A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and permanently extend the expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small businesses.

Madam President, I rise to speak on a resolution regarding a constitutional amendment I am introducing today. It is the third part of my three-point plan to restore fiscal accountability and common sense to Washington. It is a resolution, in particular, to amend the Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget.

The continued growth in Government, coupled with our enormous deficit, make a balanced budget amendment a vital tool for bringing this fiscal house back in order and restraining the growing appetite of the Federal Government to take more money from the people in taxes, and this is money that is coming from families, working people, from men and women who run their own small businesses; and also when the Federal Government is taking more money, it means they can be meddling in more things that are best left to the people or the States--if Government needs to be involved at all.

The Federal Government ought to be paying attention and be focused on its key reasons for being created in the first place by the people in the States, and that is national defense--making sure the military is strong and that they have the most advanced equipment and armament for our men and women in uniform as they secure our freedom. We need a national missile defense system. Those are the sorts of things that are the primary responsibility of the Federal Government, as well as key research areas, whether it is in nanotechnology, aeronautics, or in other areas working with not just Federal agencies but the private sector and our colleges and universities.

As this Senate gets to work on the fiscal year 2007 budget, our country's fiscal discipline and accountability must be improved. We have a budget deficit not because the Federal Government has a revenue problem; it is because the Federal Government has a spending problem. The Government doesn't tax too little, it spends too much. We must focus our efforts on spending the people's money much smarter, not taking more of their money because it is convenient or expedient.

Now, to control spending, I have revived a pair of ideas that Ronald Reagan advocated when he was President. In Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the American people, he said there were two things he wished he had accomplished as President, and what he wanted future Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, to have. They were the line-item veto and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

As always, and so often, Ronald Reagan was right. That is why I have made the line-item veto and the balanced budget amendment the first two points of my three-point plan to bring fiscal accountability and responsibility to Washington.

Let's start first with the line-item veto. When I was honored by the people of Virginia as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I had the power of the line-item veto. I used it 17 times. I saw how useful a tool that was as Governor to knock out undesirable, nonessential spending, or untoward or undesirable policies. It is a power--the line- item veto--or an authority that actually 46 Governors in the U.S. enjoy. It is a very powerful tool to cut wasteful spending and undesirable programs. In fact, after you use it a few times, you don't have to use it as much, because the legislative branch understands that, gosh, he actually is going to use that power, and when it comes to the final budget or appropriations bills, the undesirable or wasteful programs or spending are not in it.

The President of the United States, in my view, should have the same power I had as Governor of Virginia, and that is the line-item veto. Together with Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, last September we introduced a constitutional amendment to provide the President with line-item veto authority. It is high time for that. The reason we need a constitutional amendment is that there were times when we were trying do it statutorily. I would be in favor of statutory methods, rather than an amendment, but the Supreme Court struck down the last effort. I think the President, as well as the Congress, ought to be accountable for some of these spending items that create such controversy and are absurd or wasteful. By the way, we need to vote on this. If this goes to the States, I have no question that the States will

quickly ratify such a constitutional amendment because, after all, they give their Governors such power.

Secondly, we need a balanced budget amendment. This is something many States have, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and virtually the rest of the States. One of the best ways, in my view, to eliminate the Federal deficit and limit the size and scope of the Government is to wrestle it down with the chains of the Constitution.

I would also add that balancing the budget is not just a matter of making sure that expenditures are equal to revenue; it is about making sure the Federal Government fulfills its proper, focused, constitutional role--and not expanding into everything that is not necessarily a Federal prerogative, but best left to the people or the States. We all know that a big, bloated Federal Government stifles innovation, saps initiative, and reduces personal responsibility.

The third part of my plan is a proposal I offered last week, which I know won't be all that popular in this Chamber, but I think it will be much appreciated and understood by real people in the real world.

I have proposed legislation that provides a powerful incentive for Senators and Congressmen to perform their jobs on time, as people do in the private sector. We have a full-time legislature here and we go into session on January 3. One of our prime responsibilities is to pass appropriations bills before the next fiscal year, which is October 1. But it is, to me, deplorable that full-time legislators cannot get their job done on time by October 1. Then, of course, we end up with continuing resolutions, and several months later, some time after Thanksgiving but before Christmas, all kinds of unknown, unscrutinized spending occurs. It gets passed in the dead of night, thinking nobody will notice what is in all these appropriations bills--and actually a lot of people don't know what is in those appropriations bills.

That is why I want to impose on Congress what I call the ``paycheck penalty.'' The paycheck penalty says to Members of Congress, if you fail to pass all your appropriations measures by the start of the fiscal year, October 1, which is your job, what you are paid to do, your paychecks will be withheld until you complete your job.

Now, taken together, these three measures will eliminate the need to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. The tax reductions enacted in the last 5 years have helped our country get out of recession. It has incented more investment, created many new jobs--in fact, 4.5 million new jobs--in the private sector; thereby, from all this economic growth and prosperity and more people working in businesses, large, medium, and small doing better, tax receipts to the Government have increased. To illustrate the point, from 2004 to 2005, tax receipts to the Federal Government grew at a rate of 14.5 percent, or $274 billion. This growth is more than twice the rate of economic growth. So the economic growth is strong, but the tax revenues are twice as much to the Federal Government. To further this point, the President's budget forecasts that tax revenues will grow an additional 6.1 percent, or $132 billion, from 2005 to 2006.

From the tax cuts of the Reagan administration to the tax cuts we passed in this new century, the fact is that lower taxes stimulate economic growth, stimulate job creation, and stimulate expansion, which in turn increases revenues to the Federal Government. More important, low taxes make this country more competitive for investment and jobs here, rather than people going to invest in places such as China or elsewhere in the world. When people are able to keep more of what they earn, they spend it, save it, invest it, they may expand their business, and they may get more innovative capital equipment, and the fact is lower taxes make this country more competitive and people more prosperous.

The opportunity created by Americans spending the fruits of their own labor, as opposed to the Government, is the path to bringing fiscal sanity to the Federal budget. So to avoid future pressure for counterproductive, harmful tax increases, and to achieve a balanced budget, we must make these dramatic changes in how the Federal Government spends the taxpayers' money: the line-item veto, balanced budget amendment, and the paycheck penalty for Members of Congress who have not done their jobs on time.

As we closed 2005, Madam President, the Federal Government was responsible for a gross Federal debt of $8.2 trillion. One must ask, how did we get here? Consider these statistics from the last 5 years: Federal spending has increased 33 percent. In 2005, the per-household spending by our Government has grown to $21,878 per year. That figure is compared to the per-household tax, on average, of $19,062 per year, leaving an annual per-household deficit of about $2,800. The macro result is an annual budget deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

We are in a time of war, this war on terror, and enormous national disasters have also befallen our country in Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and in Florida, in the past year. That is why I am introducing this resolution. Even when those occur, this amendment does require the Federal Government to achieve a balanced budget within 5 years of ratification by the States. Each year, the budget deficit would be reduced by 20 percent, until the Federal budget is balanced. This is a phased-in approach, which is realistic and provides needed time for Congress to amend the budget and appropriations processes to provide for a balanced budget. I fully understand that national and global events can significantly affect our country's budgetary needs. Thus, I have included a provision that allows for a waiver in the event of war. However, to ensure deficits resulting from a war do not continue in perpetuity, the provision provides for a 5-year window following the end of the conflict to reduce any deficits that may have accumulated.

Domestic catastrophes can also wreak havoc on the Federal Government's budget, as well as those of the States in Louisiana, Mississippi and, to some extent Florida, which we have recently seen devastated by hurricanes. To address such circumstances, the resolution also includes a provision that would allow expenditures in excess of revenues, provided three-fifths of each House of Congress approves, which I think Congress would have done in these situations if this were in effect last year and presently.

Now the risks of budget deficits and national debt are well known: the collapse of the dollar, a significant reduction in national savings, and the inability to fund programs vital to the Nation's security and well-being. It also means if you are putting in more and more tax revenues to finance the debt, there is less money there for key areas such as national defense, homeland security, education, research in science, and also engineering. So to prevent these events, we need an institutional mechanism to get this overspending under control.

Based on past performance, it will take, of course, a change in the Constitution. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we need to bind the Congress with a change in the Constitution to prevent present Congresses from burdening future generations with perpetual debt.

I believe all of us, if we look at it seriously and responsibly, recognize and grasp the seriousness of this problem. I am hopeful that this Senate will be able to make the difficult choices to make sure that the next generation of Americans is not burdened with overwhelming debt or higher taxes from a burdensome, large Federal Government. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I sincerely believe from my experiences as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, will be a very valuable, useful, and effective tool in making that goal a reality. The same applies to the line-item veto authority for the President. I also believe very strongly that this Senate and the other body, the House, can get the appropriations bills done on time by October 1. If not, I think paychecks ought to be withheld until it is done.

So I hope that my colleagues recognize the seriousness, the importance, and the urgency of these responsible measures, these ideas. These measures include getting our fiscal house in order, protecting the taxpayers from tax increases in the future, and making sure this country is the world capital of innovation. These measures include investment by the private sector, more competitiveness compared to other

countries because of lower taxes, Federal regulatory policies, sound energy policy with more development and exploration here at home, as well as using clean coal and advanced nuclear and biofuels and new technologies. We also must make sure our fiscal house is in order for Americans to compete and succeed in the future.

I urge my colleagues to consider this resolution and join me in this effort for America's future.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kennedy in introducing a bill, the Responsible Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, that will correct a grievous mistake made by some of my Republican colleagues. Our legislation will take responsible steps to protect the American people from one of the greatest threats facing our nation--a pandemic flu, bioterror attack or infectious disease outbreak.

Congress should have no higher priority than protecting the safety, security, and health of the American people. Public health experts have warned that a severe avian flu epidemic could lead to worldwide panic, cost millions of lives, and result in untold economic damage.

In order to prevent these dire projections from becoming a reality, we have no choice but to be prepared for such an event. One of the indispensable components of a biodefense plan is the availability of safe and effective vaccines and medicines. To achieve this goal, a biodefense plan must have two critical components. First, it must encourage drug companies to develop and manufacture effective medicines to counteract a disease or flu. Second, it must encourage first responders, health care workers, and ordinary citizens to take those medicines before, during, or after an attack or outbreak.

In December of last year, some of my Republican colleagues inserted language that contained neither of these critical components into the Department of Defense Appropriations conference report. This was done at the last minute, in the middle of the night, without the opportunity for discussion and debate, and without the knowledge or consent of many of the conferees.

Unfortunately, this Republican plan will do nothing to protect the American people. Rather than encouraging companies to make safe and effective medicines, it will provide a perverse incentive by protecting those companies that make ineffective or harmful products. And rather than encouraging Americans to be vaccinated or take a needed medication, it will discourage them from doing so by failing to provide guaranteed care for the few who will inevitably be injured by these products. Make no mistake about it; this plan will fail to protect our Nation.

I say this with confidence because we have been down this path before. Three years ago, the Bush administration launched a program to inoculate millions of first responders against smallpox. Ignoring public health experts, the administration failed to establish a compensation program to provide help to those injured by the vaccine. Doctors, nurses, firefighters and other first responders who would be on the front lines in the event of a smallpox attack by terrorists were not willing to roll the dice and risk the future of their families without compensation for their losses if they were injured, disabled, or even killed by its side effects. Most refused to participate, and the program was a failure.

On November 9 of last year, while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was asked about the expected success of a biodefense plan that does not include fair compensation to people injured by the very medicines they thought would help them. She responded: ``Well, I certainly feel that from the standpoint of the smallpox vaccination program, that the absence of a compensation program that was acceptable to the people we were hoping to vaccinate was a major barrier--and I think we've learned some lessons from that.''

On November 20 of last year, while appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt said that along with limits on liability, ``adequate compensation . . . needs to be made for those who are hurt.''

Many groups representing the public health community and first responders, including the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, have been outspoken about the need for a compensation program.

Yet despite our past experience, despite the position taken by those at high levels in the administration, and despite the warnings of those who would be on the front lines in the event of an outbreak, the Republican leadership in Congress included language in

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

Those who inserted this provision into the Conference Report during late night backroom negotiations claim that it includes compensation. But make no mistake--there is no guaranteed compensation in this bill. There is a provision to set up a compensation fund, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this fund will ever see a penny. The authors of this provision are claiming to take care of the injured, without providing any guarantee that it will ever happen. They are making an empty promise.

Not only will this plan fail to compensate those first responders and ordinary citizens injured or even killed by a vaccine, but it will also protect manufacturers even when they act with disregard for the safety of their products. This is an incredibly dangerous and inappropriate incentive. We should be encouraging manufacturers to make safe products, not protecting them when they make products that harm the American people.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not against the idea of providing limited liability protection for manufacturers in order to encourage the development of vaccines and medicines to protect the American people in the event of an outbreak or bioterror attack. But such liability protection must adhere to certain principles. First, it must not protect manufacturers that act with careless disregard for the safety and effectiveness of their product. And second, because even the safest vaccine will harm a small percentage of the people who take it, liability protection must be coupled with an adequate compensation program so that injured patients are properly cared for and not left destitute.

The legislation that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today adheres to these principles. It repeals the Republican provision passed in December, and replaces it with tried-and-true solutions that will encourage the production of vaccines and drugs without leaving patients to fend for themselves if they are injured. Our legislation will ensure that the reputable and responsible manufacturers of needed medicines-- and the doctors, nurses, and hospitals who administer them in good faith--will be protected from frivolous lawsuits that might deter them from making and administering such medicines. But those injured by these medicines will be justly compensated for their injuries.

Congress has adopted this type of solution in the past. The compensation program established by our bill is modeled on one of those past successes--the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP has successfully incentivized the manufacturers of recommended childhood vaccines, encouraged families to have their children vaccinated, and compensated those who are injured.

Senator Kennedy and I spent several months last year negotiating with Senator Enzi, Senator Burr, Senator Gregg, Senator Frist, and others on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to try to reach a bipartisan compromise on this issue. We made several proposals, modeled on past Congressional action, to protect manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits while providing fair and adequate compensation to those who are injured.

Unfortunately, the decision was made to forego this bipartisan process. Instead, a non-germane provision was inserted into a massive appropriations bill in the final hours of last session of Congress. Furthermore, it is my understanding that this language was inserted after members had signed the Conference Report, some doing so with the understanding that this language was not included. I am disturbed and disappointed by this blatant abuse of power and disregard for Senate procedures. I can only assume that the supporters of this provision used this tactic because they knew that their plan would not stand up to public scrutiny and Senate debate.

I am confident that if the Senate were to consider this issue carefully, we would choose to reject the failed policies of the past, and enact a policy that really protects the American people--a biodefense program that encourages manufacturers to make safe and effective vaccines and medicines, and provides compensation to those individuals who are injured by those vaccines and medicines.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006, a bill that will bring our water resources policy into the 21st century. I am pleased to be joined in this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the Army

Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued commitment to this issue.

While the bill I introduce today builds on previous bills we have introduced, it also reflects a recognition that we must respond to the tragic events of the recent past and make thoughtful and needed adjustments to all aspects of water resources planning. The entire process, starting with the principles upon which the plans are developed all the way to discussions of where we invest limited Federal resources, requires attention and revision. Congress cannot afford to authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and passed the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national priority.

As we all know, our nation is staring down deficits that just a few years ago were unimaginable. Our current financial situation demands pragmatic approaches and creative collaborations to save taxpayer dollars. The bill I introduce today provides a unique opportunity to endorse such approaches and such collaborations.

The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 represents a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed or low priority Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has the backing of a strong, creative coalition.

Several years have passed since I tried to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to require independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. Much has changed since the 2000 debate, and yet too much remains the same. We now have more studies from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, and others--even the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--to point to in support of our efforts. We have also had a disaster of historic proportion. Hurricane Katrina highlighted problems that we would be irresponsible to ignore.

The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 can be broadly divided into five parts: focusing our resources, identifying vulnerabilities, updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning guidelines, guaranteeing sound projects and responsible spending, and valuing our natural resources.

Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal register for the public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill, comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency in decision making both needed and reasonable improvements to the status quo.

Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources Council to identify and report to Congress on the Nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements to the Nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such action, the legislation specifies that the administration will submit a response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage reduction programs, languish like others before it.

The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the corps' principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the corps' planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars.

Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should move forward.

To ensure that corps' water resources projects are sound, the bill requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over $25 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected State, those which the head of a Federal agency has determined may lead to a significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review should not increase the length of time required for project planning but would protect the public both those in the vicinity of massive projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects.

We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help to buffer communities from storms and filter contaminants out of our water. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 requires that corps' water resources projects meet the same mitigation standard as required by everyone else under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted stronger mitigation standards, the corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the corps has not completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in corps' projects, and that the public is able to track the progress of mitigation projects.

Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress ensuring that the corps sought ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for actual reform is stronger than ever.

My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy without wasting taxpayer dollars.

I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future corps' projects produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the corps the tools it needs to a better job and focuses the attention of Congress

on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the environment deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am privileged to rise with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to introduce a bill today entitled the Reliable and Affordable Natural Gas Energy Reform Act of 2006

In September of 2005, at the time the Senate was examining a number of energy proposals under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Domenici, I introduced a bill at that time quite similar to this one, although it included oil. This measure sticks to gas, and gas only, to enable the several States across our Nation to take such steps under State law, in combination with the Governors and the respective legislatures of the several States that desire to explore and the desire to drill for energy off their shores. That bill as yet is still on the docket.

Since that time I have had the great pleasure of joining my colleague from Arkansas to put this bill in. I am delighted that he indicated he would like to step forward and take the lead. I readily accede to that request.

So much of the concern about drilling offshore is understandably in-- and I am not here to criticize--the environmental community. I think my colleague from Arkansas can help me eventually convince the environmental community that the time has come for offshore drilling.

Two things have occurred in the interim between the 1988 moratorium, namely advancement in technology so we can safely, by engineering, put the wells in; and the second is the ever-tightening noose around the citizens of the United States of America with regard to their energy sources. The third thing that is occurring is the growing competition for energy worldwide--India coming on with enormous consumption requirements, and China with even larger consumption requirements.

I think the time has come that the Congress begin to reexamine its old policies with regard to those lands offshore of our several States.

At this time, I yield the floor to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment on that point?

Mr. President, we earlier distributed material which referred to oil which was in an earlier draft. I have been in contact with the environmental community, and so forth. It is clear to me at this point in time that we have in this bill just gas. My fervent hope and belief is that the environmental community will see the advancements in technology and the tremendous requirements of this country for natural gas, that we can restrict it to gas.

At a later time, if we are successful in proving that the natural gas can be drawn and is safe, which I am confident we can do, maybe due to world circumstances and domestic circumstances we could go back at that time and revisit the issue of oil.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, our committee, under the leadership of Senator Domenici, is putting forward a proposal. I spoke with him today. This bill does not, in my judgment--and I hope he concurs eventually--conflict in any way with the objectives he is trying to achieve. He is a man who thinks forwardly and is so knowledgeable on the question of energy, the domestic situation here and the worldwide implication, and I think eventually he will be looking at something, and this may be a vehicle on which the Energy Committee will focus as they take the next step and begin to recognize the need to have some offshore drilling.

I thank my colleague on the Energy Committee.

I conclude my remarks by saying I am proud of the State of Virginia and its legislature. In the last session of the Virginia State legislature in the year 2005, both houses passed legislation authorizing precisely what we have here. In other words, let us go out and take a look at the shelf, find out what may or may not be off the coast of Virginia, and determine the accessibility and the feasibility and interest among industry to come and participate in the drilling.

But, unfortunately our former Governor--and I get along very well with Governor Warner--for reasons which he expressed, felt at this time the legislation shouldn't go forward in this session of the Virginia General Assembly. Again, the Senate stepped forward and passed legislation along the lines of what the General Assembly of Virginia did last year. It is my hope the House will do likewise, and that our new Governor, Governor Kaine, will take it under consideration, should both houses act--and hopefully they will act upon it favorably. Virginia is in a key location, and its citizens could benefit enormously if in fact earlier analysis of the shelf off of our State is confirmed as possessing resources of energy, namely natural gas.

I thank my colleague from Arkansas. He is a marvelous working partner. I look forward to working with him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feingold in introducing the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006. This legislation is designed to take a post-Katrina approach to Army Corps of Engineers projects. It would provide for a more effective system for selecting and funding Army Corps projects that help to protect our citizens against damage caused by floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Last August this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Some six months later, the Gulf Coast region is still largely in the early stages of attempting to rebuild and recover and there is a long road ahead. As our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort, we must be vigilant in our oversight obligations and take appropriate actions based on the many lessons learned from this tragedy.

One area that most would agree deserves needed attention concerns the Army Corps system. Funding is distributed in a manner that is not always awarded the most urgent projects. Because of this, citizens can end up paying for unnecessary and irresponsible Army Corps projects with their tax dollars and their safety. It is time for us to take a new approach to how the Army Corps does business. With lessons learned from Katrina, we can and must shepherd in a new era within the Army Corps that prioritizes critical projects and allows the American taxpayers to know that their money is being spent in an effective and efficient manner.

The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act is the only Corps related measure that has been introduced in the Senate since Katrina tragically struck that truly takes a lessons-learned approach. Any measure acted upon by this Congress regarding the Corps simply must account for the most up to date information available. We owe it to the American public.

Historically, Congress has considered water projects costing many billions of taxpayer dollars as essential expenditures--regardless of the environmental costs or public benefits. That is why the modernization procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more critical and cost-effective expenditures for Corps water projects that will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is now.

The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be fixed. The reforms in our bill are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build on and improve upon the legislation we have previously introduced. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator Feingold and I have shared for years but never before has there been such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward on these overdue reforms.

Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today provide for a process to modify and modernize the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider economic, public, and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and a clear national prioritization of Corps projects would ensure that the most beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and monitored.

With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense,

Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has broad interest and impact.

Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to our Nation's citizens--the hardworking American taxpayers--serve the common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.