[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.

                          ____________________