[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 45 (Monday, April 24, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3422-S3426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOMENICI (by request):
S. 2627. A bill to amend the Act of August 21, 1935, to extend the
authorization for the National Park System Advisory Board, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, at the
request of the Department of the Interior, legislation to extend the
authorization for the National Park System Advisory Board.
For the past 70 years, the National Park System Advisory Board has
provided guidance and recommendations to the Director of the National
Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior regarding management of
America's national parks. The authorization for its existence will
expire on January 1, 2007. The attached legislation will extend the
authorization to 2016 and modify the composition of the board to
include representation from a broader diversity of interests.
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. 2627
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Park System
Advisory Board Reauthorization Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD.
Section 3 of the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 463), is
amended--
(1) by striking ``SEC. 3'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 3. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD.'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``(a) There is hereby established'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established'';
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Board shall
advise'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Purpose.--The Board shall advise'';
(C) in the third sentence, by striking ``Members of the
Board'' and inserting the following:
``(3) Term; appointment.--Members of the Board'';
(D) by striking the fourth through ninth sentences and
inserting the following:
``(4) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The Board shall be comprised of not more
than 12 members, appointed from among citizens of the United
States with a demonstrated commitment to the mission of the
National Park Service, of whom--
``(i) at least 4 members shall have outstanding expertise
in 1 or more of the fields of history, archeology,
anthropology, historical or landscape architecture, biology,
ecology, geology, marine science, or social science;
``(ii) 3 members shall have outstanding expertise and prior
experience in--
``(I) the management of National or State parks or
protected areas; or
``(II) natural or cultural resources management;
``(iii) 3 members shall have outstanding expertise in any
other professional or scientific discipline important to the
mission of the National Park Service, such as financial
management, travel and tourism management, recreational use
management, concessions management, and land use planning or
business management;
``(iv) at least 1 member shall have expertise in, and
appreciation for, the historic recreational opportunities
within units of the National Park System; and
``(v) at least 1 member shall be a locally elected official
from an area adjacent or within close proximity to a unit of
the National Park System.
``(B) Geographic representation.--Board members appointed
under subparagraph (A) shall be selected to represent various
geographic regions, including each of the administrative
regions of the National Park Service.'';
(E) in the tenth sentence, by striking ``The Board shall
hold'' and inserting the following:
``(5) Meetings.--The Board shall hold'';
(F) in the eleventh sentence, by striking ``Any vacancy''
and inserting the following:
``(6) Vacancies.--Any vacancy'';
(G) in the twelfth sentence, by striking ``The Board may
adopt'' and inserting the following:
``(7) Procedures.--The Board may adopt'';
(H) in the thirteenth sentence, by striking ``All members''
and inserting the following:
``(8) Compensation.--
``(A) Travel expenses.--All members'';
(I) in the fourteenth sentence, by striking ``With the
exception of travel and per diem as noted above'' and
inserting the following:
``(B) No additional compensation.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (A)'';
(J) in the fifteenth sentence, by striking ``It shall be
the duty of such board'' and inserting the following:
``(9) Duties.--
``(A) In general.--It shall be the duty of the Board''; and
(K) in the sixteenth sentence, by striking ``Such board
shall also'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Recommendations.--The Board shall''; and
(L) in the seventeenth sentence, by striking ``Such board
is'' and inserting the following:
``(C) Consultation.--The Board is'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' and inserting ``Advisory Board
Staff.--''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(4) in subsection (f), by striking ``2007'' and inserting
``2016''.
SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
The Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), is
amended--
(1) in section 3(c)(1)(D) by striking ``arrangements.'' and
inserting ``arrangements,''; and
(2) in the first undesignated subsection of section 4, by
inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary''.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2630. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
manipulation of caller identification information; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, American consumers and public
safety officials find themselves confronted by yet another fraudulent
scam
[[Page S3423]]
in the digital age. This time the scam is known as caller I.D.
``spoofing.'' Today I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator
Snowe, the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006, to put an end to
fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing.
It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and
new ways to use the Internet to endanger consumers' financial security
and physical safety. For several years now, I have been fighting back,
pushing legislation to combat frauds such as identity theft and the
unauthorized sale of consumer telephone records. Now it is time to
fight caller I.D. spoofing.
What is caller I.D. spoofing? It is a technique that allows a
telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the
recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows someone
to hide behind a misleading phone number to try to scam consumers or
trick law enforcement officials. As the Miami Herald wrote on March 12,
2006, caller I.D. spoofing gives ``debt collectors, telemarketers, and
even scam artists the upper hand in the wearisome game of phone call
`gotcha'.''
Beyond that scenario, let me give you a few shocking examples of how
caller ID spoofing has been exploited in recent months: In one
dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting SWAT team was forced to shut down a
neighborhood in New Brunswick, NJ, after receiving what they believed
was a legitimate distress call. But what really had happened was that
the caller used spoofing to trick law enforcement into thinking the
emergency call was coming from a certain apartment in that
neighborhood. It was all a cruel trick perpetrated with a deceptive
phone number.
In another example, a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives was
the victim of a sophisticated spoofing plot. It appears that fraudsters
placed thousands of spoofed calls to the Member's constituents. In each
case, the fraudster made it look like the phone call was dialed from
the Member's office, and in each case the fraudster bad-mouthed the
Member to the constituent on the other end of the line. The Member
found out about this after his congressional office got angry phone
calls from constituents.
In yet another instance, identity thieves bought stolen credit card
numbers. They then called Western Union, set up caller I.D. to make it
look like the call originated from the card holder's name, and used the
credit card number to order cash transfers, which the identity thieves
then picked up.
While these examples are serious enough, think about what would
happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his victim into
answering the telephone or giving out sensitive personal information.
This could put peoples' lives in danger.
According to experts, there are countless Internet Web sites--going
by names like Tricktel.com or Spooftech.com--that sell their services
to criminals and identity thieves, or even bill collectors and private
investigators. Any person can go to one of these Web sites, pay money
to order a fake phone number, tell the Web site which phone number to
reach, and then place the call through a toll-free line. The recipient
is then tricked when he or she sees the misleading phone number on his
or her caller I.D. system.
In essence, these Web sites provide the high-tech tools that identity
thieves need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone
number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be
representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief
can ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal account
information. Once an identity thief gets hold of this sensitive
personal information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit
card account, health information, and who knows what else.
Even if a consumer doesn't become a victim of stalking or identity
theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers pay money for
their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate
because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and whether
to trust the person on the other end of the line.
If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up my
phone, I expect my wife to be on the other end of the line. Instead, we
have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and disguise
their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of caller I.D.
Unfortunately the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade
Commission have been slow to act. Those agencies have not yet brought
any enforcement actions against caller I.D. spoofers.
In the meantime, many spoofing companies and the fraudsters that use
them believe that their activities are legal. Well, it is time to make
it crystal clear that caller I.D. spoofing is not legal.
How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006 address the
problem of caller I.D. spoofing?
Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and
prohibits anyone from using caller identification services to transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information. This prohibition
covers traditional telephone calls or calls made using Voice-Over-
Internet, VOIP, service.
Senator Snowe and I don't intend to ban all caller I.D. spoofing.
Instead, our bill recognizes that there are legitimate law enforcement
uses for spoofing. And the bill requires the Federal Communications
Commission to create appropriate exceptions for legitimate business
purposes, after hearing public comment on the issue.
Anyone who violates this antispoofing law would be subject to a
penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to 1 year in jail, as set out in
the Communications Act. Additionally, the bill empowers States to help
the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters. The more
law enforcers out there to enforce this law, the better.
I note that Chairman Barton of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee just introduced a similar bipartisan antispoofing bill, which
he expects to pass the House in short order. I invite my colleagues to
join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D.
Act of 2006. We should waste no time in protecting consumers and law
enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2630
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 ``Truth in Caller ID Act of
2006''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING MANIPULATION OF CALLER
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
227) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as
subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Prohibition on Provision of Inaccurate Caller
Identification Information.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
within the United States, in connection with any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to
cause any caller identification service to transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information,
unless such transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph
(3)(B).
``(2) Protection for blocking caller identification
information.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to
prevent or restrict any person from blocking the capability
of any caller identification service to transmit caller
identification information.
``(3) Regulations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the
enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe
regulations to implement this subsection.
``(B) Content of regulations.--
``(i) In general.--The regulations required under
subparagraph (A) shall include such exemptions from the
prohibition under paragraph (1) as the Commission determines
appropriate.
``(ii) Specific exemption for law enforcement agencies or
court orders.--The regulations required under subparagraph
(A) shall exempt from the prohibition under paragraph (1)
transmissions in connection with--
``(I) any authorized activity of a law enforcement agency;
or
``(II) a court order that specifically authorizes the use
of caller identification manipulation.
``(4) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the enactment
of this subsection, the Commission shall report to Congress
whether additional legislation is necessary to prohibit the
provision of inaccurate caller identification information in
technologies that are successor or replacement technologies
to
[[Page S3424]]
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service.
``(5) Penalties.--
``(A) Civil forfeiture.--
``(i) In general.--Any person that is determined by the
Commission, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 503(b), to have violated this subsection shall be
liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. A
forfeiture penalty under this paragraph shall be in addition
to any other penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of
the forfeiture penalty determined under this paragraph shall
not exceed $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount
for each day of a continuing violation, except that the
amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed
a total of $1,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.
``(ii) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined under
clause (i) shall be recoverable pursuant to section 504(a).
``(iii) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be
determined under clause (i) against any person unless such
person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or
section 503(b)(4).
``(iv) 2-year statute of limitations.--No forfeiture
penalty shall be determined or imposed against any person
under clause (i) if the violation charged occurred more than
2 years prior to the date of issuance of the required notice
or notice or apparent liability.
``(B) Criminal fine.--Any person who willfully and
knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction
thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or
3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation,
in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 for such a
violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the
provisions of section 501 relating to imprisonment or the
imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.
``(6) Enforcement by states.--
``(A) In general.--The chief legal officer of a State, or
any other State officer authorized by law to bring actions on
behalf of the residents of a State, may bring a civil action,
as parens patriae, on behalf of the residents of that State
in an appropriate district court of the United States to
enforce this subsection or to impose the civil penalties for
violation of this subsection, whenever the chief legal
officer or other State officer has reason to believe that the
interests of the residents of the State have been or are
being threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this
subsection or a regulation under this subsection.
``(B) Notice.--The chief legal officer or other State
officer shall serve written notice on the Commission of any
civil action under subparagraph (A) prior to initiating such
civil action. The notice shall include a copy of the
complaint to be filed to initiate such civil action, except
that if it is not feasible for the State to provide such
prior notice, the State shall provide such notice immediately
upon instituting such civil action.
``(C) Authority to intervene.--Upon receiving the notice
required by subparagraph (B), the Commission may intervene in
such civil action and upon intervening--
``(i) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action;
and
``(ii) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such
civil action.
``(D) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph
shall prevent the chief legal officer or other State officer
from exercising the powers conferred on that officer by the
laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer
oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of
witnesses or the production of documentary and other
evidence.
``(E) Venue; service or process.--
``(i) Venue.--An action brought under subparagraph (A)
shall be brought in a district court of the United States
that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under
section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.
``(ii) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subparagraph (A)--
``(I) process may be served without regard to the
territorial limits of the district or of the State in which
the action is instituted; and
``(II) a person who participated in an alleged violation
that is being litigated in the civil action may be joined in
the civil action without regard to the residence of the
person.
``(F) Limitation on state action while federal action is
pending.--If the Commission has instituted an enforcement
action or proceeding for violation of this subsection, the
chief legal officer or other State officer of the State in
which the violation occurred may not bring an action under
this section during the pendency of the proceeding against
any person with respect to whom the Commission has instituted
the proceeding.
``(7) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Caller identification information.--The term `caller
identification information' means information provided by a
caller identification service regarding the telephone number
of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call
made using a telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice
service.
``(B) Caller identification service.--The term `caller
identification service' means any service or device designed
to provide the user of the service or device with the
telephone number of, or other information regarding the
origination of, a call made using a telecommunications
service or IP-enabled voice service. Such term includes
automatic number identification services.
``(C) IP-enabled voice service.--The term `IP-enabled voice
service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice
communications offered to the public, or such classes of
users as to be effectively available to the public,
transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP
protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of
a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection
capability such that the service can originate traffic to, or
terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone
network.
``(8) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, subsection (f) shall not apply to this
subsection or to the regulations under this subsection.''
______
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2633. A bill to grant rights-of-way to owners of dams located in
the Bitterroot National Forest in the State of Montana, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bitterroot
National Forest Dam and Reservoir Maintenance Act. The are 17
reservoirs in the Bitterroot National Forest and Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness Area. These reservoirs not only predate the 1964 Wilderness
Act and creation of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, many predate
the designation of the Bitterroot National Forest. The reservoirs
continued use is fundamental to a stable agricultural economy for the
Bitterroot Valley in western Montana. In addition, these reservoirs
provide multiple benefits to the people, economy, and natural
environment of Montana in the form of ground water recharge, flood
control, and increased late summer streamflows that support riparian
and fishery habitat needs. In addition, the reservoirs ensure we
maintain our open spaces by allowing sustainable family ranches and
farms to continue instead of subdivisions.
When the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area was adopted as the first
congressionally designate wilderness area, access roads or trails were
not specifically identified for access to these dams. Clearly the 1964
Wilderness Act does provide for some level of access to these existing
reservoirs for inspection and maintenance. Subsequent wilderness
legislation establishing wilderness areas after 1964 have excluded
``cherry-stem'' roads and trails to dams just like these in the
Bitterroot thus avoiding the problem we have in Montana.
The Secretary of Agriculture, through the USDA-Forest Service, must
provide access to these dams. Currently, the exact level of access is
undefined and debated with each request. For each dam access request
the Forest Service must comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Dam Safety Act, and the
Wilderness Act. To do so the agency must prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement for the proposed access.
This often requires months to complete and is subject to appeal and
litigation by those opposed to motorized access to the dams, and in
some cases those opposed to the use of the existing water rights.
This legislation will clarify that the administration of the
reservoirs and rights of ways should reside with the State of Montana
like all other water rights. The legislation also establishes right of
ways for the reservoirs and access routes to the reservoirs that would
pre-empt the Wilderness Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.
This bill will allow for an efficient means for irrigation companies to
access the reservoirs to complete inspections, and conduct safety and
operation maintenance work in a timely manner.
I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to secure passage
of this important legislation.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2634. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to strike the
term of the positions Under Secretary for Health and the Under
Secretary for Benefits and simplify appointments to such positions; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I wish to introduce a simple, but I
think an important piece of legislation which, if enacted, will affect
just two positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Under
Secretary for Health and the Under Secretary for Benefits. My bill
would abolish the 4-
[[Page S3425]]
year term limit on service in each position and remove the requirement
that a search commission be assembled to identify candidates for either
of the positions if a vacancy in the position occurs.
As some of my colleagues may know, VA has thirteen positions in its
central office for which Presidential nomination and Senate
confirmation are required. There are seven Assistant Secretaries, a
General Counsel, three Under Secretaries, a Deputy Secretary, and, of
course, a full Cabinet level Secretary. Only the Under Secretaries for
Health and Benefits are given statutory terms of office. All of the
other positions, two of which are superior offices and one of which is
a fellow Under Secretary, serve at the pleasure of the President.
In addition, under current law, if a vacancy occurs in either one of
the two offices I have just mentioned, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs must establish a commission made up of various interested
individuals to recommend not less than three persons to the President
for the job. If the President does not care for the list of persons
provided by the commission, the President may request that the
commission recommend additional individuals from which he can choose a
nominee.
I believe the two changes I am proposing are warranted and deserve my
colleagues' support for a number of reasons. First, and most important
to me, is that the Constitution gives the President of the United
States the power to nominate and with advice and consent of the Senate,
appoint Officers of the United States. There is no requirement that any
of the candidates be identified, vetted, or recommended by an extra-
constitutional commission. In fact, recommendation and vetting is the
power granted to the United States Senate through our advice and
consent role.
I find it interesting that the President today can choose a nominee
for Chief Justice of the United States, Attorney General, Secretary of
State, Ambassador to the Court of St. James and other incredibly
important high offices of this government without a statutorily
required search commission. Yet these two Under Secretaries at VA must
go through this vetting process before even being identified to the
President for his consideration of a nomination.
I believe that it is our responsibility as elected representatives of
the people to determine who is suitable for an appointment to a high
office of public trust. The people, rightfully, hold us accountable for
the performance of appointed officials. They do not hold commissions
accountable. Certainly, the President and Senators are free to seek out
the views of any number of interested parties before deciding whom to
nominate or whether to vote to confirm that person. But those outside
consultations should be encouraged and welcomed, not obliged by law.
The second reason I believe my colleagues should support this bill is
that the language of the statute with respect to the commission and the
term limits is at best unclear and at worst confusing.
The law requires the Secretary to establish a commission to identify
potential nominees when ``a vacancy in the position occurs or is
anticipated''. The law also allows the President to reappoint the
current office occupant for like periods. This raises the vexing
question of whether there is an anticipated vacancy, requiring the
appointment of the search commission to identify potential nominees,
just because a term is expiring. If the answer is yes, then I ask if
that answer is different if the President intends to nominate the
current office occupant for an additional term?
Clearly, it seems absurd to me to require a search commission to
identify a suitable candidate for nomination if the President has
already identified the current office occupant as his chosen nominee.
Still, more confusing is what occurs if the President nominates the
current office holder prior to the expiration of his or her term but
then the term expires before the Senate has had the opportunity to act
on the nomination. This scenario is actually not an absurd legal ``what
if'' but an actual current problem.
Just a few weeks ago, the President nominated Daniel Cooper to serve
a 4-year term as Under Secretary for Benefits. Mr. Cooper was already
the Under Secretary at the time of his nomination. Thus, there was no
vacancy in the office and none was anticipated since he was being
offered as his own replacement. So, no search commission is required
under law.
Yet, now Mr. Cooper's term has expired and the Senate has yet to act
on his nomination. So, technically, there is now a vacancy requiring a
search commission to identify a nominee. But, as I have just explained,
the President has already nominated someone. So, with the concurrence
of my ranking member, Senator Akaka, I advised the White House that
there was no need for a search commission. But, the fact that the
conversation had to occur shows the need for a change in this law. Of
course, my preferred course would be to just eliminate the law as I am
now proposing.
Mr. Cooper's nomination has actually brought to light another reason
that I believe we should eliminate the term limits on the positions.
That is that the term adds a huge political element to the process of
attempting to keep on a successful officeholder as in the case of Mr.
Cooper. While not revealing any confidences or singling out individual
Senators, I do not think my colleagues would be surprised to hear that
since being nominated for an additional term Mr. Cooper has been
subject to some political bargaining by Senators who seek to have him
take some actions in his official capacity before they will vote to
keep him on in his job. I understand that happens often around here.
And I don't begrudge it in general. But, I think the opportunities for
such actions should be minimized to the extent possible, especially
when there is no question as to the nominee's qualifications or
successful performance in office. If he or she is doing well, then,
under my bill, the President would presumably retain his or her
services. If not, then he or she should be removed, immediately. Not at
the end of a term.
That brings me to my final reason for this legislation. I simply
believe that senior governmental officials should serve in those
positions only so long as they hold the confidence of the President of
the United States. If the President loses confidence in any of his
senior leadership, he or she should remove those individuals from those
posts.
I understand that there are those who believe that this action would
make the positions inherently political. I offer two thoughts to those
who hold this belief. First, in 1988, when VA was elevated to cabinet
level status through Public Law 100-527, the law required that the
President appoint individuals to these two offices ``without regard to
political affiliation or activity and solely on the basis of integrity
and demonstrated ability.'' I am not proposing to change any of those
requirements. Even if I was proposing such a change, certainly the
Senate could impose such a condition prior to any confirmation.
Second, I firmly believe that some political responsibility also
leads to greater performance by officeholders and accountability to
Congressional oversight. I think you all know that improved performance
and bureaucratic accountability at VA are annual demands of our
Veterans service organizations. I believe this change will move us one
step closer to addressing their concerns.
Mr. President, as I said at the outset of my statement, this is a
simple bill. But, just like the old saying that if you watch the
pennies the dollars will take care of themselves, I believe that if we
make the simple, but necessary improvements to VA's operations and
management structure, the entire system will improve on its own. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill as one step towards overall
improvement.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, and Ms.
Collins):
S. 2635. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Snowe, Collins and Cantwell in introducing the ``Bicycle Commuters
Benefit Act of 2006''.
I know that I am speaking for many people in this country who want to
do something concrete about our Nation's
[[Page S3426]]
dependence on oil and gas. They do not think our national energy policy
is doing enough. They are eager to do things that make them feel like
they can take responsibility for overcoming their dependence on oil and
gas. As gas prices continue to climb this spring and summer, more and
more people are going to be looking for something that they can do to
free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today
gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they
drive to and from work everyday and get on their bicycles instead.
According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people
throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are
freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and
overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise;
avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe.
Yet they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow
employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive
created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that
enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. This
incentive is great for mass transit commuters but it discourages people
from riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters
Benefits Act of 2006 will eliminate this discrimination against bicycle
commuters.
The bill extends the fringe benefit that employers can offer their
employees for commuting by public transit, to those who ride their
bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that
public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly
benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their
bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The
bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of
benefit payment up to a specified cap amount. That way, employers and
their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop
driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus
and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their
bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from
their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the
Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from
$40-$100 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the
costs of riding their bikes.
I think that this is a fair and modest proposal that will reward
employees who ride their bikes to and from their jobs.
Our Senate bill matches HR 807 that was introduced during the first
session of the 109th Congress by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl
Blumenauer. He has 47 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle and
every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the
same incentive that I want to give commuters who take mass transit.
In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national
bicycling organizations such as Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle
Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the
Washington Area Bicyclist Association and hundreds of Capitol Hill
employees who commute by bike to work every day.
When you think about it and you look around our cities, the taxpayers
have paid for millions of dollars of bike trails in all of America's
urban areas and major job markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an
extra incentive to use them to commute to and from their jobs.
One week from today, we will start celebrating May as ``National
Bike-to- Work'' month. I can't think of any better way to commemorate
this special month than by introducing this legislation. I look forward
to working with our colleagues to see this legislation pass.
I ask unanimous consent that 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. 2635
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 ``Bicycle Commuters Benefits
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE
COMMUTERS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general rule for
qualified transportation fringe) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(D) Bicycle commuting allowance.''.
(b) Bicycle Commuting Allowance Defined.--Paragraph (5) of
section 132(f) of such Code (relating to definitions) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Bicycle commuting allowance.--The term `bicycle
commuting allowance' means an amount provided to an employee
for transportation on a bicycle if such transportation is in
connection with travel between the employee's residence and
place of employment.''.
(c) Limitation on Exclusion.--Paragraph (2) of section
132(f) of such Code is amended by striking ``subparagraphs
(A) and (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(D)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
____________________