offshoring epidemic by 
requiring companies to give workers better notice when their jobs could 
be offshored to other countries

[[Page S1651]]

and ensuring that the Government does not use hard-earned tax dollars 
to ship jobs overseas.
  Our commitment to workers at home also demands that we give them 
their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. In 
this century, just as in the last, we must ensure that workers can 
organize and have a voice at work. The Right TRACK Act preserves the 
basic rights of American workers by protecting employees who try to 
organize from employer intimidation, supporting the democratic right of 
a majority of workers to choose a representative through fair and 
neutral card-check procedures, and requiring employers to come to the 
table and negotiate a first contract.
  We owe a particular duty to those Americans who lose their jobs due 
to the effects of trade or economic downturns. When workers lose their 
jobs in the global economy, we should help in the difficult and painful 
transition to new employment with top-notch job training and income 
assistance for their families until they get another paycheck. The 
Right TRACK Act gives workers and communities harmed by trade the 
support they deserve. It expands the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program to include service workers and workers who lose their jobs due 
to increased trade with countries like China and India. It also 
improves funding levels for training programs, provides wage insurance 
for older workers who lose their jobs, and helps workers to retain 
their health care coverage during times of transition.
  And it is a scandal that the minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an 
hour for the past 9 years, below the poverty line for a family of 
three. It is the lowest the minimum wage has been in real value in more 
than 50 years. How can so many Republicans in Congress keep voting 
against any increase? Why can't we all at least agree that no one who 
works for a living in America should have to live in poverty? The Right 
TRACK Act gives these hardworking Americans a long overdue raise by 
increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps.
  America has to rise to each and every dimension of this challenge. We 
can do it by creating a new culture of innovation and creativity that 
keeps our Nation in the lead in the global market place--by equipping 
every American to compete and win in the new global economy. Only then 
will our economy continue to grow and prosper. Only then will the good 
jobs of the future be made in the U.S.A.
  The same can-do spirit of innovation, invention, and progress that 
brought us the automobile, the airplane, and the computer can do it 
again. Those advances brought the American dream closer for all, and we 
can't afford to let it slip away now.
  The essence of the American dream is the ability to provide a better 
life for yourself and your family. At its very heart are a good job, 
first-class education, good health care, and a secure retirement. Some 
say the dream is out of reach in today's global economy. But I am here 
today to tell you it doesn't have to be that way. We can revitalize the 
American dream.
  I have full confidence in our ability to meet these challenges and 
reach new heights of discovery prosperity, and progress. Passing the 
Right TRACK Act that I've introduced today is an important step towards 
ensuring that the American dream remains attainable for generations to 
come, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 2358. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a 
Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care 
quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 2359. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative under the Medicare 
program to assess and report on health care quality in hospitals; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would expand and improve quality reporting for our Nation's hospitals 
through the establishment of a national Hospital Quality Report Card 
Initiative.
  Study after study has documented that health care quality in the 
United States is inconsistent and inadequate. The landmark 2003 RAND 
report by Beth McGlynn found that the chance of Americans getting 
recommended care is not much greater than the flip of coin. For many 
conditions, the chances are even worse--only about a third of diabetics 
and a quarter of patients with atrial fibrillation and hip fractures 
receive the right treatment, as do only about 10 percent of patients 
with alcohol dependence. Patients are suffering, and the financial 
costs of poor care are staggering. We can and must do more to ensure 
that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right 
way.
  One way to help improve health care quality is to measure and report 
the quality of care in our nation's hospitals. Hospital quality reports 
can help patients and consumers choose the hospital that will best 
serve their health needs. Purchasers and payers can use hospital 
quality information to help their decision-making about where employees 
and members can go for care. Hospitals and health care professionals 
would similarly benefit from identification of areas of need, and 
opportunities for quality improvement and cost containment. And 
finally, with greater quality reporting and transparency, we can begin 
to have an honest dialogue about health care quality and how to reform 
our health care system.
  Several States have already developed and implemented hospital report 
card initiatives, and I am proud to say that Illinois began its own 
report card initiative in January of this year--an initiative that I 
spearheaded when I served in the Illinois State Senate.
  On the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
(CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance have partnered to identify and 
encourage submission of quality measures for several health conditions, 
on a voluntary basis, in exchange for greater federal reimbursement. 
The Deficit Reduction Act codified this initiative earlier this year.
  The Hospital Report Card Act, which I am introducing today, takes 
quality measurement one step further, by mandating that the Secretary 
expand and improve upon current quality reporting for hospitals. Within 
18 months, the Secretary would establish a formal Hospital Report Card 
Initiative, and publish reports on individual hospital quality using 
data submitted for the value based purchasing program at CMS, but also 
including other data available to the Secretary. The report cards would 
report quality measures that align with those used in the National 
Healthcare Quality Report, including measures of effectiveness, safety, 
timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition, 
the report cards would provide information on other quality priorities 
for patients, such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections 
acquired in hospitals, volume of procedures performed, and availability 
of specialized care. The Secretary would also report measures of 
relevance to a number of priority populations, including women, 
children and minorities.
  The bill requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure that all 
reported data is accurate and fairly represents hospital quality, and 
that hospitals have an opportunity to participate in the development of 
the report card initiative. I also want to make sure that sick patients 
have full access to the best hospitals, and so the report cards will 
risk-adjust quality data, so that hospitals are not inadvertently 
penalized for caring for more challenging patient populations.
  We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about patient empowerment and 
consumer-driven health plans. However, we can't expect patients to make 
the best choices for their health care in the absence of accurate 
information on quality and costs. Similarly, we can't expect hospitals 
to recognize their areas of deficiencies or strengths without a 
critical look inwards. Finally, we can't expect the Nation at large to 
support and embrace healthcare reform without greater awareness of 
quality problems.
  The Hospital Quality Report Card Act will help the Nation take one 
step closer to improving health care quality and containing costs, and 
I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this critical legislation.

[[Page S1652]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2360. A bill to ensure and promote a free and open Internet for 
all Americans; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a headline in today's Wall Street Journal 
warns consumers that they will soon face a ``pay to play'' Internet 
where those businesses and consumers who want to continue to see equal 
content get equal treatment will have to pay more. Rather than let them 
continue to have the freedom to choose whatever content, applications 
and services they want, the big network operators want to control the 
content consumers can access. Allowing the big network operators to 
discriminate on the Net is bad news for consumers, small businesses, 
schools, libraries, nonprofits and any other user who enjoys their 
freedom of access.
  That is why today I am proposing legislation that will codify the 
principle of network neutrality. I want consumers, small businesses and 
every other Internet user to continue to enjoy tomorrow the full array 
of content, service and applications they enjoy today.
  My legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, will 
establish the principle of network neutrality by requiring the 
operators of the network to treat all content on the Internet equally. 
It will ensure transparency so that everyone can easily determine all 
rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications. 
Transparency coupled with a complaint process before the Federal 
Communications Commission will encourage compliance.
  This legislation has been developed in consultation with a number of 
consumer groups and businesses, and I ask unanimous consent 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. 2360

       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 ``Internet Non-Discrimination 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
     the Internet has grown robustly. Today, Americans are 
     changing how they access the Internet, moving from dial-up to 
     broadband for their home connections. According to the Pew 
     Internet and American Life Project, 72 percent of Americans 
     use the Internet and 59 percent of Americans with home 
     Internet have a high-speed Internet connection.
       (2) Americans use the Internet for many daily activities. 
     Over 17 percent of Americans have sold something over the 
     Internet. Everyday, approximately 60,000,000 Americans use 
     search engines to get access to information. 80 percent of 
     Americans have looked online for health care information. In 
     growing numbers, Americans are using the Internet to place 
     phone calls, watch their favorite televisions shows or 
     movies, and play games.
       (3) The growth of the Internet and its success are due in 
     large part to the freedom that has always existed on the 
     content and applications layer of the Internet. Innovation 
     has thrived on this layer, as anyone with a good idea has the 
     ability to access consumers. The continuation of this freedom 
     is essential for future innovation.
       (4) Freedom on the content and applications layer has also 
     led to robust competition for retail goods for consumers. 
     Consumers can shop at thousands upon thousands of retailers 
     from their home computers, including small businesses located 
     miles away in other towns, States, and even countries.
       (5) Such freedom is leading to the development of important 
     new entertainment offerings, on-demand video and movie 
     purchases, Internet Protocol television, and enhanced gaming 
     options. The entertainment options available in the future 
     will only be limited by the bandwidth that can be used and 
     the innovation of people all over the world.
       (6) Despite the growth of the Internet and increased access 
     to the Internet for Americans, there is very little choice in 
     who provides them high-speed Internet access. According to an 
     April 2005 White Paper by Harold Feld and Gregory Rose, et. 
     al., entitled, ``Connecting the Public: The Truth About 
     Municipal Broadband'' only 2 percent of Americans get high-
     speed Internet access from someone other than their local 
     phone company or cable provider. According to the Federal 
     Communications Commission, approximately 20 percent of 
     Americans do not have a high-speed Internet access provider 
     that offers them service.
       (7) As more and more Americans get high-speed access to the 
     Internet without having much choice of who their provider 
     will be, it is important that Congress protect the freedom on 
     the Internet to ensure its continued success.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Application or service.--The term ``application or 
     service'' means any information or service--
       (A) by which an end-user through software or a device 
     engages in an exchange of data or information; and
       (B) conveyed over communications.
       (2) Bits.--The term ``bits'' or ``binary digits'' means the 
     smallest unit of information in which form data is 
     transported on the Internet as a single digit number in base-
     2.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (4) Communications.--The term ``communications''--
       (A) means any voice, video, or data application or service, 
     regardless of the facilities or technology used, that--
       (i) is a transmission to subscribers by use of--

       (I) the public rights-of-way;
       (II) spectrum;
       (III) numbering or addressing resources; or
       (IV) other inputs licensed or managed by a unit of local 
     government, or a private entity working in concert with such 
     unit of local government, for the benefit of the public;

       (ii) is offered to the public, or as to such classes of 
     subscribers as to be effectively available directly to the 
     public, with or without a fee; and
       (iii) enables an end user, as part of such service, to 
     transmit content of their own design or choosing between or 
     among points specified by such user;
       (B) includes interactive on-demand services, as such term 
     is defined in section 602(12) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(12)); and
       (C) does not include cable service, as such term is defined 
     in section 602(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 522(6)).
       (5) Content.--The term ``content'' means information--
       (A) in the form of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and 
     sounds of all kinds, including stored information requested 
     by an end user; and
       (B) that is generated based on the input or request of such 
     user.
       (6) Person.--The term ``person'' means any natural person, 
     partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited 
     liability company, or other legal entity.
       (7) Network operator.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``network operator'' means any 
     person who owns, operates, controls, or resells and controls 
     any facility that provides communications directly to a 
     subscriber.
       (B) Obligations.--Any obligation imposed on a network 
     operator by the provisions of this Act shall apply only to 
     the extent that such network operator is engaged in providing 
     communications.
       (8) Subscriber.--The term ``subscriber'' means any person 
     who--
       (A) is an end user of an application or service provided 
     through communications; and
       (B) consumes or provides goods provided through such 
     application or service.
       (9) Transmission component.--The term ``transmission 
     component'' means the portion of communications which enables 
     an end user to transmit content of their own design and 
     choosing between or among points specified by such user.

     SEC. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF NETWORK OPERATORS.

       (a) In General.--A network operator shall--
       (1) not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, 
     impair, or change any bits, content, application or service 
     transmitted over the network of such operator;
       (2) not discriminate in favor of itself or any other 
     person, including any affiliate or company with which such 
     operator has a business relationship in--
       (A) allocating bandwidth; and
       (B) transmitting content or applications or services to or 
     from a subscriber in the provision of a communications;
       (3) not assess a charge to any application or service 
     provider not on the network of such operator for the delivery 
     of traffic to any subscriber to the network of such operator;
       (4) offer communications such that a subscriber can access, 
     and a content provider can offer, unaffiliated content or 
     applications or services in the same manner that content of 
     the network operator is accessed and offered, without 
     interference or surcharges;
       (5) allow the attachment of any device, if such device is 
     in compliance with part 68 of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, without restricting any application or service 
     that may be offered or provided using such a device;
       (6) treat all data traveling over or on communications in a 
     non-discriminatory way;
       (7) offer just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates, 
     terms, and conditions on the offering or provision of any 
     service by another person using the transmission component of 
     communications;
       (8) provide non-discriminatory access and service to each 
     subscriber; and
       (9) post and make available for public inspection, in 
     electronic form and in a manner that is transparent and 
     easily understandable, all rates, terms, and conditions for 
     the provision of any communications.

[[Page S1653]]

       (b) Preserved Authority of Network Operators.--
     Notwithstanding the requirements described in subsection (a), 
     a network operator--
       (1) may--
       (A) take reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to 
     protect subscribers from adware, spyware, malware, viruses, 
     spam, pornography, content deemed inappropriate for minors, 
     or any other similarly nefarious application or service that 
     harms the Internet experience of subscribers, if such 
     subscribers--
       (i) are informed of the application or service; and
       (ii) are given the opportunity to refuse or disable any 
     such preventative application or service;
       (B) support an application or service intended to prevent 
     adware, spyware, malware, viruses, spam, pornography, content 
     deemed inappropriate for minors, or any other similarly 
     nefarious application or service that harms the Internet 
     experience of subscribers, if such subscribers--
       (i) are informed of the application or service; and
       (ii) are given the opportunity to refuse or disable any 
     such preventative application or service; and
       (C) take reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to 
     protect the security of the network of such operator, if such 
     operator faces serious and irreparable harm; and
       (2) shall--
       (A) give priority to an emergency communication;
       (B) comply with any court-ordered law enforcement 
     directive; and
       (C) prevent any activity that is unlawful or illegal under 
     any Federal, State, or local law.

     SEC. 5. COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Complaint.--Any aggrieved party may submit a written 
     complaint to the Commission seeking a ruling that a network 
     operator has violated a requirement described in section 
     4(a).
       (b) Content of Complaint.--In any complaint submitted under 
     subsection (a) an aggrieved party shall make a prima facie 
     case that--
       (1) a network operator violated a requirement of section 
     4(a);
       (2) such violation was not a preserved authority described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 4(b)(1); and
       (3) such violation is harmful to such party.
       (c) 7-Day Acceptance Period.--Not later than 7 days after 
     the date of the submission of a complaint under subsection 
     (a), the Commission shall issue a decision regarding its 
     acceptance or denial of the prima facie case made by an 
     aggrieved party.
       (d) Cease and Desist.--
       (1) In general.--If the Commission accepts the prima facie 
     case of an aggrieved party under subsection (c), a network 
     operator shall be required to cease and desist the action 
     that is the underlying basis of the complaint for the 
     duration of the proceeding on such complaint, until such time 
     as the Commission may rule that a violation of a requirement 
     of section 4(a) has not occurred.
       (2) Authority to extend cease and desist order.--The 
     Commission shall have the authority to extend any cease and 
     desist order to any similarly situated person as the 
     Commission determines necessary and appropriate.
       (e) Burden of Proof.--If the Commission accepts the prima 
     facie case of an aggrieved party under subsection (c), a 
     network operator shall bear the burden of proving that--
       (1) no violation of section 4(a) occurred; or
       (2) such violation was a preserved authority described in 
     section 4(b).
       (f) Final Decision.--
       (1) 90-day period.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the submission of a complaint under subsection (a), the 
     Commission shall issue a final decision regarding the request 
     for a ruling contained in such complaint.
       (2) Failure to issue decision.--If the Commission fails to 
     issue a decision at the expiration of the 90-day period 
     described in paragraph (1), a violation of a requirement of 
     section 4(a) shall be deemed to have occurred.
       (g) Rules of Construction.--
       (1) Delegation.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       (i) to prevent the Commission from delegating any authority 
     granted to it under this section to a relevant office or 
     bureau pursuant to the authority granted the Commission under 
     section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     155(c)); or
       (ii) to limit the Commission from adopting any appropriate 
     procedures pursuant to any other provision of law.
       (B) Limitation.--The rule established under subparagraph 
     (A) shall only apply if at the expiration of the 90-day 
     period described in subsection (f)(1)--
       (i) the Commission issues a final decision that is ripe for 
     judicial review; or
       (ii) a violation of a requirement of section 4(a) shall be 
     deemed to have occurred under subsection (f)(2).
       (2) Petition for reconsideration.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to affect the ability of any eligible party to file a 
     petition for reconsideration under section 405 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 405).
       (B) Timing.--
       (i) 90-day period.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the submission of a petition for reconsideration under 
     section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     405), the Commission shall issue an order granting or denying 
     such petition.
       (ii) Failure to issue an order.--If the Commission fails to 
     issue a decision at the expiration of the 90-day period 
     described in clause (i), the previous decision of the 
     Commission shall be considered affirmed and final for 
     purposes of judicial review.
       (3) Judicial review.--Notwithstanding section 402(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 402(b)) and any other 
     provision of law, any appeal of a decision of the Commission 
     under this section shall be made to United States district 
     court for the district in which the principle place of 
     business of the aggrieved party is located.
       (4) Intervention by third parties.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to prevent any interested person from 
     intervening in any appeal of a decision of the Commission in 
     accordance with section 402(e) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 402(e)).

     SEC. 6. PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--If the Commission issues a ruling under 
     section 5 that a network operator is in violation of a 
     requirement of section 4(a), such network operator shall be 
     subject to the penalties prescribed under section 501 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 501).
       (b) Separate Violations.--Each violation of a requirement 
     of section 4(a) shall be treated as a separate incident for 
     purposes of imposing penalties under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BYRD:
  S. 2362. A bill to establish the National Commission on Surveillance 
Activities and the Rights of Americans; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I spoke 
about recent egregious examples of domestic surveillance by the 
executive branch, and I announced my intention to introduce legislation 
to establish a commission to investigate the instances of warrantless 
wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency 
and other departments of Government.
  I am not the lone voice raising questions about the legality of this 
program and its effect on the rights of law-abiding American citizens. 
I am only one--only one--in a growing chorus--a growing chorus--of 
concerned individuals. Since the New York Times broke the story of the 
NSA's wiretapping program, many in this Chamber on both sides of the 
aisle have questioned the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and 
have called for investigations into possible violations of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as other transgressions against 
the spirit or the letter of our revered Constitution.
  Many of our country's foremost constitutional scholars and professors 
of law have expressed their categorical opposition to the NSA's 
program, citing possible violations of both the Constitution and the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They agree that ``the program 
appears on its face''--on its face--``to violate existing law.''
  These concerns have, of course, been dismissed by the same branch of 
Government that hatched the domestic spying program. Did you hear that? 
I will say it again. These concerns have been dismissed by the same 
branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. But this 
stonewalling--yes, that is stonewalling--this stonewalling is only part 
of the story. Important questions about NSA's program have been 
answered with strained and tenuous justifications or claims of the dire 
need for secrecy and, as a result, Congress's access to information has 
been severely--severely, severely--curtailed, by whom? By whom? Guess 
what, by the administration; by the administration.
  There are some things we do know. We know that top officials in the 
Department of Justice who were concerned about questions of legality 
and lack of oversight of the program refused to endorse continued use 
of the NSA's wiretapping. That isn't all. We also know because of these 
concerns this secret program was suspended. Do you get that? This 
secret program was suspended temporarily due to questions about its 
legality.
  What most Americans don't know is that FBI agents complained about 
the utility of the wiretapping program. Voluminous amounts of 
information and records that were gleaned from this secret 
eavesdropping program were sent from the National Security Agency to 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI officials repeatedly 
complained that they were being drowned by a river of useless 
information that

[[Page S1654]]

diverted their resources from pursuing important counterterrorism work. 
Such complaints raise the question of whether the domestic wiretapping 
program may have backfired by sending our top counterterrorism agencies 
on wild-goose chases, thus making our country less secure instead of 
making our country more secure.
  We know that one member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court, Judge James Robertson, resigned--yes, resigned--4 days after the 
New York Times first detailed the NSA's warrantless--warrantless--
domestic surveillance. We know that only the chief judge of the FISA 
Court, the secret court charged with approving requests to conduct 
domestic surveillance, had any knowledge of this clandestine 
wiretapping program. The other judges, who are sworn to strict secrecy, 
learned of the program just as many of our citizens did--through 
reports in the press. Yes, thank God for a free press.

  We know that although most of the judges of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court were kept in the dark about the program, at least 
one of the judges was tipped off by an attorney within the Department 
of Justice that some of the information being presented to the court to 
secure warrants was improperly obtained, meaning the Government had 
apparently circumvented a court-ordered screening process to eliminate 
tainted evidence.
  We know that in a February 28 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Arlen Specter, Attorney General Gonzales admitted that the 
Justice Department's legal justification for the wiretaps has ``evolved 
over time.''
  What does that mean? Does it mean that there actually was no legal 
basis for the NSA to spy on American citizens when it first began the 
surveillance? Does it mean the Department had to gin up some legal 
basis for the spying once the program became public? Does it mean the 
administration's reliance on the use-of-force resolution to justify its 
snooping was simply a ploy--just a ploy--an ``after the fact'' face-
saving device meant to give the administration cover for having 
violated the civil liberties of Americans?
  We know that earlier this week, 18 Members of the House of 
Representatives sent a letter to President Bush requesting that he 
appoint a special counsel to investigate the NSA's warrantless 
surveillance of our citizens. In their letter, the House Members noted 
that with no clear information coming from the administration, they and 
all of America have been forced to rely primarily on press reports to 
determine the scope of the NSA's activities.
  With so many questions unanswered by the administration, it is 
absolutely imperative that there be an objective investigation of this 
program and any violations of law that may have occurred.
  We are in a supercharged political year--we know that, you know that, 
everybody knows that--an election year for one-third of the Senate, 
including this Senator from West Virginia, and for the entire House of 
Representatives. And the Senate Intelligence Committee as of today has 
refused to initiate a serious investigation into this matter. But an 
investigation has to go forward. The efficacy of our laws and our 
Constitution is at stake. That is why I am proposing legislation to 
establish a nonpartisan commission to review and investigate domestic 
surveillance in America, along with serious allegations of abuse. In 
this way, we will be sure to safeguard our first and fourth amendment 
rights as enumerated in this Constitution, as well as evaluate the 
actual effectiveness of such programs in combating terrorist threats.
  James Madison wrote in his essay, ``Political Reflections,'' that 
``[t]he fetters''--the fetters, f-e-t-t-e-r-s--``[t]he fetters imposed 
on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided 
for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
  No one is suggesting that the threat of terrorist attacks is anything 
but a real threat, and one that must be of the Congress's utmost 
priority. But the suggestion that the American people would be safer in 
their homes if they just forego their constitutionally protected rights 
is a deliberately deceptive assertion that may forge the fetters that 
bind law-abiding citizens. Make no mistake about it: It is these ill-
conceived strictures that may ultimately destroy precious liberties.
  In fact, it is because our forefathers were fearful of re-creating 
the same tyrannous form of government from which many of them had fled, 
that the Bill of Rights--the Bill of Rights, those first 10 
amendments--the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better 
secure for all time--all time--the freedom from oppression that ever 
looms from an overly powerful executive. Get that. Get that. Let me say 
that again. It was because our forefathers, thank God, were fearful of 
re-creating the same tyrannous, the same tyrannical form of government 
from which many of them had fled that the Bill of Rights was added to 
the Constitution to better secure, for all time, the freedom from 
oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. And you 
better believe it. You better believe it. Hear me. Hear me now. I will 
always speak out against an all-powerful executive, under either party.
  In a climate of fear, liberties have been sacrificed time and again 
under the guise of keeping the Nation from harm. Fear. Yes, fear is a 
powerful tool for manipulation; useful for easing the American people 
out of their liberties and into submission. Fear. When the public is 
confronted with a situation, real or imagined, that inspires fear, the 
public rightfully look to their leaders--look to their leaders, Mr. 
President--for protection from foreboding consequences. The claim of 
wartime necessity always strengthens the hands of a President. Let me 
say that again. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens a 
President, any President, Republican or Democrat. And often facts are 
sealed from the prying eyes of Congress by a purported need for 
secrecy.
  But Senators, and that includes this Senator from West Virginia, 
Senators have a sworn duty--a sworn duty, a sworn duty--sworn right up 
there at that desk with their hand on the Bible--the holy Bible, the 
holy Bible, the holy Bible--with their hand on the Bible to check 
executive power. We have to be on guard every moment of every day. The 
executive branch, whether it be Democratic or Republican, is always 
reaching--always reaching, always reaching--always grabbing more power, 
more power, more power, and we have to be on guard. We have a sworn 
duty to check executive power and, as long as I live, I am going to 
stand for the checking of the executive power; I don't care whether it 
is a Democrat or Republican in the White House or an Independent. It 
makes no difference. We have a sworn duty. We swear. We put our hand on 
the Bible before God and man, and we swear to check executive power at 
all times--at all times--in times of crisis or otherwise. Each of us 
here, and there are 100 here, and each of this 100, 100 Senators, we 
are each bound to defend the Constitution and each bound to defend the 
liberties that the Constitution gives to all Americans, at all times, 
in times of peace and in times of war.
  History has shown us many times that a climate of fear can take a 
hefty toll on our freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your 
freedoms. That is your freedoms. Worse still are liberties surrendered 
in vain, resulting in little added security.
  There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be 
abolished in one fell swoop--never--for the American people cherish 
their freedoms, and they would not tolerate such a loss if they could 
perceive it; if they could see it coming, if they could hear it, if 
they could feel it, if they could perceive it. But the erosion of 
freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault; rather, it is 
gradual, noxious, creeping, cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by 
reassurances of greater security.
  The American people are a people born of sacrifice, and the 
sacrifices that the American people are willing to endure speak well of 
the tenacity and the strength that makes the United States of America 
what it is. Some may be tempted to accept on blind faith the 
administration's--any administration's, any administration's--promise 
of increased security, and they may see it as a duty to capitulate 
their rights for that flimsy promise. May we all pause to reflect on 
the hard-won liberties--the hard-won liberties--for which earlier 
generations fought and

[[Page S1655]]

died. Remember Nathan Hale. He died. He regretted that he had but one 
life to give, to lose, one life to lose for his country. Remember 
Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' he said. John Paul 
Jones: ``We have only begun to fight.''
  So may we all pause to reflect, as we have just done, on the hard-won 
liberties for which earlier generations fought and died before we 
easily accept convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is cheap. Talk is cheap. To 
suggest that innocent Americans surrender rights to preserve freedom is 
a false choice. It is also a slippery slope, one that is fraught with 
ever more secrecy and the certainty of egregious abuses of our Bill of 
Rights and of our laws over time.
  The commission that I propose would determine how to best protect the 
homeland, as well as the most effective ways of gathering needed 
intelligence. It will examine the procedures for the NSA's use and 
retention of intelligence obtained without warrants, and the method and 
scope of dissemination of such information to other agencies. It will 
investigate any questions raised by the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court concerning the legality of the domestic spying 
program. It will examine the obligation of the President--do you get 
that? Do you hear that, Mr. President? Republican or Democrat. It will 
examine the obligation of the President to brief Members of Congress--
not just one or two or three or four--on warrantless surveillance of 
American citizens. It will lift the fog--lift the fog--of secrecy and 
clandestine government activity misaimed at law-abiding citizens and 
perhaps, most importantly, it will shed much needed sunshine--let the 
sunshine in--much needed sunshine on any unlawful or unconstitutional 
executive--executive, executive intrusions into the lives of ordinary 
Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Menendez, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2364. A bill to provide lasting protection for inventoried 
roadless areas within the National Forest System; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Bingaman, 
Harkin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Lieberman, Clinton, Menendez, Akaka, Dodd 
and Kerry to introduce the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006.
  Since Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system 100 
years ago, we have cherished these amazing public lands. They have 
provided both timber for our economy, and quiet solace for our souls. 
However, only a fraction of the vast natural forests that once covered 
our nation remain. I believe it is our duty to protect these lands 
before we have no natural forest legacy to pass on to our children.
  Simply put, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2006 represents a 
balanced and reasoned approach to forest management on untouched public 
lands. This legislation reasserts safeguards in place in 2001 to 
protect our nation's the last remaining pristine forest lands, 58.5 
million acres, from logging, road-building, and other environmentally 
damaging development. In Washington State alone there are 2,015,000 
acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as 
Roadless areas under the legislation.
  The bill would prohibit new road construction or reconstruction in 
inventoried roadless areas while maintaining opportunities for hunting, 
fishing, hiking, mountain-biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing 
and other forms of outdoor recreation in our National Forests.
  The legislation also includes a number of important exemptions to 
allow new road construction for human health and safety, oil and gas 
development, and other previously approved economic activities, such as 
ski trails.
  What is more, it allows for hazardous fuels reduction, forest 
stewardship projects, and targeted economic activities. This 
legislation also helps address the serious fiscal challenge presented 
by the more than $8.6 billion dollar maintenance and reconstruction 
backlog on the 386,000 miles of existing U.S. Forest Service roads.
  Of course, this might not sound new. And you'd be right. In many 
ways, we've travelled these roads before. The Clinton Administration 
finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001, 
following three years of official review and public participation, over 
600 public meetings--45 public meetings in Washington state alone--and 
hearings on each National Forest and in each Forest Service region.
  During his confirmation hearing I asked Attorney General John 
Ashcroft if the administration would uphold the Roadless regulation. He 
pledged that he would. In May 2001, then-USDA Secretary Ann Venemen 
also pledged that the administration would stand by the Rule.
  But that's not what happened. Through a series of subtle yet 
unmistakable steps the administration has allowed these protections to 
be undermined steadily. They've rolled over for logging companies and 
developers. They've cooked up loopholes for State-based petitions or 
settlements that could weaken or eliminate the protections afforded to 
these unique lands. And finally, in May of 2005, they dropped the 
pretense altogether when the U.S.D.A. Forest Service repealed the 2001 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule, eliminating these vital roadless 
forest land protections.
  The need for action today is more urgent than ever. These are 
national forest lands that provide unmatched outdoor recreation 
opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats, and promote clean 
drinking water for millions of Americans. This bill would not apply or 
effect state, tribal, county, municipal, or private lands and does not 
impact existing U.S. Forest Service roads, trails, or activities on 
those roads and trails.
  The 2001 Roadless Rule has received unprecedented public support, 
including over four million comments submitted to the U.S. Forest 
Service asking that it not be overturned. Most recently, over 250,000 
Americans, including over 100 current and former Olympic athletes, have 
filed a formal petition under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 
to reverse the Bush Administration's decision to eliminate the 2001 
Rule. This legislation enjoys the support and endorsement of such 
groups as National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Heritage 
Forests Campaign, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club.
  I've worked to protect these pristine forest lands since the day I 
came into office, and I'll keep fighting to make sure this bill gets 
signed into law. We've heard it loud and clear: Americans don't want to 
see their hunting, fishing, and hiking areas turned into a reckless 
patchwork of road-building, logging, and mining.
  Let's act today and pass the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. The 
American people and future Americans deserve nothing less.
  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. 2364

       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 ``Roadless Area Conservation 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) In General.--Congress finds that--
       (1) there is a compelling need to establish national 
     protection for inventoried roadless areas of the National 
     Forest System in order to protect the unique social and 
     ecological values of those irreplaceable resources;
       (2) roadless areas protect healthy watersheds and their 
     numerous benefits including--
       (A) protecting downstream communities from floods and 
     tempering the effects of drought;
       (B) ensuring a supply of clean water for domestic, 
     agricultural, and industrial uses;
       (C) helping maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife 
     populations and habitats;
       (D) providing the setting for many forms of outdoor 
     recreation; and
       (E) providing drinking water to millions of citizens from 
     the more than 354 municipal watersheds found on roadless 
     areas;
       (3) maintaining roadless areas in a relatively undisturbed 
     condition--
       (A) saves downstream communities millions of dollars in 
     water filtration costs; and
       (B) is crucial to preserve the flow of affordable, clean 
     water to a growing population;
       (4) the protection of roadless areas can maintain 
     biological strongholds and refuges for many imperiled species 
     by halting the

[[Page S1656]]

     ongoing fragmentation of the landscape into smaller and 
     smaller parcels of land divided by road corridors;
       (5) roadless areas conserve native biodiversity by serving 
     as a bulwark against the spread of nonnative invasive 
     species;
       (6) roadless areas provide unparalleled opportunities for 
     hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, 
     fishing, cross-country skiing, canoeing, mountain-biking, and 
     similar activities;
       (7) while roadless areas may have many wilderness-like 
     attributes, unlike wilderness areas, the use of mechanized 
     means of travel is allowed in many roadless areas;
       (8) roadless areas contain many sites sacred to Native 
     Americans and other groups that use roadless areas for 
     spiritual and religious retreats;
       (9) from the inception of Federal land management, it has 
     been the mission of the Forest Service and other agencies to 
     manage the National Forest System for the dual purposes of 
     resource extraction and conservation;
       (10) consistent with that dual mission, this Act--
       (A) protects social and ecological values, while allowing 
     for many multiple uses of inventoried roadless areas; and
       (B) does not impose any limitations on the use of, or 
     access to Nation Forest System, State, or private land 
     outside inventoried roadless areas;
       (11) establishing a consistent national policy for the 
     protection of inventoried roadless areas--
       (A) ensures that the considerable long-term ecological and 
     economic benefits of protecting roadless areas for future 
     generations are properly considered;
       (B) diminishes the likelihood of controversy at the project 
     level; and
       (C) enables the Chief of the Forest Service to focus on the 
     economic and environmental benefits of reducing hazardous 
     fuel buildups in portions of the landscape that already have 
     roads;
       (12) the National Fire Plan indicates that fires are almost 
     twice as likely to occur in roaded areas as in roadless 
     areas, because roadless areas are generally located further 
     away from communities and are harder to access;
       (13) the report entitled ``Protecting People and Sustaining 
     Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy'' 
     (65 Fed. Reg. 67480) advocates a higher priority for fuel 
     reduction on land that is near communities and readily 
     accessible municipal watersheds;
       (14) the Forest Service has an enormous backlog of 
     maintenance needs for the existing 386,000 mile road system 
     of the Forest Service that will cost millions of dollars to 
     eliminate;
       (15) no State or private land owner would continue to build 
     new roads in the face of such an enormous backlog;
       (16) failure to maintain forest roads--
       (A) limits public access; and
       (B) causes degradation of water quality and wildlife and 
     fish habitat; and
       (17) protection of roadless areas--
       (A) will impact less than 0.5 percent of the national 
     timber supply; and
       (B) will have a negligible impact on oil and gas production 
     because--
       (i) the entire National Forest System provides only 
     approximately 0.4 percent of the quantity of oil and gas that 
     is produced in the United States; and
       (ii) roadless areas provide only a fraction of the quantity 
     of oil and gas that is produced in the National Forest 
     System.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide, within 
     the context of multiple-use management, lasting protection 
     for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest 
     System.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Classified road.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``classified road'' means a road 
     wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, National Forest 
     System land that is determined to be needed for long-term 
     motor vehicle access.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``classified road'' includes a 
     State road, county road, privately-owned road, National 
     Forest System road, and any other road authorized by the 
     Forest Service.
       (2) Inventoried roadless area.--The term ``inventoried 
     roadless area'' means 1 of the areas identified in the set of 
     inventoried roadless area maps contained in the document 
     entitled ``Forest Service Roadless Areas Conservation, Final 
     Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2'', dated November 
     2000.
       (3) Responsible official.--The term ``responsible 
     official'' means a Forest Service line officer or employee 
     with the authority and responsibility to make decisions 
     regarding the protection and management of inventoried 
     roadless areas under this Act.
       (4) Road.--The term ``road'' means a motor vehicle 
     travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed 
     as a trail.
       (5) Road construction.--The term ``road construction'' 
     means activity that results in the addition of classified 
     road or temporary road miles.
       (6) Road improvement.--The term ``road improvement'' means 
     activity that results in--
       (A) an increase of the traffic service level of an existing 
     road;
       (B) an expansion of the capacity of the road; or
       (C) a change in the original design function of the road.
       (7) Roadless area characteristics.--The term ``roadless 
     area characteristics'' means resources or features that are 
     often present in and characterize inventoried roadless areas, 
     including--
       (A) high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;
       (B) sources of public drinking water;
       (C) diversity of plant and animal communities;
       (D) habitat for--
       (i) threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive 
     species, and species proposed for listing, under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
       (ii) species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;
       (E) primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and 
     semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation;
       (F) reference landscapes;
       (G) natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;
       (H) traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
       (I) other locally identified unique characteristics.
       (8) Road maintenance.--The term ``road maintenance'' means 
     ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the 
     road in accordance with approved road management objectives.
       (9) Road realignment.--The term ``road realignment'' means 
     an activity that results in--
       (A) a new location of all or part of an existing road; and
       (B) treatment of the old roadway.
       (10) Road reconstruction.--The term ``road reconstruction'' 
     means an activity that results in improvement or realignment 
     of an existing classified road.
       (11) Temporary road.--The term ``temporary road'' means a 
     road that is--
       (A) authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written 
     authorization, or emergency operation; and
       (B) not intended to be part of the forest transportation 
     system and not necessary for long-term resource management.
       (12) Unclassified road.--The term ``unclassified road'' 
     means a road on National Forest System land that is not 
     managed as part of the forest transportation system, 
     including--
       (A) an unplanned road, abandoned travelway, or off-road 
     vehicle track that has not been designated and managed as a 
     trail; and
       (B) a road that was once under permit or other 
     authorization and was not decommissioned on the termination 
     of the authorization.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD 
                   RECONSTRUCTION IN INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     road construction and road reconstruction may not take place 
     in an inventoried roadless area of the National Forest 
     System.
       (b) Exceptions.--Road construction and road reconstruction 
     may take place, including through the use of appropriated 
     funds, in an inventoried roadless area of the National Forest 
     System if the responsible official determines that--
       (1) a road is needed to protect public health and safety in 
     a case of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other 
     catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause 
     the loss of life or property;
       (2) a road is needed to conduct--
       (A) a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601 et seq.); or
       (B) a natural resource restoration action under--
       (i) that Act;
       (ii) section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1321); or
       (iii) the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et 
     seq.);
       (3) a road is needed pursuant to a reserved or outstanding 
     right, or as provided for by law or treaty;
       (4) a road realignment is needed--
       (A) to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from 
     the design, location, use, or deterioration of a classified 
     road that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance; and
       (B) to provide for essential public or private access, 
     natural resource management, or public health or safety;
       (5) road reconstruction is needed to implement a road 
     safety improvement project on a classified road determined to 
     be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or accident 
     potential with respect to the road;
       (6)(A) a Federal-aid highway project authorized under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is--
       (i) in the public interest; or
       (ii) consistent with the purposes for which the land was 
     reserved or acquired; and
       (B) no other reasonable and prudent alternative to the 
     project exists; or
       (7)(A) a road is needed in conjunction with--
       (i) the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral 
     lease on land that is under lease by the Secretary of the 
     Interior as of January 12, 2001; or
       (ii) the issuance of a new lease issued immediately on the 
     date of expiration of an existing lease described in clause 
     (i);
       (B) road construction or road reconstruction under this 
     paragraph will be conducted in a manner that--

[[Page S1657]]

       (i) minimizes the effects on surface resources;
       (ii) prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface 
     disturbance; and
       (iii) complies with all applicable laws (including 
     regulations), lease requirements, and land and resource 
     management plan directives; and
       (C) a road constructed or reconstructed under this 
     paragraph will be removed on the earlier of--
       (i) the date on which the road is no longer needed for the 
     purposes of the lease; or
       (ii) the date of termination or expiration of the lease.
       (c) Road Maintenance.--A classified road in an inventoried 
     roadless area may be maintained.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON TIMBER CUTTING, SALE, OR REMOVAL IN 
                   INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     timber may not be cut, sold, or removed in an inventoried 
     roadless area of the National Forest System.
       (b) Exceptions.--Timber may be cut, sold, or removed in an 
     inventoried roadless area if the responsible official 
     determines that the cutting, sale, or removal of the timber 
     is expected to be infrequent and--
       (1) the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small 
     diameter timber--
       (A) will improve or maintain 1 or more roadless area 
     characteristics; and
       (B) is needed--
       (i) to improve habitat for threatened, endangered, 
     candidate, or sensitive species, and species proposed for 
     listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1531 et seq.); or
       (ii) to maintain or restore the characteristics of 
     ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the 
     risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range 
     of variability that would be expected to occur under a 
     natural disturbance regime of the current climatic period;
       (2) the cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental 
     to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise 
     prohibited by this Act;
       (3) the cutting, sale, or removal of timber is needed and 
     appropriate for personal or administrative use, in accordance 
     with part 223 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations; or
       (4) roadless characteristics have been substantially 
     altered in a portion of an inventoried roadless area as a 
     result of the construction of a classified road and 
     subsequent timber harvest, if--
       (A) the road construction and subsequent timber harvest 
     occurred after the area was designated an inventoried 
     roadless area and before January 12, 2001; and
       (B) timber is cut, sold, or removed only in the 
     substantially altered portion of the inventoried roadless 
     area.

     SEC. 6. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Effect.--This Act does not--
       (1) revoke, suspend, or modify any permit, contract, or 
     other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use of 
     National Forest System land issued or entered into before 
     January 12, 2001;
       (2) compel the amendment or revision of any land and 
     resource management plan;
       (3) revoke, suspend, or modify any decision concerning any 
     project or activity made before January 12, 2001; or
       (4) apply to road construction, reconstruction, or the 
     cutting, sale, or removal of timber in an inventoried 
     roadless area of the Tongass National Forest if a notice of 
     availability of a draft environmental impact statement for 
     such activity has been published in the Federal Register 
     before January 12, 2001.
       (b) Limitation on Revision.--The prohibitions and 
     restrictions established in this Act are not subject to 
     reconsideration, revision, or rescission in any subsequent 
     project decision or amendment or revision to any land and 
     resource management plan carried out in accordance with 
     section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).

                          ____________________