Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also providing over $3 billion in deficit reduction.

Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and secure housing is about more than just providing families with somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that families have to undertake in order to afford housing.

Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more, available in the United States. Research shows that the number of families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families spends more than thirty percent of their earnings on housing costs. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities, towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans. Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe and affordable housing.

Congress has created effective affordable housing and community development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing.

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in 1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized. Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for twenty four hours and received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not accepted new applications for Section 8 in over three years and reports that hundreds of families are on the waiting list.

Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country. According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8 vouchers than currently exist.

While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section 8 program costs less than it would through other federal housing programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost- effective, and successful in its mission.''

The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for 100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually by Congress.

My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000 incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2007. I have identified enough funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000 vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program. According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased funding for Section 8 vouchers.

We should examine doing more than just providing more money for Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program. Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to address these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more effective, more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the country.

But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990 to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low income Americans throughout the country.

According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23 billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and States around the country are able to report numerous success stories in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002.

Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9 billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than $1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in need.

But Mr. President, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs to be done to assist extremely low income families. My legislation seeks to target additional resources to the Americans most in need by using the HOME structure to distribute new funding to participating jurisdictions with the requirement that these participating jurisdictions use these set-aside dollars to produce, rehab, or preserve affordable housing for extremely low income families, or people at 30 percent of area median income or below.

As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low income owner households are severely burdened by affordability concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter households and the number of units available to them with acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families.

Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program; local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities.

Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the needs of the extremely low income families in their respective communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify that this funding is going to extremely low income households and must report on how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds are intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure participating jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also require that the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this new funding for extremely low income households in no way excuses such jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing for the most vulnerable Americans.

My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant program: the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program, formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program has not been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired in 2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200 million per year for five years for this program.

After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest, violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their tenants.

Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the country.

In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year, dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and

sales, and other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies, providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of educational, job training and life skill programs.

When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee-- have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of their crime reduction programs.

It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants. Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants.

But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with grant money. The Federal government also needs to provide more resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program. It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and issue a report within six months identifying effective programs, providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant program that have not previously been subject to that type of evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the program going forward.

As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used inappropriately.

My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry, Senator Reed, and others for all their work on advancing the cause of a National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look forward to working with them and others in the 110th to push for the creation of such a trust fund.

I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next 10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters the creation of healthy and sustainable communities.

Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and states throughout the country, including recently in the city of Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe and affordable housing to all Americans.

This bill is the third of four proposals I am introducing this year to address some of the domestic issues that have been raised with me over the years by my constituents, some of them at the listening sessions I hold annually in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Previous proposals addressed health care reform and the trade deficit.

This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and, unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families. This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head, however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs, better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans. Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the next Congress to advance my bill and other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the goal of affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans.

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

Mr. President: I rise to introduce the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act of 2006. This legislation would make critically important changes to the measure that Congress narrowly approved on September 29, the Mi1itary Commissions Act of 2006. Let me be clear from the outset of my remarks. I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to defending our country against terrorism. I fully support the use of military commissions to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unlike the Administration, I trust the United States military and our legal system to arbitrate decisions related to enemy combatants.

I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country. But in my view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law.

My legislation provides essential legal tools for our war on terror in seven key ways: It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants. It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion. It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions. It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight. Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions.

Before I elaborate on each of these critical points, let me simply underscore the point that for more than 200 years, our Nation has served as a shining example in its promotion of civil and human rights throughout the world. Denial of basic legal proceedings to individuals held in the custody of the United States has raised questions over our basic adherence to the U.S. Constitution and also diminished our reputation around the world. American citizens are questioning their own government's judgments, terrorists are citing American abuses to recruit new loyalists, and American servicemembers fear detention overseas under similarly abusive conditions in violation of their human rights.

Supporters of the administration's law may say that to speak out against its enactment is being soft on terrorism. Not only is this sentiment wholly inaccurate, it underestimates a fundamental strength of our Nation and the best defense against terrorists--respect for the rule of law.

For instance, the administration-backed law eliminates the principle of habeas corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since before the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Under the writ of habeas corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions. My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of military commissions.

The administration's approach allows the President to remove anyone he so chooses from America's standard jurisprudence and designate him or her as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he has engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. Such individuals are subject to arrest and detention indefinitely without charge. In contrast, my legislation allows the designation of ``unlawful enemy combatants'' only for those individuals engaged in armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will prove

to be the exception rather than the norm.

Also, unlike the law backed by the administration, my bill further promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use of evidence gained by coercion in a trial. Such a provision is critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has been proven ineffective in interrogations when a detainee simply says what he believes an interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Second it deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite U.S. actions to justify their own misconduct toward future American POWs.

My bill grants discretion to military judges to exclude hearsay evidence determined to be unreliable. Under my legislation, judges are given discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on the innocence of an individual, but is excluded due to national security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient. America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's bench and an affront to the U.S. military legal system. Moreover, my bill properly grants the Armed Forces judicial review of these decisions unlike the administration's law which denies the United States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces the right to hearing military commission appeals.

And, just as important as restoring our commitment in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, my legislation would also reaffirm America's commitment to the contents of the Geneva Conventions. In contrast, the Administration's Military Commissions Act gives unprecedented authority to the president to define what interrogation techniques constitute ``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. The United States President should not have the right to unilaterally define the legal boundaries of torture. The United States Congress has ratified universally recognized conventions prohibiting such conduct, and the President should recognize them as the law of the land. Indeed, there is a lesson to be learned in the events of the last 6 years, particularly in the case of Abu Ghraib, when not only was our Nation's reputation tarnished, but our commitment to the rule of law was credibly called into question. This is not the America our Nation's greatest generations have long fought for. Our country would have been better served if we had looked to the pages of history to guide us through this national crisis.

Just 60 years ago, the United States confronted the daunting task of bringing history's most despicable war criminals to justice. In determining how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of grave atrocities, our country never forgot its pivotal role as the leader of the free world. There were strong and persuasive voices crying for the execution of these men who had commanded, with ruthless efficiency, the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men, women, and children. Why should these men who had extinguished so many lives be given a trial at all? Why should they not be subjected to the same fate to which they had subjected countless innocent people? Why not just shoot them, as Winston Churchill wanted? Why not just give in to legal scholars, who said there was no court, no judge, no laws, and no precedent?

Why not? Because, as I have recounted on this floor on several occasions, America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father, rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial. In doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this Nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.

Almost 60 years to the day after the Nuremberg verdicts, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, with the support of the administration which steps away from the high principles established at Nuremberg and honored in the decades since. In my view, this law has dishonored our Nation's proud history.

Indeed, to watch the Senate, on the anniversary of Nuremberg, negate these great principles and traditions was one of the saddest days I have seen in a quarter century of service in this body. It pains me to no end to have seen the administration and its allies rush this bill through Congress in the days before an election with hopes of exploiting Americans' fears of a terrorist attack. This administration would have the American people believe that the war on terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded--but not both. This canard is untrue and frankly negligent.

I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake. And that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most important one--it will ensure that each of the provisions of the administration's Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts, and appropriately evaluated for their constitutionality. I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding the legality and probity of this highly controversial statute. But I believe it is essential for America's security and moral authority to allow those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--to have an opportunity to overturn the most egregious provisions of this Act.

In turn, we in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror.

I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences if we fail to correct the mistakes that have been made. I hope that Congress and the administration will take a serious look at my proposal and work with me to improve the current system, for the sake of our security, our international standing, and our commitment to the rule of law.

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

There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, I am here to work on what should be an area of widespread, bipartisan agreement with the introduction of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006. Many, many people in both parties profess the need to reduce our Government's spending. When I hear individuals waxing poetic about the need for fiscal discipline, I usually offer a simple, one-sentence amendment to restore some discretionary spending discipline, but you should see my friends on the other side of the aisle run for the hills when someone proposes we actually do something about it. When the moment comes to move from mere words to real action on fiscal discipline, over and over I have confronted nearly united opposition to it on the other side of the aisle.

Last year we did make some progress on our shared goal. We actually held last year's non-security discretionary spending down below the rate of inflation. Let me repeat that: We actually held last year's non-security spending, over which we had discretion, down below the rate of inflation.

Again, we are faced with the same task.

The President agrees that we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The Budget Committee agrees we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The American people agree we must hold down spending. Senator Dorgan has said that we need to provide spending cuts in a significant manner. Senator Feingold has said, ``We also need to continue to cut spending in Federal programs. . . .'' Senator Levin stated how we need to cut spending when he advocated that ``Discretionary spending . . . [be] frozen for 5 years.'' It seems that both parties agree that we must hold down discretionary spending.

Well, let's hold down discretionary spending.

I will read the one sentence that is really the entirety of this bill. I'm sure everyone in this body is familiar with it now--nearly all of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted against it twice in the last twelve months, usually at a time when they are promoting fiscal discipline. It says: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trost-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' This is simply a cap on discretionary spending.

It is very simple, cut and dry, something that can pass. I hope those individuals who have a more complicated approach to this will recognize this is something that is doable.

I want to focus briefly on one point in the President's most recent budget proposal. President Bush wisely sent us a budget that encourages long-term fiscal constraint by including several budget process and program oversight reforms, including setting enforceable limits on total spending to stabilize budget growth in the long-term. Simply put, the President proposes that we put in place a process by which we can control discretionary spending.

I have been working on a solution to the massive problem of government spending with this simple language for quite some time. I have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations bills, but held off. I offered it as an amendment last November and again this year in March. It has been defeated every time I offer it--every single time. It's usually defeated by nearly unanimous opposition on the other side of the aisle. And what's more, they usually vote against it in a debate during which they cry foul of deficits and declare the need for fiscal restraint. It's astounding how much rhetoric we hear about the need to hold down spending and the need for fiscal

restraint. I guess for some, it truly is much easier said than done.

So, I am offering it again.

I will restate the crux of this bill, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006, one more time before I close: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' Folks, it's that easy. I ask that you join me in holding down spending.

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

Mr. President, I am here to work on what should be an area of widespread, bipartisan agreement with the introduction of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006. Many, many people in both parties profess the need to reduce our Government's spending. When I hear individuals waxing poetic about the need for fiscal discipline, I usually offer a simple, one-sentence amendment to restore some discretionary spending discipline, but you should see my friends on the other side of the aisle run for the hills when someone proposes we actually do something about it. When the moment comes to move from mere words to real action on fiscal discipline, over and over I have confronted nearly united opposition to it on the other side of the aisle.

Last year we did make some progress on our shared goal. We actually held last year's non-security discretionary spending down below the rate of inflation. Let me repeat that: We actually held last year's non-security spending, over which we had discretion, down below the rate of inflation.

Again, we are faced with the same task.

The President agrees that we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The Budget Committee agrees we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The American people agree we must hold down spending. Senator Dorgan has said that we need to provide spending cuts in a significant manner. Senator Feingold has said, ``We also need to continue to cut spending in Federal programs. . . .'' Senator Levin stated how we need to cut spending when he advocated that ``Discretionary spending . . . [be] frozen for 5 years.'' It seems that both parties agree that we must hold down discretionary spending.

Well, let's hold down discretionary spending.

I will read the one sentence that is really the entirety of this bill. I'm sure everyone in this body is familiar with it now--nearly all of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted against it twice in the last twelve months, usually at a time when they are promoting fiscal discipline. It says: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trost-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' This is simply a cap on discretionary spending.

It is very simple, cut and dry, something that can pass. I hope those individuals who have a more complicated approach to this will recognize this is something that is doable.

I want to focus briefly on one point in the President's most recent budget proposal. President Bush wisely sent us a budget that encourages long-term fiscal constraint by including several budget process and program oversight reforms, including setting enforceable limits on total spending to stabilize budget growth in the long-term. Simply put, the President proposes that we put in place a process by which we can control discretionary spending.

I have been working on a solution to the massive problem of government spending with this simple language for quite some time. I have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations bills, but held off. I offered it as an amendment last November and again this year in March. It has been defeated every time I offer it--every single time. It's usually defeated by nearly unanimous opposition on the other side of the aisle. And what's more, they usually vote against it in a debate during which they cry foul of deficits and declare the need for fiscal restraint. It's astounding how much rhetoric we hear about the need to hold down spending and the need for fiscal

restraint. I guess for some, it truly is much easier said than done.

So, I am offering it again.

I will restate the crux of this bill, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006, one more time before I close: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' Folks, it's that easy. I ask that you join me in holding down spending.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, and I am proud that Senators Inouye, Snowe, Allard, Rockefeller, and Byrd, Pryor, Enzi, and Clinton are among those joining me in sponsoring this important bill. I regret the necessity of this legislation, but I am determined to protect consumers--especially consumers in rural areas such as Vermont.

This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that addresses a problem that soon will face millions of Americans who subscribe to satellite TV services. I realize full well that this bill may not please the major corporations affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to help corporations, but to help home satellite viewers.

A Federal court recently found that EchoStar willfully, flagrantly and repeatedly violated Federal law, and I believe that EchoStar should be held to account for its decade of illegal activity. The situation is ultimately quite complicated, but the simplest version is this: EchoStar has been bringing distant network signals to areas that did not need satellite to provide access to that programming. But the penalty for such actions is harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit had no choice: EchoStar will be required to stop retransmitting any distant signals. EchoStar flouted the law, but it is consumers who will suffer. Unless we pass this bill, many rural subscribers around the country will lose access to news and entertainment programming from the free, over-the-air broadcast networks.

The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a practical, narrow, and-- most importantly--pro-consumer solution to a problem of Echo Star's creation. The court-issued injunction, set to take effect December 1, will prohibit EchoStar from providing any distant network stations to any of its customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, the injunction will apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where EchoStar provides residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our legislation would only permit EchoStar to bring in distant network stations in three situations. First, where local stations are not available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if it compensates the local station. Second, in areas that do not have affiliates of all four networks, EchoStar could bring in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no local station would be harmed. Third, stations from neighboring localities that are considered ``significantly viewed'' by the Federal Communications Commission, and are generally treated as local stations, could be carried.

This legislation would not be complete without an enforcement provision that will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally providing copyrighted content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act therefore imposes real monetary penalties for violating the Act and requires EchoStar to put sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright office to cover any future violations.

This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate interests of broadcasters who have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it serves the interests of the people who are the innocent bystanders and the real victims of this emerging problem: the consumers who are paying for these services.

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