Automated Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Reauthorization Act

Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the resolution for providing me with a few minutes to discuss my introduction today of the Sustainable Solvency for Social Security Act. In introducing this legislation, I am under no illusion that there will be a rush to enactment, but do believe this is an appropriate time to draw attention to this issue and the broader issue of entitlement spending as we consider the budget resolution for fiscal year 2007.

Yesterday, we had a close vote on an amendment to reinstitute pay-as- you-go rules for spending increases and tax reductions. I opposed that amendment because a vote for it was, in essence, a vote for automatic tax increases on the American taxpayer. A more honest approach would have been to ask the Senate to adopt an amendment that required 60 votes to pass any legislation that would prevent the expiration of any tax provision that would, if allowed to expire, result in a tax increase on individual taxpayers.

I mention this because I do believe that we need fiscal discipline. We do need to collect higher revenues, but collecting higher revenues does not mean that you need to impose higher tax rates on capital or labor. Even if the sponsors of pay-go had prevailed, the real issue would be--once again--ignored.

The loaded gun held to the heads of American taxpayers is entitlement benefits that have been promised, but cannot be paid for under any realistic scenario. Economic growth can help solve or mitigate many fiscal challenges, but it cannot overcome the twin realities of demographic destiny or benefit structures that are simply unsustainable.

Today, four items--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest-- consume just under 10 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. If we do nothing we will see expenditures for the three programs increase to almost 20 percent of GDP. That is simply unsustainable.

Over the past year, I spent a great deal of time talking to members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration, about ways to begin addressing this looming crisis. 'started with Social Security. Some asked, ``Why start with the smallest problem?'' The answer was simple. If we can't come together on a problem that can be fixed by aligning benefits with program income, how can we ever expect to come together on more difficult issues like Medicare reform.

In the case of Social Security, we can quibble about exactly when, but at some point between 2042 and 2052, the program will be unable to pay benefits called for under current law and benefits will be reduced automatically to match program income with program outlays.

As I said, I have no illusion that the legislation I am introducing today will be enacted this year, but I offer it for my colleagues' examination and suggestions.

This legislation does not include personal accounts of any shape or form. It focuses exclusively on the goal of making Social Security solvent. And it does so without any increases in taxes or increases in the payroll cap.

Presently, the Social Security system faces an actuarial deficit of 1.92 percent of payroll. According to the Chief Actuary at Social Security, 1.60 percent of this deficit is related to the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program--what we traditionally think of as Social Security. The remaining 0.32 percent is attributable to the disability insurance program. As I discussed this issue with many of my colleagues and with others, it was clear that there was a broad consensus that the disabled should be held harmless. It was also clear that there was little or no support for the proposition that retirement program beneficiaries should subsidize the disability program. Therefore, this legislation does not touch the present disability program and leaves open the question of how to address the disability program deficit. Additionally, there was broad agreement that current retirees and those nearing retirement, born before 1950, should not have their benefits affected.

This legislation focuses solely on the 1.60 percent actuarial deficit in the OASI program. It achieves sustainable solvency for Social Security's OASI program through two primary policy tools: progressive price indexing and longevity indexing. Those reforms would slow the projected real rate of increase in future retirement benefits to a more sustainable level, while protecting low-wage-earners, the disabled, and their dependents. It also modestly accelerates the timetable for the transition under current law to a normal retirement age of 67, and it ensures sufficient backup general revenue funding to maintain a contingency reserve in the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund.

My proposal for sustainable solvency has been scored by the office of the actuary at the Social Security Administration. The effects of its provisions affecting retirement benefits, progressive indexing, accelerated NRA 67, and longevity indexing, would eliminate entirely the OASI program actuarial deficit of 1.60 percent of payroll that is projected under current law.

Progressive indexing would not begin until 2012. First, it is important to note the beneficiaries, and Social Security programs to which progressive indexing would NOT apply. It would not apply to any current or future retiree born before 1950. Its provisions also would not apply to any worker in the future whose Social Security earnings history was in the lowest 30 percent of career earnings for workers becoming eligible to retire in a given year.

Progressive indexing essentially slows the future growth rate of benefits for higher-earning workers. Their initial retirement benefits will grow more In line with price growth, rather than the even-higher rate of increase pegged to wage growth under current law.

Under current law, retirement benefits are calculated under a ``wage indexing'' formula that will help propel them to levels significantly higher than the payroll tax revenue available to pay for them. The formula uses the average rate of growth of wages within the economy, rather than changes in the cost of living, to adjust, or ``index'', the past earnings of a worker that are used to determine the worker's initial benefit level at retirement. Because average wages generally grow faster than prices over time, the current benefit formula essentially guarantees that future retirement benefit levels will grow faster in ``real'' dollar value from generation to generation. Under this proposal, the individuals in the lowest 30 percent of all wage earners retiring in a given year would continue to have their past wages, and resulting benefit levels, indexed according to wage growth, while those at the top of the wage distribution would have their past wages indexed for changes in prices. Those falling in between would have their past wages indexed based upon a ``progressive blend'' of wage and price changes. In short, future benefit levels for workers who earned higher wages over their working career would not rise as much as benefit levels for workers with lower lifetime earnings, but those workers most dependent on social security for retirement income would be protected from such changes.

This blended version of progressive price indexing targets the sustainable levels of revenue that will be available for future Social Security benefits under current law in a manner that ensures that those retirees that will be most in need are treated the most generously. It builds on the underlying progressive structure of the current benefits formula that replaces lower levels of career earning with a relatively higher share of retirement benefits. The real purchasing power of future OASI benefits will continue to

grow, but not as much, in future decades for higher wage workers.

Longevity indexing recognizes that future retirees will live longer and, accordingly, receive inflation protected levels of their initial retirement benefits for longer periods of time than prior retirees. Absent any adjustment for changes in life expectancy beyond the age of retirement, longer lifetimes in retirement would mean increasingly greater dollar amounts of lifetime Social Security retirement benefits in future decades.

Under present law, the retirement age is scheduled to increase incrementally to age 67 beginning in 2022, the normal retirement age gradually increases for workers born in 1960 and later years, by two months each year starting in 2022 until it reaches age 67 in 2027. Under this proposal, the move from age 66 to age 67 would begin in 2012. The Normal Retirement Age or NRA would be increased by two months each year until the NRA reached age 67 in 2017. After that date, initial monthly benefits for future retirees would be periodically adjusted by the Social Security Administration to account for changes in the expected average lifetimes of future retirees.

Because it does not change current-law benefits for disabled beneficiaries, my bill does not address the remaining actuarial deficit for the DI program under current law, which amounts to another .32 percent of payroll. Accordingly, it does not close the larger overall actuarial deficit for the combined OASDI programs. The latter is 1.92 percent of payroll under current law, and would be substantially reduced to only .28 percent of payroll under my bill.

My plan's provisions that reduce OASDI benefit obligations first begin to operate in 2012, and they then improve annual unified budget balances for that year and all subsequent years within the standard 75- year projection period used by the Social Security Administration.

Several other measures demonstrate the improved solvency for the overall OASDI programs under my bill. The net cash flow from the OASDI Trust Funds to the general fund is improved by $3.6 trillion in present value. The OASDI Trust Fund exhaustion date would be extended from 2041 until 2056.

Until we can find further support for dealing with the remaining solvency problems in the DI program, we should at least ensure that sufficient resources are committed to prevent sudden across-the-board reductions in OASDI benefit levels in later decades. Therefore, my bill provides budget authority for general fund transfers as needed to maintain a 100 percent OASDI trust fund ratio in later years. Those general fund transfers are estimated by the SSA actuaries to amount to $0.6 trillion, in present value, over the next 75 years. This provision ensures solvency for the combined OASDI program through that period. After 2080, additional general revenue transfers are not expected to be necessary, and annual program cash-flow balances are projected to be improving and approaching positive annual balances beyond that year.

I also think it is important to point out that this legislation recognizes that changes in economic conditions have an impact on the actuarial balance of the program. Greater economic growth can improve but not alone restore the program's solvency; recessions can significantly worsen that financial position. Some expressed concern early in discussions on this legislation that we might be going too far, that some of the changes might prove unnecessary. For that reason I have included a provision that will allow for the administrative ``turning off' if you will of the progressive indexing or longevity indexing if the program comes into actuarial balance prior to those provisions being fully phased in.

In conclusion, this legislation would substantially reduce the mountain of unfunded debt projected for the Social Security program in the decades ahead. It does so in a manner that gradually and sensibly reduces the formula-driven increases in real retirement benefits under current law for future retirees, while protecting low-wage workers and the disabled. We could do more, but this bill would do a lot. At other times, I have proposed separate provisions to enhance overall retirement security, such as through the option of personal accounts funded partly from current payroll taxes and partly from additional personal saving. I have also proposed reforms in pension policy to encourage automatic enrollment in employer plans, provide better access to standard investment options, and stimulate increased saving by workers. But I have left those issues for another debate and focused on the solvency of the retirement program.

I offer this legislation as a starting point. I remain, as I have been over the past year, open to suggestions or modifications that can lead to bipartisan reform that will insure the permanent solvency of the Social Security system. We cannot afford to ignore this issue any longer. Burying our heads in the sand will only magnify the folly of inaction.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on March 1, 2006 Evert Meiners of Billings, MT pled guilty to distributing child pornography over the Internet. A search of his computer by the FBI turned up more than 12,000 images of child pornography.

Mr. Meiners had the child pornography images on his website, which he operated from his home in Billings. But authorities across the world were able to access the pictures. Law enforcement in New York, Illinois, Maryland, and even Germany, reported that Mr. Meiners distributed and solicited pornographic images in their jurisdictions.

The Internet has proved to be a powerful tool for both good and evil. Criminals operating from around the world can now prey on children in our own backyards. We used to worry what could happen to our kids on their way home from school. Now parents have to worry about their kids even in the safety of their own homes.

Since 1995 the FBI has tracked down over 11,000 unique web addresses that solicit and market child pornography.

The danger posed by these graphic web sites to our children demands action. That is why I will introduce the ``Cyber Safety for Kids Act'' today. As a general matter the legislation seeks to create a zone for all sexually explicit material that parents can easily block their children from visiting.

Specifically, the bill would do the following: First, the Cyber Safety for Kids Act would require the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to designate a top level domain name for web sites with sexually explicit materials harmful to minors. The domain name would be titled dot XXX, rather than dot Com.

Next, within six months of the launch of the .XXX domain name, all web sites that contain sexually explicit materials harmful to minors would be required to adopt the dot XXX domain name.

Finally, if a web site that contains sexually explicit material harmful to minors fails to use the dot XXX domain name, the web operator would be subject to civil penalties set by the Department of Commerce.

I know that some people believe that my legislation goes too far. Others believe that it does not go far enough. For example, some argue that all pornography over the Internet should be banned. That would certainly be effective, but would unquestionably be overturned by the Supreme Court. On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court has struck down laws that prohibit the broadcast of pornographic images.

On the other hand, I have heard from some that believe my legislation is too restrictive. I am a strong defender of the Constitution's protection of speech. But we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem of children viewing harmful material over the Internet will go away.

We must do what we can do to help parents protect their kids. My legislation aims to follow the successful efforts by States and localities to zone adult book and movie theaters in one part of a city or town.

In Renton v. Playtime Theaters the Supreme Court specifically upheld a city zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school.

Likewise, my legislation creates a zone for all sexually explicit material that is harmful to minors on the Internet. Parents could easily install filters on their computer to keep their kids from visiting the dot XXX neighborhood.

There is no silver bullet that will stop sick adults from trafficking and

soliciting child pornography. But my legislation offers an important first step.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward. I am also appreciative of Senator Pryor's leadership on this issue in the Commerce Committee. I am glad to say that Senator Pryor has agreed to be the lead co-sponsor of my legislation.

I urge Congress to support my legislation, and have it on the President's desk as soon as possible. American parents have asked for our help, it's our duty to act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make America more competitive by increasing savings. The bill encourages savings at work, and requires that the Government consider the Nation's savings in the budget process.

That great American philosopher Yogi Berra once said: ``If you see a fork in the road, take it.''

Well, we are at that fork in the road. Private savings are at an all time low. And the government just spoons out more and more red ink. If America does not change its ways, we will find ourselves on the wrong fork.

For the past 10 months, I have been talking about competitiveness. I have been talking about the steps that we must take to keep this country strong. And I have been talking about the steps that we must take to make it stronger.

One key component of my competitiveness agenda is savings. We must improve our national savings rate because capital is critical to growth. And continued deficits lead ultimately to a downward spiral.

The 2005 personal savings rate was negative--minus 0.5 percent. Taxpayers have joined their government in engaging in deficit spending. We have to turn our savings rates around. The question is how to do it.

With regard to Federal Government budget deficits, we have talked a lot over the last few days about the need for a pay-as-you-go process. We all know that it is important. The only question is whether we are willing to take the tough steps that pay-go requires, and not leave the burden to our children and grandchildren.

Pay-go does not necessarily mean tax increases. It could mean collecting the taxes that are already owed. The most recent IRS estimate of the tax gap--the difference between what taxpayers owe and what they pay on time--is $350 billion each year.

Collecting that difference would pay for a lot of the Government. Several times, the Senate has passed legislation that would close corporate loopholes and other abuses that contribute to the tax gap. Instead of looking for additional taxes, we should work with our Colleagues in the House to enact proposals like these that will simply get taxpayers to pay what they already owe.

Today, I want to focus on the lack of personal savings for retirement. We all know it is inadequate. And we must address this problem if American workers are to be able to retire with confidence that they can maintain their living standards.

The ``Savings Competitiveness Act,'' which I introduce today, will make it easier for millions of workers to save for retirement. It will create an automatic opportunity for workers to have savings withheld from their paychecks.

We cannot improve the personal savings rate by providing tax incentives that simply shift savings from one type of account to another, or from one investment to another. We can improve the personal savings rate only by creating new savings, especially savings by workers who would otherwise not save. I believe that this bill will do just that.

Data on retirement savings show that workers who can save at work through payroll deduction arrangements--such as 401(k) plans--usually take advantage of the opportunity to save. About two-thirds of eligible workers contribute to a 401(k) plan. That percentage jumps dramatically--to more than 80 percent--if eligible workers are automatically enrolled in these plans. Automatic enrollment makes saving the default. Workers can opt out. But those who do not opt out, start saving.

In November, we passed the pension bill by an overwhelming margin-- 97-to-2. That bill included provisions to encourage opt-out 401(k) and 403(b) plans, instead of opt-in plans. This is a very important first step. Separate bills introduced by Senators Bingaman and Snowe, and Senators Conrad and Smith were the basis for the Senate provisions. And I applaud their efforts to move these ideas along. Since the House also included automatic enrollment language in its bill, I expect that the final conference bill will take this dramatic step toward increasing savings.

That, however, is just a first step. Automatic enrollment in 401(k) and 403(b) plans will help only those who are eligible to join an employer-sponsored plan. That is about 60 percent of working Americans. Unfortunately, that leaves 40 percent of workers out in the cold. For small employers, the situation is worse. More than half of workers with small employers--those with fewer than 25 employees--have no employer- sponsored retirement plan. And for firms with fewer than 10 employees, only 16 percent of workers participate in an employer-sponsored plan.

Those who have no employer-sponsored retirement program are far less likely to save for retirement than those who do; 85 percent of workers eligible for an employer-sponsored plan are actually earning benefits in those plans. But less than 20 percent of eligible taxpayers contribute to an IRA.

Many more own IRAs--because funds from employer plans have been rolled over to an IRA. But the truth is, most retirement savings came from employer-based retirement plans.

The high participation rates in employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, and the

low rates for IRAs, leads to a clear conclusion. We can increase retirement savings--create new savings--by making payroll deduction retirement savings available to more workers.

This is not a new idea. President Clinton's USA accounts were one attempt to bring retirement savings to all working Americans. Senator Bingaman first proposed universal access to retirement savings in his Secure Retirement for America Act in the 107th Congress. But it is time that we stopped talking. It is time that we started doing something to change the direction of the personal savings rate.

Access to payroll savings is important, but it is not enough. The Savings Competitiveness Act that I introduce today will expand savings opportunities and more.

This bill helps workers by providing an opportunity to save for retirement through payroll deduction at work. Employers are not required to contribute. Employers just withhold contributions and forward them to an IRA. We provide a modest credit to help small employers with the start-up costs.

This bill helps children by allowing Young Saver's Accounts to be used for kid's savings.

This bill helps small employers who want to contribute toward employees' retirement savings get started with a 3-year start-up credit for 50 percent of contributions to workers who are not highly compensated. And small employers who use ``SIMPLE'' plans can share the profits in a good year by making discretionary contributions to employees' SIMPLE IRAs.

This bill helps lower-income taxpayers by replacing the current Saver's Credit with a refundable credit, deposited to the taxpayer's retirement savings account. Families earning up to $50,000 would be eligible for a 50 percent credit. Those earning up to $60,000 would be entitled to a portion of the credit. Low-income savers would not be penalized by losing eligibility for food stamps and other benefits.

This bill helps retirees with modest savings by exempting $50,000 of their savings from minimum distribution requirements.

This bill removes traps for the unwary by simplifying distribution rules. It would conform 401(k) and IRA penalties so that workers who do not have advisers to lead them through a series of hoops do not get hit with excise taxes that those with a guide can avoid.

This bill takes some of the guesswork out of choosing an IRA. It would create a seal of approval for IRAs that have investment options similar to those in the Thrift Savings Plan and modest fees.

The Senate's automatic enrollment provisions are not law yet. So I have also included them in this new legislation.

I encourage my Colleagues to join with me to provide workplace savings opportunities for working Americans that now have none and to stop the unlimited growth of the deficit by adopting a pay-as-you-go requirement. I ask you to support the Savings Competitiveness Act.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce a bill to regulate electronic surveillance programs designed to gather intelligence for national security purposes.

On Friday, December 16, 2005, the New York Times reported that in late 2001, President Bush signed a highly classified directive that authorized the National Security Agency to intercept communications between people inside the United States and terrorism suspects overseas. And so the debate began. Did the President have the authority to authorize this program? Did it violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--or FISA? Had Congress independently granted the President this authority? Did he have these inherent powers under the Constitution? Lawyers and laymen throughout our country have debated the issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee initiated two hearings on the legality of the NSA program and, pursuant to our oversight function, brought in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and seven leading scholars and experts to testify. After questioning General Gonzales for some 7 hours, and the panel of scholars for hours more, we were still left troubled by two competing concerns.

On the one hand, we are a Nation at war. On September 11 we suffered the worst attack on civilians in our country's history by an enemy like none we had faced before. The more we learn about this enemy, the more we learn about a cruel and brutal opponent who will stop at nothing to terrorize and harm our country. This is an enemy that knows no honor. It seeks to inflict ever-escalating violence on defenseless civilians. This is an enemy that knows no mercy. It beheads innocent aid workers and journalists and proudly broadcasts these murders for the world to see. This is an enemy that knows no bounds of decency. It recruits women and children to strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves up, knowing that American soldiers are likely to come close to help them. This is an enemy that is patient. It infiltrates our borders and waits quietly for an opportunity to attack. Most frighteningly, this is an enemy that is capable. It roams the globe, organizing terrorist cells along its path. It has the ability to master and exploit modem technology and organize attacks on America from anywhere on the globe.

On the other hand, we are a Nation that believes in the rule of law. We are a people that hold dear the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution. Although we recognize the threat we face, we are not willing to sacrifice our rights and live in a state of perpetual fear. Our enemy is the enemy of freedom, and we will not give that enemy the satisfaction of making us give up the very freedom we cherish.

The question remains, what is a society like ours to do?

I do not agree with those who contend that the current FISA law is just fine. When the FISA bill was enacted in 1978, we faced a very different enemy. That enemy did not attack on our soil; that enemy was organized into nation states that we could negotiate with; that enemy did not use terrorist tactics on our civilian population. And in 1978, we were grappling with very different technologies. We were worried about telephone and telegraphs, not e-mail, cell phones, handheld computers, and Internet chat rooms. Accordingly, the Congress passed a law in 1978 that required case-by-case warrants; warrants that identified individual persons and places; warrants a lot like those a prosecutor would seek in a routine criminal investigation. These case- by-case warrants, however, simply may not be sufficient today, when we are in a time of war and we need to track an amorphous enemy that moves quickly and is often able to evade detection.

At the same time, I do not agree with those who insist that we are facing an entirely new situation, and that the checks and balances our nation has long embraced are now outdated. I think these advocates are wrong when they insist that the best we can do is to give the Executive Branch a blank check and hope that it will do the right thing.

I believe that there is a middle ground. I believe it is possible to provide the President with the flexibility and secrecy he needs to track terrorists, while providing for meaningful supervision outside of the Executive Branch. It may be surprising to some, but I think we can get some insight from, of all places, a Senate hearing.

Let's step back and survey the situation. The country had recently discovered that the NSA had secretly worked with major communication companies for years. We learned that initially the program focused on certain foreign targets, but it grew to cover communications from U.S. citizens. Amid accusations that the President had violated the Constitution and Federal statute, a Senate Committee called the Attorney General to testify and address the ``serious legal and constitutional questions . . . raised by the program.''

If this sounds familiar, it should. It is what took place in November 1975, when the nation discovered a secret NSA program to monitor telegraph messages, and a special Senate Committee called Attorney General Edward Levi to testify.

That hearing, like the hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee held last week, elicited discussions on the importance of preserving civil liberties and upholding the Bill of Rights, and the need to protect national security and preserve secrecy in foreign intelligence. That hearing also elicited a possible solution.

During his testimony to the Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Activities, Attorney General Levi suggested that one method for granting the President the needed flexibility, while maintaining supervision by the courts, was to give a special court the power to issue broader, program-wide warrants. Attorney General Levi reasoned that for programs ``designed to gather foreign-intelligence information essential to the security of the Nation,'' the court should have the power to approve

a ``program of surveillance.'' He explained that the traditional warrant procedure works only when surveillance ``involves a particular target location or individual at a specific time.'' While this procedure was fine for routine, criminal investigations, the Nation needed a different solution for enemies that require ``virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets.'' Attorney General Levi suggested that in approving a surveillance plan, the court should determine whether the program ``strikes a reasonable balance between the government's need for the information and the protection of individuals' rights.''

Unfortunately, we did not follow Attorney General Levi's suggestion. It is not too late to do so, however. The National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 seeks to pick up where the Congress of 1978 left off.

I believe that the National Security Surveillance Act sets forth workable and effective procedures for the FISA Court to evaluate surveillance programs. Its procedures, in fact, are very similar to those Attorney General Levi advocated thirty years ago.

First, in order to continue the NSA program, or any similar programs, the Attorney General must apply to the FISA court for permission to initiate a surveillance program and then seek re-authorization of that program every 45 days. The Attorney General must explain his legal basis for concluding that the surveillance program is constitutional. He must also provide a good deal of information to the court. He must: identify or describe the foreign country or terrorist group he seeks to monitor; provide enough facts to indicate one of the parties on the line is a member of that foreign country or terrorist group or has had communications with it; identify the steps he is taking to make sure that innocent Americans are not being swept into the surveillance program; determine that at least one of the parties is in the U. S.; estimate the number of communications to be monitored; and provide data so the FISA court can evaluate the program, including information on how long the program has existed and what type of intelligence it has uncovered.

The Attorney General should feel no concern in sharing information about the program with the FISA court. The FISA court has proven that it is capable of maintaining the secrecy with which it has been charged and that it possesses the requisite expertise and discretion for adjudicating sensitive issues of national security.

The FISA court must then determine whether approving the program is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. It must also balance the interests at stake and decide whether to approve the program. Specifically, the court must: determine whether probable cause exists to authorize the surveillance; evaluate whether historically the government has implemented the electronic surveillance program in accordance with its proposals; determine that at least one of the participants to the electronic communication is a member of the foreign country or terrorist group that the Attorney General has identified; consider the privacy costs of the program as measured by the number of communications subjected to the electronic surveillance program, the length of time the electronic surveillance program has been in existence, and the effectiveness of the minimization procedures; and consider the benefits of the program as measured by the intelligence information obtained or the number of plots uncovered or cells disrupted.

The Attorney General must resubmit the program to the FISA court every 45 days. In the event the FISA court refuses to approve the electronic surveillance program, that does not end the matter. The Attorney General may modify the program and then submit a new application, until the FISA court concludes that the program satisfies the Constitution and the standards set forth in this bill. In the alternative, the Attorney General may conclude that implementing an amended program is inappropriate in light of the FISA court's concerns. The FISA court would itself be required to notify Congress of its decision with respect to the proffered program's constitutionality. Finally, the bill requires the Attorney General to submit information on the program's scope and effectiveness to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees every 6 months.

In the case at hand, the Attorney General would be required to justify the NSA surveillance program to the FISA court, which would, in turn, determine whether the program met all constitutional and legal requirements. The court would be required to consider, for example, whether members of Al Qaeda were appropriately targeted, whether proper minimization techniques were being followed, and whether the program satisfied the demands of the Fourth Amendment.

There are those who will say that we should not act. That currently, things are fine. I would remind my colleagues that our enemies are not so content to sit still. A country that does not understand that our enemy has changed since the 1970s will come to regret it. And a Congress that pauses when it should act, denies its duty to adapt to the enemy we currently face. But, ultimately, the enemies of democracy win when civil liberties are lost. We must maintain our democracy and defeat our enemies.

This legislation does both and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Daniel Inouye, to introduce the Senate companion to H.R. 1105, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act, which was introduced by Representative Sue Kelly and co-sponsored by my colleagues from the State of Hawaii, Representatives Neil Abercrombie and Ed Case.

The Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act will improve the safety of our Nation's dams by establishing a Federal program to assist Hawaii and other states in rehabilitating publicly owned dams that pose a risk to public safety.

Storms that struck Hawaii in recent weeks remind us that the devastation wrought by the collapse of a dam can be severe and tragic. All too often, these catastrophic collapses come with little or no warning, leaving those in the path of flooding with no time to avoid danger.

Dam safety is a neglected aspect of our homeland security. While we plan for the possibility that terrorists may attack our infrastructure, we fail to fully recognize that critical infrastructure is also subject to the forces of nature and, therefore, prone to wear and tear. Just as we must guard against attacks on our critical infrastructure, we must also be attentive to its maintenance.

Our Nation has thousands of dams. The homes and businesses of millions of Americans are in the path of potentially catastrophic flooding that could result from dam failures. Some of our great cities are at risk, as are vast tracts of our most productive agricultural land. Although dams are often out of sight and given little regard in everyday life, we put lives and property at peril when we fail to properly maintain them.

The Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act takes an important step forward by allocating Federal funds for the repair and rehabilitation of publicly owned dams that are deemed to be unsafe. Specifically, this bill will: Mandate the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a program providing grant assistance to states for the repair of dams that pose a public safety risk; require the FEMA Director to determine appropriate procedures for awarding grants and allocating funds; establish a risk-based priority system to identify dams in need of repair; and establish a cost sharing arrangement between the Federal Government and States.

In addition, I am working to ensure that both public and private dams receive the maintenance they need for the public's safety, and I appreciate the technical assistance that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given me on this critical problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that augments the National Dam Safety Program and provides states with the necessary assistance to protect the public.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record at this point a letter from the Dam Safety Coalition endorsing this legislation and that text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation with Senator Durbin that will increase educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and foreign languages for all students.

Last month, I shared with my colleagues the need to expand educational opportunities in these areas so that the youth of today can meet the challenges of tomorrow. The President, in his State of the Union address, said that America's ability to compete in global markets and to defend the nation against foreign threats depends on the strength of our educational system. On this point, he and I agree. Our future national and economic security are tied directly to our mathematical, scientific, and linguistic acumen.

For example, prior to 9/11, the Intelligence Community was not prepared

to handle the challenge of translating the volumes of foreign language counter-terrorism intelligence it had collected. The Intelligence Community faced backlogs in material awaiting translation, a shortage of language specialists and language-qualified field officers, and a readiness level of only 30 percent in the most critical foreign languages. This news, however, was not new. In 2000, Ellen Laipson, Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, reported similar problems and said that thousands of technical papers providing details on foreign research and development in scientific or technical areas were not being translated because of the lack of personnel to interpret the material, which could lead to the possibility of ``a technological surprise.''

It is clear that our national security relies on having a workforce skilled in the areas of science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages. We need to take action to strengthen education in these areas so that the United States can compete, prosper, and be secure in the 21st Century. A major investment in America's education system is necessary to ensure that we can communicate with and understand the cultures of our world partners and competitors. In the words of the Committee for Economic Development, ``we must redefine, as each generation has done, what it means to be an educated American in a changing world.'' Enactment of the Homeland Security Education Act provides the framework to enhance our education system to ensure that our nation's youth will have the skills needed for success.

Our education system must be reenergized and reinvigorated to meet the needs of our nation by preparing students to be proficient in foreign languages and leaders in the scientific and engineering fields. Our schools need the equipment and the materials to teach the critical STEM and foreign language courses and bring these subjects to life. To address these issues our bill would: encourage public private partnerships to improve science and math curricula; upgrade laboratory facilities; provide scholarships for students to study math, science, or engineering at the university level; and establish internship and mentoring opportunities for students in grades K through 12; develop cultural awareness and immersion programs in colleges and universities that combine science, technology, and engineering instruction with foreign language to expand international understanding and scientific collaboration; and create language learning pathways to facilitate proficiency in critical foreign languages from Kindergarten through graduate school.

However, no amount of funding or new programs will address the problem if there are not enough teachers trained in these subjects. To address the shortage of STEM and foreign language teachers, our bill includes provisions to award scholarships in the amount of $15,000 to language-proficient individuals and practicing scientists and engineers to return to school and earn their degrees and become certified to teach these critical skills to students in high-need, low income schools. Our bill would also allow National Security Education Program scholarship and fellowship recipients to meet their service requirements by teaching in these critical areas if they cannot find a national security position in the Federal Government.

A key provision in the Homeland Security Education Act focuses on foreign language teacher training by awarding grants to facilitate partnerships between K through 12 schools and institutions of higher education to build professional development programs, summer workshops or institutes, and foreign language distance learning programs for elementary and secondary school teachers.

In addition to providing new programs and teachers, we must encourage students to study these subjects. The U.S. currently lags far behind other countries in the number of students majoring in these critical areas. We must reverse this trend if we are to ensure an adequate supply of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics expertise in the years ahead. For example, only 32 percent of undergraduates in the United States receive their degrees in science and engineering, compared to 59 percent in China and 66 percent in Japan. The statistics are even worse for foreign language education, where fewer than one in 10 college students enroll in a foreign language class. Our bill would provide financial incentives for students to take the tough classes, earn their degrees, and be trained in the skills that will help America succeed by providing them with $5,000 scholarships to earn degrees in STEM or a foreign language.

I am proud of my home State of Hawaii, which appreciates the importance of learning other languages and understanding other cultures and where high school seniors take Advanced Placement (AP) exams in calculus, chemistry, physics, and science at rates that are higher than, and in some cases nearly double, the national average. Still, there definitely is room for more students to take AP exams and excel in these important areas.

The Homeland Security Education Act would help make this a reality by complementing efforts such as the PACE bills, Senator Kennedy's legislation, and the President's education initiatives--all of which I support because they are positive steps to increasing educational opportunities in critical STEM and foreign language studies.

Professor Richard Schmidt, Director of the National Foreign Language Resource Center at the University of Hawaii, said that ``this legislation has strong potential to produce the kind of close articulation between K through 12 and higher education programs that has been very difficult in the past.''

I wish to thank Professor Schmidt, the University of Hawaii College of Education, and the National Council for Languages and International Studies for supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record

Education serves as the catalyst to ensure our Nation's long-term security. To remain a world leader we need Americans who are well- educated and who can communicate in the global marketplace. The bill we introduce today will help us meet these essential requirements.

I urge my colleagues to support the Homeland Security Education Act, and I look forward to working with them to strengthen our national security through enactment of our bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide compensation for civilian veterans of the Cold War who contracted cancer as a result of their work at our nuclear weapons facilities, The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006.

The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006 will ensure that employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site during the years of above and below ground nuclear weapons testing and suffer from radiation-induced cancers as a result of that work finally receive the compensation they deserve. These Cold War veterans sacrificed their health and wellbeing for their county. We can wait no longer to acknowledge those sacrifices and to try, in some small way, to compensate for the cancers they have suffered as a result of their service to their country.

United States citizens have served their country working in facilities producing and testing nuclear weapons and engaging in other atomic energy defense activities that served as a deterrent during the Cold War. Many of these workers were exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation and placed in harm's way by the Department of Energy and contractors, subcontractors, and vendors of the Department without the knowledge and consent of the workers, without adequate radiation monitoring, and without necessary protections from internal or external occupational radiation exposures.

Six years ago, I worked with President Clinton to pass The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.) (EEOICPA) to ensure fairness and equity for the men and women who performed duties uniquely related to the nuclear weapons production and testing programs by establishing a program that would provide timely, uniform, and adequate compensation for 22 specified radiation-related cancers.

Research by the Department of Energy, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), NIOSH's contractors, the President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and congressional committees indicates that workers were not adequately monitored for internal or external exposures to ionizing radiation to which the workers were exposed and records were not maintained, are not reliable, are incomplete, or fail to indicate the radioactive isotopes to which workers were exposed.

Because of the inequities posed by the factors described above and the resulting harm to the workers, EEOICPA has an expedited process for groups of workers whose radiation dose cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy or whose dose cannot be estimated in a timely manner. These workers are placed into a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). Workers in an SEC do not have to go through the dose reconstruction process, which can take years and be extremely difficult as these workers are often unable to produce information because it was or is classified.

Congress has already legislatively designated classes of atomic energy veterans at the Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge K-25, Tennessee, and the Amchitka Island, Alaska, sites as members of the Special Exposure Cohort under EEOICPA. Amchitka Island was designated because three underground nuclear tests were conducted on the Island.

Nevada Test Site workers deserve the same designation.

I and many other Nevadans remember watching explosions at the Nevada Test Site. We were struck with awe and wonder at the power and strength of these explosions. Little did we know that there was another side to those atomic tests--the exposure of men and women working at the site to cancer-causing substances. Now, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these Cold War veterans face deadly cancers. Many have already passed away.

The contribution of the State of Nevada to the security ofthe United States throughout the Cold War and since has been unparalleled. In 1950, President Harry S. Truman designated what would later be called the Nevada Test Site as the Nation's nuclear proving grounds and, a month later, the first atmospheric test at the Nevada Test Site was detonated. The United States conducted 100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site from 1951-1992. Out of the 1054 nuclear tests conducted in the United States, 928, or 88 percent, were conducted at the Nevada Test Site.

Unfortunately, Nevada Test Site workers, despite having worked with significant amounts of radioactive materials and having known exposures leading to serious health effects, have been denied compensation under EEOICPA as a result of flawed calculations based on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use of faulty assumptions and incorrect models.

It has become evident that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose received by employees at the Department of Energy facility in Nevada known as Nevada Test Site at all in some cases and in other in a timely manner. There are many reasons for this, including inadequate monitoring, incomplete radionuclide lists, and DOE's ignoring nearly a dozen tests conducted at the site that vented. Because of these problems, Nevada Test Site workers have been denied compensation under the Act, some of which have waited for decades for their government to acknowledge the sacrifices they made for their country and compensate them.

Unfortunately, 6 years since the passage of EEOICPA and in some cases decades after their service to their country, very few of those Nevada Test Site Cold War veterans who have cancer have received compensation. In fact, Nevada Test Site workers are receiving compensation at a rate lower than the national average and many who have waited decades are being told that they have to wait longer. And many have already died while waiting for their compensation.

Last November, I sent a letter to President Bush asking him to initiate this process himself. He still has not responded. However, his Administration is trying to re-write the law via regulation and cut funding to this program in order to delay compensation further and halt it for some workers altogether.

This is unacceptable. That is why I am committed to ensuring that Nevada Test Site workers through 1993 are designated as a ``Special Exposure Cohort.'' This will streamline and speed up the recovery process for those workers.

The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006 would ensure employees and survivors of employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site through 1993 that they receive compensation. They helped this country win the cold war, sacrificing their personal health in the process and after decades of waiting and suffering, it is time the government honored these sacrifices

This bill would include within the Special Exposure Cohort, Nevada Test Site workers employed at the site from 1950-1993 who were: (1) Present during an atmospheric or underground nuclear test or performed drillbacks, re-entry, or clean up work following such test; (2) present at an episodic event involving radiation releases; or (3) employed at Nevada Test Site for at least 250 work days and in a job activity that was monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation or worked in a job activity that is or was comparable to a job that is, was or should have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Nevada Test Site has served, and continues to serve, as the premier research, testing, and development site for our nuclear defense capabilities. The Nevada Test Site and its workers have been, and are, an essential and irreplaceable part of our Nation's defense capabilities. This bill would honor the service of our Atomic Energy veterans

and provide them with the compensation they deserve.

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