Floor Statements

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader might give us an idea because we would like to get back to the bill. As one of the managers, my hope would be that we can get back to it right away. I would like to see us clean up this bill and get it done as soon as possible.

Could you give us some sense of when you think we might do that? I know there are a lot of matters to deal with, but this is very important.

Would it be possible, since this issue is one that many Members care about--in fact, the vote of the House Appropriations Committee yesterday was 62 to 2 on a similar provision, and I know there is talk of a resolution of this matter without ever going to the bill. But if we can agree that next week or so we might allocate an hour or two to do that, my view is we can move forward today and clean up this lobbying reform issue quickly--by agreeing to an hour or so next week to deal with this issue, if necessary, and we can move through this bill, I think, by tonight.

I thank the leader. I was suggesting that, if necessary, if we could agree to an hour or two after this bill is considered--and you may be right that we would not have to--then we might get to this reform bill today. That is all it would take to do so. We have taken the position that extraneous matters should not be on the bill.

My fear is--and I say this having been around here a quarter of a century--once you bump this off, the budget issue next week, immigration, and a recess for a week or two, we will not get back to this. If we don't stick to this, other matters can take over--another explosion somewhere in the world--and this institution finds itself dealing with a issue that would not be the lobbying reform issue. I have seen it happen so many times. Here is an opportunity, I say with all due respect, to

give us that assurance, if necessary, and let us get back to the bill.

Mr. President, I thank the leader for responding to several questions. I appreciate that very much. I don't disagree. In fact, this may be very good news that we have heard in the last hour or so about the port security issue. Like all of us, I think the leader said it well. The devil can be in the details here. We are going to want to examine what was included there.

As I understood, my colleague from New York and the Democratic leader were willing to forgo offering this amendment that Senator Schumer has proposed on this bill for the simple assurance that, if necessary, they would like the opportunity to bring this up at a later time.

Many of us applauded that decision. In fact, the Democratic leader offered a unanimous consent request that would have done that, it would allow us to get back to the reform bill.

I see a number of my colleagues here. My colleague from Maine knows as well as I do these things can slip, and once they start to slip, other matters can overtake us, and we don't get back to the matter. We have seen it on asbestos and other matters. I am worried that will happen if we allow too much time to pass before we get back to the legislation.

I made the appeal earlier today to reach some accommodation among the leaders so we will be allowed to go forward with this bill that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee worked so hard on and the Rules Committee worked so hard on. We did our job.

I think we can get this done in fairly short order. My colleague from Georgia was involved, as well, in the Rules Committee trying to put this together.

Again, I make the plea, I don't think there is any necessity at this juncture for the Schumer amendment to come up on this bill, but I think my colleagues can understand why the Senator from New York would like some assurance down the road, if necessary, that we can get to this particular proposal. It is not an extraordinary request. We do this all the time. That would allow us to move forward on this bill and try to keep extraneous matters off until we have completed the bill.

I thank the majority leader for responding to my questions. I am disappointed, to put it mildly, that we are not going to get to this bill. I raise the concern, having been here for some time and having watched the process work, that if we don't proceed quickly on this measure, then my fear is that we will not get back to it, and the window of opportunity to have done something on these critical issues will have been lost.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to spend a couple of minutes this morning commenting on the provisions offered by the Democratic leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, which is a comprehensive amendment that covers a lot of the waterfront related to the matter before us, and that is greater transparency and accountability by Members of this institution as well as those who lobby us, who come to us and petition us as paid representatives of various public, private, and nonprofit entities, so we have a better opportunity to restore a lot of the confidence that has been eroded in how this institution performs its public function.

My colleague from Nevada, the chairman of the Democratic team here, has put together a very good proposal. It has been endorsed and supported by over 40 of our colleagues as part of the larger Reid bill. It is called the Honest Leadership Act. It covers a lot of ground. I want to identify the provisions in this bill. I know my colleague from Nevada has done that already, but it deserves repetition.

As someone who has now spent more than a quarter of a century in this body, I have great respect for my colleagues and their integrity. We all know that laws are not only written for the majority who abide by the law, but occasionally we write laws because there are those who step outside the boundaries, particularly when it comes to public responsibility and trust. I am not suggesting by this amendment, nor is the Democratic leader, that my colleagues in any way, at least the overwhelming majority, are violating not only the law of the land but even ethics, a sense of responsibility, a sense of good conduct. But we have learned painfully over the last number of months that there are people, unfortunately, who serve in public life, who serve in this great Capitol building, who do take advantage of their position for private gain, who have abused that public trust and have caused this institution and its Members to suffer once again the derision of our constituents, of people who are disappointed about how we conduct our business. It is a painful thing to go through.

I have often said I would be willing to take the 99 Members I serve with in this body and compare their ethics and morality to almost any other group of people, and I am sure they would stand up very well. But the facts are that we have people who do abuse the process, and we need to be cognizant of that and respond to it. That is what Senator Lott and I are doing. That is what my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, are doing with their proposal which is part of the underlying bill.

Senator Reid, on behalf of more than 40 of our colleagues, has put together a

comprehensive proposal to try and deal with many of these issues. I am sure there are matters with which some Members may disagree, may want to fine-tune in some way, may not necessarily support every dotted ``I'' and crossed ``T.'' But the overall direction of the provisions included in this proposal is one that should enjoy broad support. We hope when the vote occurs later this morning, we can have strong support for it.

Let me mention several things it does. One, it bans all gifts, including meals, from lobbyists, the assumption being that this is no longer acceptable. There is no connection between the work of someone petitioning government on behalf of a client or an organization and simultaneously offering some gift to the Member or to the staff of that Member as a way of ingratiating themselves on behalf of the cause they represent. It may be innocent enough. We may find it obnoxious, even, in some cases, considering some of the things that are called gifts. But nonetheless, the perception--perception is reality in the business of public life--that Members of Congress or their staffs are receiving some unrelated item or gift or service or activity as a result of the relationship has come to be unacceptable to most of us here. And again, perceptions are such that we suffer as a result of that kind of conduct.

We also impose some additional restrictions of disclosure on the revolving door issue, requirements under the bill's revolving door provisions. This has to do with Members and senior staff who serve here and then leave and go into private life and become lobbyists and use that relationship to come back and have an immediate, direct influence on the legislative process as a result of those close, personal relationships. The revolving door has tried to have additional disclosure requirements and even extend to some degree the amount of time before such a person could come back and lobby their Member or other Members of this body or their senior staff.

We also deal in the Reid proposal with congressional travel. It bans lobbyists or anybody affiliated with them from being involved in congressional travel. Again, I say ``congressional travel.'' Travel can be a very important element of service in the U.S. Congress. Members, from time to time, need to get out around the country and need to engage in foreign travel. We are not talking about that. We are not talking about related travel in which Members should be engaged. We are talking about those travel expenses that are unrelated.

The most egregious case recently is the matter involving Members of the other body on a golfing excursion in Scotland. When people look at that, they assume maybe all of us are doing those sorts of things. That is not the case, but that is the perception. We need to limit what we talk about here in terms of the travel in which Members of Congress can engage. In my view, if you are traveling on behalf of your public responsibilities as a Member of the Senate or a Member of the Congress, then that is something we ought to allow. In fact, we ought to encourage it. If the travel is unrelated to that nexus of your public responsibility, we ought to try to limit it, if not ban it altogether.

The Reid proposal does that. It allows only bona fide 501(c)(3) organizations to pay for congressional travel for factfinding, educational purposes. It retains the requirement for Ethics Committee approval for travel beforehand so that if Members think it may be questionable, they can get a ruling ahead of time. It requires certification that the trip is not planned, supported, or paid for by lobbyists. It imposes per diem rates on acceptable third-party-paid travel and lodging.

I point out, Mr. President, it tightens the ban on the so-called K Street project. This is controversial. My colleague from Mississippi was patient in the Rules Committee in listening to the K Street project provision that was offered by my friend from Illinois. It was pointed out in committee that there are already prohibitions in existing criminal law for people who would suggest that there was going to be a price that someone would pay if they hired or did not hire someone else based on their political affiliation. We thought it was so important to establish this principle in the rules of this body that we have codified the prohibition against those who would pressure outside employers to make a hiring decision based primarily on party affiliation. This is wrong, it is an abuse, and it ought to be stopped. The Reid proposal does just that.

It is especially egregious where it is accompanied by a threat-- implicit or explicit--that a Member might take or withhold certain actions based on the hiring decision. We have learned that has happened. It is unfortunate. The businesses that did that were unwise and shortsighted, but nonetheless it has occurred. This proposal includes the ban on the so-called K Street-type projects.

There are new civil and criminal penalties to combat public corruption. It would require new certifications by lobbyists on gifts and travel and by trip sponsors and increase penalties for knowing, willful, and corrupt violations under the False Statements Act. It would prohibit dead-of-night legislating, require a final vote on conference reports in a public meeting, which, again, I think is critical here.

We know if you are getting this legislation out, getting it to be public on the Internet so people have an opportunity to read, as well, what we are about to do, what actions we are about to take--I know this becomes difficult under certain circumstances, particularly at the end of a session if you are dealing with continuing resolutions which can be very large and so forth. It imposes burdens on this institution. But I think we bear a responsibility to make sure the public has a clear idea, or at least the opportunity for a clear idea, to understand what we are about to do, what actions we are about to take, and how they would affect them.

So I urge my colleagues, again, to support this kind of provision. Not all are people on this side or the other side of the aisle. So that is what is being proposed by Senator Reid of Nevada. I hope in looking at this, in conjunction with the underlying accomplishments--let me say once again to my colleagues, I think the work of the Rules Committee was a good effort, and we are proud of what we did. Again, this is a dynamic process that doesn't happen all at once. What is reform one day is not the next, and you go back and forth. I always loved this line, and you have to be careful.

There was a wonderful Republican Party chairman in New York who once said that the last refuge of the scoundrel was patriotism--until they invented the word ``reform.'' People sometimes hide behind that language as a way to achieve certain ends.

What we have done here with the underlying bill--and I think with the Reid proposal--is strengthen this legislation. It is going to make us all better Members, help restore confidence in this institution and its individual Members. I emphasize what I said at the outset. I have great confidence in the ethical, moral behavior of my colleagues. People I have total disagreements with on policy matters, I trust them as to how they conduct themselves in these public arenas. But every profession learns that the laws are not written for the majority who obey the law. Laws and codes of ethics are written for those in the minority who violate that trust and confidence.

So we write these provisions and include these proposals in statutory law and in our code of conduct not because we believe every Member is somehow on the brink or cusp of engaging in irresponsible behavior but because we recognize and understand that from time to time there will be people who serve with us who will violate that public trust and confidence. That is why we have these codes of conduct, why we have statutory language that prohibits the behavior that we have outlined in these proposals.

So I urge my colleagues, when the time comes in roughly an hour or so, to support the Reid proposal. It is offered on behalf of more than 40 of us in this body. We think it is a sound proposal that would strengthen an already good bill. I urge my colleagues to cast and ``aye'' vote for the Reid amendment.

Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to come over to speak if they wish.

I have no objection at all to that proposal offered by my friend from Mississippi. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle who have amendments or ideas on the bill, let us know so we can move the process along, and let us know what your amendments are so we can begin to consider and discuss them even before they are offered as a way of trying to expedite the process. The Senate wants to consider other matters. This is very important, but I would like to move as rapidly as we can on the consideration of these ideas and proposals.

I urge my colleagues who have amendments and want to be heard to let us know as soon as possible.

I yield whatever the time the Senator cares to use.

Mr. President, does my colleague from Delaware request time?

Mr. President, my colleague from Delaware has asked to be recognized. Before he does that, I am going to send a modification--an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, and Senator Obama to the desk and ask for a modification to be accepted of that amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the Reid amendment for purposes of considering this amendment and then we will go right back to the Reid amendment.

Mr. President, at conclusion of the vote on the Reid amendment, this would be the next item to be

considered. That is the purpose for offering it now. For the purposes of recognition, I am going back and forth, I believe.

The two Senators from Illinois, I say to my colleague, want to be heard on the Reid amendment as well. We are losing some time. We might have some private conversations on other matters, but let's get through on the Reid amendment before the time expires.

It is an informal request.

I will have to object to that. We have to talk about this.

Let's sit down and talk about it.

I yield a couple of minutes to my friend, Senator Obama.

Mr. President, Senator Durbin from Illinois asked to be heard for 2 minutes as well. Senator Durbin has time during the day to comment on this.

This is a very comprehensive amendment Senator Reid has offered. It strengthens what is, in my view, already a very strong bill of the Rules Committee. But it does close some gaps that I think are critically important. I hope we can develop some bipartisan support. It will take some issues we would have to debate later in the day off the table because they would be included in this amendment.

So, again, I urge my colleagues to take a look at this. You may not agree with every single dotted ``i,'' as I said earlier, and crossed ``t.'' But if you agree with the thrust of this, I think it deserves your support and it is one that would strengthen this bill on lobbying reform and the transparency and accountability issues, which are the hallmarks of this joint legislative effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

That is true. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has a unanimous consent request. I am prepared to yield to him.

And you have asked unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the Wyden amendment?

Reserving the right to object, that, as I understand it, is in the order after the Dodd-Santorum amendment and the Wyden-Grassley- Inhofe amendment.

Yes. I would like to do that, if we could, just to maintain the order here.

I believe what the Senator would do, Madam President, after the consideration of the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment, is then be next in line for his amendment. Is that the Senator's request?

Madam President, if we could see the amendment our colleague would like to offer, it would be helpful to us. Why don't we do that while I am talking about this amendment, and then before we break from this, we can agree to what the Senator wants. I need to see what the amendment is.

But I understand there are five amendments. I want to know which amendment.

Cost-of-living increases. If we could see the amendment, I will be glad--let me start and then he may offer that.

I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman be added as cosponsors to the Santorum- Dodd-Obama amendment. I believe that is what my colleague was interested in being heard on.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2942, as modified, on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, Senator Obama, Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman. This is to extend the ban on gifts from lobbyists to include meals from lobbyists as well.

Madam President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It would ban meals from lobbyists in the same way that the current bill bans all other gifts. For purposes of the Senate gift rule, it would ban meals outright.

The Rules Committee has reported an amendment that bans all gifts. But in an effort to deal with the meal issue, the language of the underlying bill would allow for meals to be paid for by lobbyists but would require, within 15 days of receiving a meal from a lobbyist or a foreign agent, that the name of the person providing that meal and the value of the meal be disclosed on the Member's Web site. In effect, we are banning meals almost without language. The idea that every 15 days we would be reporting these meals probably would result in a ban outright anyway. But it is dangerous to leave language in there because Members could inadvertently forget to report, as well as staff members and the like. It seems to me the better course to follow is to ban these meals outright and to avoid any possible problems that may occur as a result of people having meals and failing to report these in an adequate way or to misreport the details. It unnecessarily creates a tripwire for staff who may attend meetings or events where food is served but where the value is difficult to determine. None of us want to do that.

What we are trying to do with this bill is not to play gotcha or to catch people but to set some very clear bright lines about what is permissible or impermissible behavior. Clearly, you can make a case-- and Members have--that meals are very much a part of a culture where business is done. I know many Members and staff over the years have had meals where they discuss legislation or upcoming amendments. There is nothing inherently corrupt about it, but the meal is paid for. And the perception is that there is an undue advantage given to those who are able to take a Member or a senior staff member out for a meal, to then ask them to support a particular provision or oppose something. That creates the impression that Members are somehow being unduly influenced. I will not stand here and suggest that that is the case, but the perception could be that it is the case.

All of us who serve in public life understand that perceptions are more real than reality in many cases, and the average citizen doesn't have the opportunity to do that. Members of our constituency who would like to talk to us rarely get the opportunity that a lobbyist has to sit down. I happen to believe that lobbying is a right. I think it is included in the first amendment of the Constitution to be able to petition your Government. I don't want to be party to things that limit people's ability to come and petition their Government. That is what it is really about.

The word ``lobbyist'' has become a pejorative word associated with evil doing. The idea of petitioning your Government is a very important right, but I don't think it necessarily means that petitioning your Government gives you the right to then necessarily be able to give gifts or provide meals to the person whom you are petitioning. The average person can't do that. We don't think lobbyists should be able to do so as well.

Our language very simply takes it off the table. It is the cleanest way to do it. I know there are fact situations that our colleagues can identify that are probably going to be disadvantageous to them, but overall I think we are better off without this. It is cleaner. It is a bright line. Let there be no questions about it whatsoever; if you are a registered lobbyist, a foreign agent, then you cannot provide the meals or the gifts that you have in the past.

As a Member, it is simple. If you are having a meal with them, you pay for your own meal or set up a meeting where there is not a meal involved and listen to the petition that that lobbyist wants to bring to you, what cause he or she wants to make to you. But the idea that you are going to be able to sit down and break bread at their cost as a way of engaging in that first-amendment right is something we believe should be eliminated. We include it with the gifts, generally. The nexus between giving a gift, buying a meal, and petitioning your Government cannot be made, in my view, and, therefore, needs to be separated. Therefore, we have offered this amendment to create that bright line and to eliminate not only gifts but also clearly to eliminate the meals as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for working with me on this amendment, and I thank my colleagues, Senator McCain from Arizona and Senator Obama, who have been deeply interested in this subject matter as well as others. There is a colleague who is thinking about offering a second-degree amendment to our amendment, so we will unfortunately not be able to vote on this right now. We are going to be talking to him to work it out if we can. My hope would be that unless others want to speak against this, and there may be Members who would like to speak against it, in which case a recorded vote may be necessary, but if we no one is objecting to this amendment, my hope is we can deal with it on a voice vote and get to the next amendment.

I want to move this bill. I don't want to spend the next 2 or 3 weeks on it. We have major issues that have to be confronted by this body. This is an important one. I do not minimize it. But my hope is we can get this dealt with, done, and move on. We have issues that are very important to the people we represent. My hope is that we don't take too much time on that, and we can get to those questions.

We can't at this point. I have a colleague who wants to offer a second degree.

If my colleague would withhold, maybe we can temporarily set this aside if Senator Inhofe wanted to go forward with his amendment. He can explain his amendment. If the Senator would withhold a minute, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

And he could offer it as a first degree, also.

My colleague is on his way over to offer the second-degree amendment.

That is fine.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for his patience this morning. He has been here a long time. He had several amendments he wanted to offer. Again, having been here as many years as I have been, I have voted for and against cost-of-living increases, depending on whether I thought they were appropriate. Many times I voted for them and other colleagues voted against them. To their credit, some of our affluent Members have voted for pay increases when they clearly could have avoided it. I mention my colleague from Massachusetts. I know in my experience here, on every occasion--there may be some exception--he has voted for them when he believed pay increases were warranted. Even though he may not have needed it himself, he understands that not everybody is equal when it comes to financial situations. I have had those feelings myself. I voted against these pay increases and then having blinked when it comes to taking the pay increase.

If you feel that strongly about it and you think it is the wrong thing to do, nothing prohibits you from turning in your pay increase. You can write a check to the Department of Treasury and they will accept your check. People leave in their wills their hard-earned dollars to the Federal Government. On several occasions I have read that people have actually done that. Nothing prohibits Members from doing that. So I am very moved by what my colleague from Oklahoma is saying, and we may want to wait until we have disposed of the Reid amendment so you can talk to colleagues as to how they feel about it.

Madam President, I support that.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are prepared to vote. Again, I thank my colleagues. I think this is a good amendment. I appreciate my colleague from

Pennsylvania as well as my colleague from Illinois, and my home State colleague, Senator Lieberman, and Senator McCain, who have joined as cosponsors. I think we have made a good case for it, the bright line to get rid of the tripwires. That is a word you will hear me use quite frequently during the course of this discussion. We need clear, bright lines. We are not trying to complicate or make life difficult for people, but we are trying to make sure we have some very clear understandings as to what is permissible or not permissible in the conduct of our official business. So I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, today I have introduced a bill entitled the U.S. National Security Protection Act of 2006. This legislation would enact some critical reforms with respect to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days on this bill.

One thing is clear. The importance of reforming CFIUS has been brought into sharp focus by the proposed acquisition of P&O Steamship Navigation Company's U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports, DP, World, a company based in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, UAE. The reason so many people are concerned about that particular deal is obvious: while security threats are dynamic, assets such as our ports are, and always will be, a national security concern.

CFIUS's role is to vet these deals for possible national security dangers. But the problem here is that the CFIUS process is broken. Indeed, the DP World deal was approved in less than 30

days--even though U.S. law clearly required there to be a full 45-day investigation.

Many of us here in Congress have for a while now expressed concerns over whether the current CFIUS structure is adequately protecting our national security. The GAO also expressed these concerns in a report it released last September. So again, it's not like the cat has suddenly been let out of the bag that the CFIUS process needs reform.

Yet despite all the evidence to the contrary--most prominently, the DP World-P&O deal--the administration does not seem to believe that there is anything wrong with the CFIUS process.

The bill I introduced today--the National Security Protection Act of 2006--goes to the heart of three very simple principles. First, since CFIUS is set up to protect our national security, the intelligence community--whose fundamental purpose is to promote national security-- needs to have a formal and expanded role in CFIUS. Second, accountability and transparency need to be made a permanent part of the CFIUS process. And third, when critical U.S. infrastructure might be acquired by a foreign government-controlled entity, CFIUS must perform a full 45 day investigation--no exceptions.

My bill would address these issues by doing the following: First, it would add the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, and Director of the CIA, DCI, to the CFIUS panel.

Second, it would create a CFIUS Subcommittee on Intelligence whose members would represent the heads of all of the intelligence agencies of the U.S. government. That subcommittee, chaired by the Director of National Intelligence, would review and provide comments on matters to come before CFIUS--including comments on 30 day reviews which do not result in 45 day investigations and comments on the results of 45 day investigations. This subcommittee would also conduct 15 day initial reviews of all cases filed with CFIUS.

Some might ask why the DNI would need to serve on both the full CFIUS panel and on the subcommittee. The reasoning behind this is simple--the DNI has two important roles in the process. On the full committee, the DNI should fill a role of providing policy advice from the perspective of the intelligence community. On the subcommittee level, the DNI should oversee the collection, analysis, and reporting on specific, case-related intelligence that is vital to the CFIUS process.

Third, the National Security Protection Act would create two Vice Chair positions on the full CFIUS panel, to be filled by the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security. That will help to ensure that economic, intelligence, and security matters are given appropriate weight in the decision making process. Economic interests, while important, must never come ahead of the protection of our national security.

Fourth, this legislation would mandate that only the CFIUS chair, with the concurrence of the two Vice Chairs, or the President acting on his own authority, can sign off on a 30-day review which concludes that a potential deal poses no security threat. In addition, it would require that this determination be made in writing with the appropriate signatures, and mandate that the CFIUS Chair and Vice Chairs who make such a determination be at the level of Secretary so that this responsibility is not delegated to subordinates. Furthermore, if either of the Vice Chairs dissent with respect to the decision to not conduct a 45-day investigation, my bill would mandate that the matter be sent to the President for a final determination.

Fifth, my bill would require the President or CFIUS to notify Congress not later than 15 days after paperwork is submitted by companies for CFIUS review, and not later than 15 days after the commencement of all 30-day reviews and 45-day investigations.

Sixth, this bill would also require the President to provide quarterly reports to Congress detailing all 30- and 50-day actions. These reports would include the intelligence subcommittee's comments on each case, and they would be submitted in unclassified form with a classified annex.

Seventh, for any transaction where a foreign-owned company is seeking to acquire U.S. critical infrastructure, this bill would mandate that the company provide the appropriate notification to CFIUS of the proposed transaction as well as the required information for CFIUS to examine the case. Currently that process is voluntary and it shouldn't be.

Eighth and finally, the National Security Protection Act would amend existing U.S. law, which governs under what conditions the President must conduct a full 45-day investigation. Currently, U.S. law requires a full investigation if ``an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government'' attempts to acquire a U.S. entity engaged in interstate commerce that could affect U.S. national security. My bill would clarify this provision by requiring a 45-day investigation whenever the U.S. entity to be acquired controls, owns, or operates critical infrastructure in the U.S.

I don't want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying here. Foreign investment in the U.S. economy provides an important influx of capital. In today's globalized world, we would do tremendous damage to our economy by cutting off foreign investment. And I do not think anyone here is talking about that.

Just to provide some reference, according to the Commerce Department, in 2004, foreigners invested $113 billion in U.S. businesses and real estate. But that amount is only about half as much as U.S. firms invested abroad. So while we rightly have concerns about outsourcing and enforcement of fair trade practices, the U.S. obviously gets significant benefits from participating in the global economy.

But supporting free and fair trade, and working to protect the national interest, are not mutually exclusive. Because we are not just working to protect the American worker, we are also trying to protect his or her family, and the generations to come.

Simply put, national security should never be subordinated to commercial interests.

Some would suggest that this is an issue of race-baiting, ill will, or bias toward the Arab world. Let me be clear on that point. Nothing we say with respect to DP World or the situation in the UAE--or any other potential deal--should be construed as such.

To that end, I wholly reject the views of those who suggest that our concern with the DP World acquisition, and with other foreign government acquisitions of U.S. critical infrastructure, is somehow rooted in a xenophobic ideology.

Rather, when it comes to international business, there are two main issues that I think we as Americans are concerned with. One is the protection of the U.S. economy, our industrial base, and American workers. The other is the safeguarding of our national security. With respect to the DP World-P&O deal, we're mainly talking about that second issue.

According to United Press International, UPI, operations at up to 22 U.S. ports would come under the control of DP World if it is allowed to acquire P&O's U.S. port operations. This includes critical ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, Mississippi, and Texas. And it reportedly includes two ports in Texas used by the Army, and through which approximately 40 percent of equipment shipped to our troops in Iraq has flowed.

Yet, CFIUS decided in less than 30 days that this deal did not pose a security threat to the U.S. There was no full and thorough 45 day investigation, which in my view was mandated by law. Indeed, the Byrd Amendment to Exon-Florio requires a full 45 day investigation if two conditions are met: first, that the acquirer is controlled or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and second, if the acquisition could affect U.S. national security. Both of these conditions are clearly met in this case.

There also appears to have been no consultation with Members of Congress on the DP World issue. In October, Deputy Treasury Secretary Kimmitt testified that he and his agency support more effective communication with Members of Congress to enhance the transparency of CFIUS. I ask where that communication was with respect to DP World.

Certainly, I understand the desire for protecting privacy, but that does not

excuse the lack of any real consultation with Congress and the resulting lack of transparency. This is an issue of checks and balances, which exist to protect Americans. And the protection of Americans must never be subordinated to foreign interests.

But there are other problems with CFIUS that have become apparent through the DP World case. Indeed, we recently learned that neither Secretary Snow nor President Bush knew about the DP World acquisition. Not even Secretary Snow's deputy knew about the matter while it was undergoing the initial 30 day review.

Now, given Secretary Snow's history with CSX, whose port operations were acquired by DP World in 2004, his lack of involvement was the right thing. I only wish that it had been intentional.

And when it comes to the President, I would simply ask this question: When operations at 22 critical U.S. ports are to be sold to a company controlled and owned by a foreign government, one with a questionable security history with respect to terrorism and WMD proliferation, why wasn't the President made aware of the deal?

In a March 1 New York Times article, the President was quoted as saying that ``If there was any doubt in my mind, or people in my Administration's mind, that our ports would be less secure or the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward.''

I frankly have no idea how the President could reach this conclusion. There has been no thorough investigation, as required by law. The President did not even apparently know about the DP World deal until very recently. It is precisely this kind of superficial determination that has the American people so worried about their security--and rightly so.

If all of this is not evidence of a broken CFIUS process, then I do not know what is.

I know that some people would argue that the issue is not CFIUS--that the real issue is having adequate measures to protect our ports. Frankly, I think that both of these are major Issues.

And if we look at the pathetic security situation at our Nation's ports today, that becomes quite clear. Only about 5 percent of the cargo that comes through our ports is actually inspected. Indeed, the resources available to the Department of Homeland Security to undertake port and container security are woefully inadequate. According to reports, U.S. Customs has only 80 inspectors to monitor the compliance of nearly 6,000 importers, who are currently charged with maintaining the security of their goods during transit. The Coast Guard is even worse off with 20 inspectors dedicated to assessing worldwide compliance with relevant international shipping and port facility security codes. That's 100 people for the whole world. And it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

But CFIUS reform is an indispensable part of the process of strengthening U.S. national security. Indeed, the current problems are evident in other cases besides DP World. Most recently we learned about another deal with a Dubai-based company. That company, Dubai International Capital is seeking, as part of a $1.2 billion deal, to acquire London-based Doncasters Group Ltd. Doncasters has operations in the U.S.--primarily in my home state of Connecticut and in Georgia.

True, in this case, CFIUS has decided to perform the full 45-day investigation. I'm glad that they have, because Doncasters is involved in the production of components for some of our most critical military equipment, including the M1 Abrams tank.

But while I'd like to think that the Doncasters investigation was begun on its own merits, I must admit that I find the timing of this investigation highly suspect. In fact, it appears that this investigation was not even launched until the DP World issue became public and stirred up some very legitimate concerns.

So as we can see, it is critically important that we reform the CFIUS process. We can not afford to sit and wait on this. The U.S. National Security Protection Act of 2006 would significantly strengthen CFIUS and thus our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill, the U.S. National Security Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I have introduced a bill entitled the U.S. National Security Protection Act of 2006. This legislation would enact some critical reforms with respect to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days on this bill.

One thing is clear. The importance of reforming CFIUS has been brought into sharp focus by the proposed acquisition of P&O Steamship Navigation Company's U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports, DP, World, a company based in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, UAE. The reason so many people are concerned about that particular deal is obvious: while security threats are dynamic, assets such as our ports are, and always will be, a national security concern.

CFIUS's role is to vet these deals for possible national security dangers. But the problem here is that the CFIUS process is broken. Indeed, the DP World deal was approved in less than 30

days--even though U.S. law clearly required there to be a full 45-day investigation.

Many of us here in Congress have for a while now expressed concerns over whether the current CFIUS structure is adequately protecting our national security. The GAO also expressed these concerns in a report it released last September. So again, it's not like the cat has suddenly been let out of the bag that the CFIUS process needs reform.

Yet despite all the evidence to the contrary--most prominently, the DP World-P&O deal--the administration does not seem to believe that there is anything wrong with the CFIUS process.

The bill I introduced today--the National Security Protection Act of 2006--goes to the heart of three very simple principles. First, since CFIUS is set up to protect our national security, the intelligence community--whose fundamental purpose is to promote national security-- needs to have a formal and expanded role in CFIUS. Second, accountability and transparency need to be made a permanent part of the CFIUS process. And third, when critical U.S. infrastructure might be acquired by a foreign government-controlled entity, CFIUS must perform a full 45 day investigation--no exceptions.

My bill would address these issues by doing the following: First, it would add the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, and Director of the CIA, DCI, to the CFIUS panel.

Second, it would create a CFIUS Subcommittee on Intelligence whose members would represent the heads of all of the intelligence agencies of the U.S. government. That subcommittee, chaired by the Director of National Intelligence, would review and provide comments on matters to come before CFIUS--including comments on 30 day reviews which do not result in 45 day investigations and comments on the results of 45 day investigations. This subcommittee would also conduct 15 day initial reviews of all cases filed with CFIUS.

Some might ask why the DNI would need to serve on both the full CFIUS panel and on the subcommittee. The reasoning behind this is simple--the DNI has two important roles in the process. On the full committee, the DNI should fill a role of providing policy advice from the perspective of the intelligence community. On the subcommittee level, the DNI should oversee the collection, analysis, and reporting on specific, case-related intelligence that is vital to the CFIUS process.

Third, the National Security Protection Act would create two Vice Chair positions on the full CFIUS panel, to be filled by the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security. That will help to ensure that economic, intelligence, and security matters are given appropriate weight in the decision making process. Economic interests, while important, must never come ahead of the protection of our national security.

Fourth, this legislation would mandate that only the CFIUS chair, with the concurrence of the two Vice Chairs, or the President acting on his own authority, can sign off on a 30-day review which concludes that a potential deal poses no security threat. In addition, it would require that this determination be made in writing with the appropriate signatures, and mandate that the CFIUS Chair and Vice Chairs who make such a determination be at the level of Secretary so that this responsibility is not delegated to subordinates. Furthermore, if either of the Vice Chairs dissent with respect to the decision to not conduct a 45-day investigation, my bill would mandate that the matter be sent to the President for a final determination.

Fifth, my bill would require the President or CFIUS to notify Congress not later than 15 days after paperwork is submitted by companies for CFIUS review, and not later than 15 days after the commencement of all 30-day reviews and 45-day investigations.

Sixth, this bill would also require the President to provide quarterly reports to Congress detailing all 30- and 50-day actions. These reports would include the intelligence subcommittee's comments on each case, and they would be submitted in unclassified form with a classified annex.

Seventh, for any transaction where a foreign-owned company is seeking to acquire U.S. critical infrastructure, this bill would mandate that the company provide the appropriate notification to CFIUS of the proposed transaction as well as the required information for CFIUS to examine the case. Currently that process is voluntary and it shouldn't be.

Eighth and finally, the National Security Protection Act would amend existing U.S. law, which governs under what conditions the President must conduct a full 45-day investigation. Currently, U.S. law requires a full investigation if ``an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government'' attempts to acquire a U.S. entity engaged in interstate commerce that could affect U.S. national security. My bill would clarify this provision by requiring a 45-day investigation whenever the U.S. entity to be acquired controls, owns, or operates critical infrastructure in the U.S.

I don't want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying here. Foreign investment in the U.S. economy provides an important influx of capital. In today's globalized world, we would do tremendous damage to our economy by cutting off foreign investment. And I do not think anyone here is talking about that.

Just to provide some reference, according to the Commerce Department, in 2004, foreigners invested $113 billion in U.S. businesses and real estate. But that amount is only about half as much as U.S. firms invested abroad. So while we rightly have concerns about outsourcing and enforcement of fair trade practices, the U.S. obviously gets significant benefits from participating in the global economy.

But supporting free and fair trade, and working to protect the national interest, are not mutually exclusive. Because we are not just working to protect the American worker, we are also trying to protect his or her family, and the generations to come.

Simply put, national security should never be subordinated to commercial interests.

Some would suggest that this is an issue of race-baiting, ill will, or bias toward the Arab world. Let me be clear on that point. Nothing we say with respect to DP World or the situation in the UAE--or any other potential deal--should be construed as such.

To that end, I wholly reject the views of those who suggest that our concern with the DP World acquisition, and with other foreign government acquisitions of U.S. critical infrastructure, is somehow rooted in a xenophobic ideology.

Rather, when it comes to international business, there are two main issues that I think we as Americans are concerned with. One is the protection of the U.S. economy, our industrial base, and American workers. The other is the safeguarding of our national security. With respect to the DP World-P&O deal, we're mainly talking about that second issue.

According to United Press International, UPI, operations at up to 22 U.S. ports would come under the control of DP World if it is allowed to acquire P&O's U.S. port operations. This includes critical ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, Mississippi, and Texas. And it reportedly includes two ports in Texas used by the Army, and through which approximately 40 percent of equipment shipped to our troops in Iraq has flowed.

Yet, CFIUS decided in less than 30 days that this deal did not pose a security threat to the U.S. There was no full and thorough 45 day investigation, which in my view was mandated by law. Indeed, the Byrd Amendment to Exon-Florio requires a full 45 day investigation if two conditions are met: first, that the acquirer is controlled or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and second, if the acquisition could affect U.S. national security. Both of these conditions are clearly met in this case.

There also appears to have been no consultation with Members of Congress on the DP World issue. In October, Deputy Treasury Secretary Kimmitt testified that he and his agency support more effective communication with Members of Congress to enhance the transparency of CFIUS. I ask where that communication was with respect to DP World.

Certainly, I understand the desire for protecting privacy, but that does not

excuse the lack of any real consultation with Congress and the resulting lack of transparency. This is an issue of checks and balances, which exist to protect Americans. And the protection of Americans must never be subordinated to foreign interests.

But there are other problems with CFIUS that have become apparent through the DP World case. Indeed, we recently learned that neither Secretary Snow nor President Bush knew about the DP World acquisition. Not even Secretary Snow's deputy knew about the matter while it was undergoing the initial 30 day review.

Now, given Secretary Snow's history with CSX, whose port operations were acquired by DP World in 2004, his lack of involvement was the right thing. I only wish that it had been intentional.

And when it comes to the President, I would simply ask this question: When operations at 22 critical U.S. ports are to be sold to a company controlled and owned by a foreign government, one with a questionable security history with respect to terrorism and WMD proliferation, why wasn't the President made aware of the deal?

In a March 1 New York Times article, the President was quoted as saying that ``If there was any doubt in my mind, or people in my Administration's mind, that our ports would be less secure or the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward.''

I frankly have no idea how the President could reach this conclusion. There has been no thorough investigation, as required by law. The President did not even apparently know about the DP World deal until very recently. It is precisely this kind of superficial determination that has the American people so worried about their security--and rightly so.

If all of this is not evidence of a broken CFIUS process, then I do not know what is.

I know that some people would argue that the issue is not CFIUS--that the real issue is having adequate measures to protect our ports. Frankly, I think that both of these are major Issues.

And if we look at the pathetic security situation at our Nation's ports today, that becomes quite clear. Only about 5 percent of the cargo that comes through our ports is actually inspected. Indeed, the resources available to the Department of Homeland Security to undertake port and container security are woefully inadequate. According to reports, U.S. Customs has only 80 inspectors to monitor the compliance of nearly 6,000 importers, who are currently charged with maintaining the security of their goods during transit. The Coast Guard is even worse off with 20 inspectors dedicated to assessing worldwide compliance with relevant international shipping and port facility security codes. That's 100 people for the whole world. And it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

But CFIUS reform is an indispensable part of the process of strengthening U.S. national security. Indeed, the current problems are evident in other cases besides DP World. Most recently we learned about another deal with a Dubai-based company. That company, Dubai International Capital is seeking, as part of a $1.2 billion deal, to acquire London-based Doncasters Group Ltd. Doncasters has operations in the U.S.--primarily in my home state of Connecticut and in Georgia.

True, in this case, CFIUS has decided to perform the full 45-day investigation. I'm glad that they have, because Doncasters is involved in the production of components for some of our most critical military equipment, including the M1 Abrams tank.

But while I'd like to think that the Doncasters investigation was begun on its own merits, I must admit that I find the timing of this investigation highly suspect. In fact, it appears that this investigation was not even launched until the DP World issue became public and stirred up some very legitimate concerns.

So as we can see, it is critically important that we reform the CFIUS process. We can not afford to sit and wait on this. The U.S. National Security Protection Act of 2006 would significantly strengthen CFIUS and thus our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill, the U.S. National Security Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me begin these comments by thanking, first of all, my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, who chairs the Rules Committee, and the other members of the committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, who worked over the past number of days to put together a Rules Committee bill.

The Rules Committee, for those who are interested in following this in detail, has jurisdiction over a couple of matters: the conduct of Members specifically and campaign finance reform issues. We don't have jurisdiction over lobbyists per se, except to the extent they are engaged in business with Members of Congress, with Members of this body. So our bill was specifically tailored to deal with Member conduct vis-a-vis lobbyists and, in some cases, spilled over a little bit into the campaign finance reform area, which I will address in a couple of minutes.

I wish to underscore the points Senator Lott has made about the cooperative spirit with which the Committee dealt with its business. We worked, and we had a good working session. In fact, we had a number of sessions, actually, before the markup to try to come to some consensus. The Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, when I asked him what sort of a bill he would like to put together, his first words were: A bipartisan bill. So we made that effort, and as a result of not an extensively long markup but one that went on for several hours where, as Senator Lott has pointed out, there were amendments that were agreed to and some disagreed to, and others made out of order, but we put together a bill that certainly was a major step forward, and it was supported by all members of the Rules Committee, even by members who had amendments that were rejected. We felt strongly that it was important that we try to act as unanimously as possible, and we did so.

So today we gather here in this Chamber for the full consideration of that bill, plus the bill that was authored by the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. This may be a unique situation about to occur here where the comanagers of this legislation will be the two Senators from the same State. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, is the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In fact, I watched their markup the other day on C-SPAN, and it was very healthy and productive and, I thought, a very comprehensive discussion of their jurisdiction of these matters, which clearly involves the role of lobbyists and their activities as they relate to Members as well but a bit different from the Rules

Committee. I congratulate them and members of their committee as well for a very thoughtful conversation.

I also commend Tim Johnson and George Voinovich, who are the vice chairman and chairman respectively of the Senate Ethics Committee. It has been said over and over again that there is no more thankless job in many ways than to be a member of the Ethics Committee, but they have done a remarkable job, in my view. They don't advertise what they do. Their meetings are not even necessarily publicized because they deal with these sensitive matters of allegations raised against Members of this body. But all of us who have watched them over the last number of years, along with the other members of that committee and their previous chairs, respect immensely the work they do. I suspect you are going be hearing from members of that committee during this debate and discussion as they report to this full body on their activities.

So today the full Senate begins the process of considering legislation to bolster congressional accountability, make the legislative process fair, more transparent, and to regulate more tightly the relationships between Members of Congress, the executive branch officials, and lobbyists.

It is imperative that we act on this bill to help restore the confidence of all Americans in the legislative process and in the laws we write. That confidence has been eroded by recent lobbying scandals involving Members principally, if not exclusively, of the House of Representatives. It is important that we note that.

I commend as well our Democratic leader, Senator Reid, for his leadership in this effort. Without his focus and dedication to bring real reform to the attention of the American people and to propose a very comprehensive measure himself which, in large part, is the basis of the bill we are considering today, we would not be as far along as we are. Senator Reid's bill is supported by 40 members of the Democratic caucus and represents a tough but appropriate response to the lobbying scandals of the other body.

We are still waiting for the majority of the other body to unveil their lobbying reform priorities. Had we waited for the response of the other body to lobbying scandals that affected the House, I believe we would not be standing before the American people today in the U.S. Senate addressing this issue. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership on this measure and for taking positions that were not necessarily well received here in Washington but are essential to the confidence of the American people and the legislative process.

Bringing this bill to the floor is a next step in a longer process which has occupied directly two Senate committees--Rules and Administration and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. These reform efforts will eventually involve both the Senate and the House of Representatives. We should also consider whether such reforms should extend to the executive and judicial branches as we consider changes to ethics laws. Some of these matters clearly spill over, in my view. Since we are dealing with these matters, we ought not to necessarily just leave it to ourselves and the legislative branch to examine these issues but should consider whether they should apply to our colleagues who serve in the executive and judicial branches as well.

So let us be clear from the very outset about why we are here. There have been serious allegations made, and guilty pleas entered, regarding the criminal activities of certain Members of the House of Representatives and former staff and the activities of Jack Abramoff and his violations of current lobbying gift and ethics rules. Some of these abuses have involved spending earmarks or other special interests provisions. One House Member has already been convicted of criminal wrongdoing, resigned his seat, and has been sentenced to 8 years in prison on corruption charges. Senior House staffers have pled guilty to various violations. Others, including a political appointee of the Bush administration, have been indicted as well. I suspect more indictments will follow. By their guilty pleas, these individuals have acknowledged that they broke existing law, and I suspect that but for these activities, we might not have been dealing with the legislation that now brings us to the floor of this Chamber.

The Abramoff story suggests that he also engaged in activities that, while perhaps technically legal, were nonetheless clearly unethical. In government, we must hold ourselves to a standard of accountability that involves not only doing what is legal but also what is right.

As my colleague from Connecticut has noted, with this bill we have a chance to make what is clearly wrong also clearly illegal. Stricter enforcement of current laws and rules will go a long way toward addressing abuses, but we must also look to further reforms to reduce the risk of future wrongdoing. It is important to strengthen our current rules and procedures where we can to avoid future problems. So that is in a nutshell what we are about today and why we are here.

Let me share a little bit of history because, as my colleague from Mississippi has pointed out, these are not events but rather a process, and they began a long time ago. As he pointed out, there are any number of efforts that have been made on so-called reform efforts.

Regulating the relationships between Members and lobbyists is not something new. In 1876, the House of Representatives tried to require lobbyists to register with its Clerk, but enforcement was weak and not much came of those efforts more than 125 years ago.

In the early 1930s, Congress held hearings on lobbying abuses with very little result at all, and in 1938 the Foreign Agents Registration Act was enacted, followed by the 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the scope of which the Supreme Court soon narrowed. Additional reforms were implemented in the 1960s and then the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the new Senate gift and travel rules followed.

I say this to try and place our efforts in historical context and to underscore that reform is an organic and dynamic process, not an event. So it is appropriate to review and reform existing lobbying laws, gift rules, earmarking, and other procedures periodically. It is especially necessary today in light of the most recent scandals that have hit this town.

Restoring the confidence of the American people in the legislative process requires it. If we fail here to come together to produce real reform, then we risk the further disillusionment of our fellow citizens and allow their confidence in Congress to erode further.

It is clear that real, enforceable ethics reforms do work. Ethics reforms have over the years worked to improve the way Congress operates. Conflict of interest rules, earned-income limits, lobbying disclosure laws, the McCain-Feingold law and honoraria ban--in both of which I was privileged to play a role in--and other key provisions have helped ensure greater transparency and accountability in the U.S. Congress. But we must do more, and we will in these coming days.

As the ranking member of the Rules and Administration Committee, with jurisdiction over elements of this bill that affect the treatment and obligations of Members of Congress, I have worked with my good friend, Chairman Lott, and committee colleagues on both sides to craft a bill on issues within our jurisdiction. That bill has now been married on the floor with legislation from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Maine and the ranking member from my home State of Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. These bills address the Lobbying Disclosure Act changes within its jurisdiction.

I hope ultimately we can craft an omnibus bill that will command broad bipartisan support and will be signed into law by President Bush. I think we have already come a ways in that direction. I have appreciated the cooperative posture of Chairman Lott in developing this measure which was reported unanimously, as I mentioned earlier, by the Rules Committee. There were a number of amendments offered in the committee to strengthen the measure, and some were accepted and some rejected.

My colleague went down this list, but it is important that my colleagues know what we were able to include. I

mention some of the reforms here: the ban on gifts from lobbyists, the requirements of additional reporting on meals as well. I might point out to my colleague from Mississippi, I suspect we may have already in effect, just established a ban on meals. Looking at the language in our own committee, the idea that people are going to be reporting every few days a $20 meal--I suspect most may decide it is not worth going through that. In fact, I may offer, at some point, to just make that a total ban on the meals altogether and avoid going through the process of having to list them on the Internet, which is what in effect we have accomplished in that provision of the bill.

The bill would also prohibit travel paid for by lobbyists and require prior approval of travel by the Ethics Committee. The bill requires for the very first time the disclosure of earmarks in bills, both appropriations bills and authorizing bills, and that imposes some complications, clearly, because an earmark authorizing bill may not be as clearly identifiable as one on an appropriations bill. In an appropriations bill you talk about Pascagoula, we talked about New London, CT. In an authorizing or tax bill it may describe ``some business that employs a certain number of people located above the Mason-Dixon line'' or something else. You would have to hire a scout or someone to go out and identify the specific entity that is being benefitted by that earmark. I suspect we are going to hear some conversation from our colleagues about how we are going to have to tighten it up. But the point the Senator from Mississippi was making in the Committee is this ought not be just appropriations matters. It ought to cover the spectrum where people parachute in a provision, particularly in a conference report, that had been neither considered by the House nor the Senate that ends up mysteriously in a bill.

If you try to take them out of that bill, by the way, when it comes back to the Senate, the entire bill in which they are located falls. None of us necessarily wants that to occur. Therefore a lot of these provisions have stayed in over the years. This is the reform being talked about here.

Our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, played a very critical role, with Senator Lott, in drafting the provisions that incorporated the Rules Committee bill. I think most Members believe if the matter was not in the House or Senate and ends up in the conference report, that ought to be subject to a point of order and come out of the bill. While we may disagree on this point--I have heard my colleagues speak eloquently about it--we should be making sure the point of order would prevail so you don't have just a simple majority but require a supermajority vote to allow that to occur.

If it is that important, if the Member believes he had to put it in-- and there may be such circumstances, by the way then the supermajority vote is appropriate. We have been around long enough to know what happens. We will pass an appropriations bill here, the House will do it, and then some event will occur, a hurricane, and then all of a sudden that is the only bill moving. So you want to put something in the bill. If it is on that level, then I suspect a supermajority of my colleagues will approve it. Nonetheless, real efforts are being made and our Rules Committee bill certainly dealt with that.

We also include a new point of order against the out-of-scope provisions. I mentioned that already. The bill would also require conference reports to be available 24 hours prior to the consideration on the Internet.

Again, some of these conference reports are mammoth. They would make ``War and Peace'' look like light reading when you see them. So having them for 24 hours is certainly going to be of some help.

It may shock Members or others to find out that these bills in many cases were not even printed at all. In some cases I remember over the years when we actually considered them. Nonetheless, I think that is a good step forward as well.

We eliminate floor privileges for former Members, officers, and Speakers of the House if they become lobbyists. It may be somewhat of a fine point, a piece of trivia. Members may not know this. Former House Members are not allowed on the Senate floor, but a former Speaker of the House is. That is the one former Member who is allowed in this Chamber. Most of our former colleagues certainly are not lobbyists, and those Members who have come back here do so infrequently, and it is always a pleasure to see them. But if you are a lobbyist, that raises a concern. I think the perception is such that we ought to keep people off the floor while they are engaged in that business--except under very special circumstances.

We require the disclosure of employment negotiations by Members and their staff prior to their departure from the Congress--again, something that I think is a good step forward. We also make it clear that efforts to influence employment practices of private entities on the basis of partisan considerations are a violation of the Senate rules. Again, this is going back to the so-called K Street project.

My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, raised this issue. There are already existing laws in the Criminal Code which prohibit certain of these activities. But my colleagues on the committee felt if it is already existing law we ought to make it clear, as well, that part of the rules of this place ought to be such that you cannot negotiate, on the basis of partisan politics, employment for people. I congratulate my colleague from Illinois for offering this language to address the K Street project.

Finally, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska offered an amendment, which was adopted, expressing the sense of the Senate that restrictions should apply to the executive and judicial branches as well. My hope would be we would do that.

My colleague from Mississippi has gone over a lot of this. The point being, we had an underlying bill. There were amendments offered. We strengthened the bill. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. It is a major step forward. I think, with the efforts made with the Homeland Security bill under the leadership of Senator Collins, we made a major step forward.

I anticipate some of those amendments that were rejected in our committee or ruled out of order may by offered on the floor. I may offer one or two of those amendments myself.

The most comprehensive amendment offered in Committee was one I offered on behalf of the Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, which took key elements of the sweeping reform bill he developed in consultation with our Caucus, the Honest Leadership Act. That bill has served to help frame this debate thus far, and set a standard for real reform. It was rejected by the Committee on a party-line vote, which I regret, but some of its provisions were eventually adopted in Committee.

I know that additional key elements of this measure will be offered by various colleagues in the coming days. I suspect there will be some amendments to the government affairs committee portion of this bill, too, some of which were rejected in Committee, some withheld for the Floor debate.

That is at it should be. Many Members will have ideas to improve the bill here on the Floor, and I am committed to working with colleagues on our side to ensure their ideas get a full and fair hearing and, where necessary, a vote. Although the combined rules/government affairs committee bill offers a good framework, it is clear that the bill can and should be improved.

Efforts to strengthen this bill will be the focus of amendments by Members on our side going forward, both here on the Floor and in conference.

I won't try to summarize in detail what is in the new bill, which merges the provisions of the Rules Committee and Government Affairs bills. Our distinguished colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Senator Collins, Chair of the committee, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman will be describing the provisions of their bill in detail. I ask consent that a brief section-by-section summary of the Rules Committee provisions be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The Rules Committee bill deals with those issues governing conduct of Members, as per our jurisdiction. The bill includes reform of the

gift rule to prohibit gifts from lobbyists. The Rules Committee- reported bill exempts meals from this prohibition, but does require that members and staff disclose any meals paid for by lobbyists, according to existing dollar limits.

This provision does not go far enough, in my opinion. While I recognize that much business is transacted over meals, members and staff can afford to pay for their meals at such meetings. If we are taking the step of banning coffee cups and candy from lobbyists, we should also ban the coffee and desserts.

Finally, let me say a few things about what I think is the elephant in the room on reform efforts. And that is the need to enact comprehensive reforms of the way we organize and finance campaigns in this country.

As I have said, gift and lobby reforms do matter, and are important. But while it is clear serious reform of the way some in Congress and their lobbying allies do business is needed, these changes alone won't address the core problem: the need for campaign finance reform which breaks once and for all the link between legislative favor-seekers and the free flow of inadequately regulated, special interest private money.

This is a much more significant issue than lobbying, gift and travel rules, or procedural reforms on earmarks and conference procedures and reports.

As my colleagues know, under current controlling Supreme Court precedents, including its landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo, comprehensive reform can be accomplished either through full or partial public funding in return for a voluntary agreement by candidates to abide by spending limits. Failing that, an amendment to the Constitution to enable Congress and the States to impose mandatory spending limits is needed. The idea that we are going to adopt a constitutional amendment is remote at best.

I have fond memories of our former colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, eloquently, year after year after year, beseeching this institution to adopt a constitutional amendment that would, I think, say something as simple as: For the purpose of Federal elections, money is not speech. I think that was the entire language of the amendment, or something like that.

I supported him on a couple of occasions because of the simplicity of us being able to regulate this without having to go to the alternative route, which is what we are going to be left with if we want some control, and that is public financing.

Some States have done that. Jody Rell, my Republican Governor, offered the language in Connecticut, adopted by the Democrat-controlled legislature. The State of Arizona has done it. The State of New Jersey, I think, has done some as well. So it is not without precedent, and it is the only other alternative we have, without amendment to the Constitution, to make an effort to try to reduce the kind of campaign spending problems we have.

My preferred approach would include a combination of public funding, free or reduced media time, spending limits, and other key reforms. Others will have different views and approaches. I appreciate that Chairman Lott has recently responded positively to my urging of a hearing in our Committee on comprehensive campaign reform.

I hope this will be the first step in a longer process of developing a comprehensive reform bill, although it may be difficult to actually enact such reform in this election year. It took us years to enact the McCain-Feingold law. Hopefully, it will not take as long to enact a more comprehensive bill for public financing.

But let me offer a caution on this point. While I am equally committed to seeing Congress act to respond to the lobbying scandals of recent months and address the role of special interest and lobbyist money in campaigns, I believe we must move these reforms and campaign finance reforms on separate and independent tracks.

Real campaign finance reform is more complex than reform of lobbying rules. We must not slow lobbying reform by tacking on unrelated campaign finance measures, which many on both sides would see as a poison pill.

Chairman Lott and I had a sort of tacit agreement that we would work to keep such campaign finance provisions off this bill in Committee. I would hope we can adopt the same approach throughout this process.

I suspect that will be difficult to achieve, since there will be those who seek to use this bill for partisan advantage. But I urge my colleagues, in the interest of enacting bipartisan lobbying reform, that we keep this bill relatively free of campaign finance provisions like 527 organization reform, tribal contribution changes, and others.

For myself, I think there is a real risk of weighing down this bill with so many campaign finance amendments that we will effectively kill it. I hope that does not happen, and I urge my colleagues to withhold campaign finance-related amendments until we get to a more appropriate vehicle for them to offer their ideas.

Let us hope we can make some progress on the campaign finance front. But I appeal to my colleagues on both sides, let us agree to do it separately from this bill, since adding these provisions could kill the very legislation that brings so many of us together.

Eventually, real campaign finance reform must address not just congressional campaigns but also the urgent need to renew and repair our Presidential public funding system as well, which has served Democratic and Republican candidates--and all Americans--for 25 years.

Some of us have pressed for comprehensive campaign reform for years. Current scandals offer a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address this issue in ways which both meet public demands for reform and the tests laid out by the Supreme Court since the Buckley decision.

The American public is way ahead of us on this issue. Too many people believe the interests of average voters are usurped by the money and influence of lobbyists, powerful individuals, corporations, and interest groups. Too many believe their voices go unheard, drowned out by the din of special interest favor seekers.

Our system derives its legitimacy from the consent of those we govern. That is put at risk if the governed lose faith in the system's fundamental fairness and its capacity to respond to the most basic needs of our society because narrow special interests hold sway over the public interest.

Most Americans would agree that the price of funding campaigns with clean money--so-called ``disinterested'' money--is a small price to pay to restore the confidence in our system. Comprehensive campaign finance reform, along with efforts to address the recent lobbying scandals, is necessary to return control of the process to the people to whom it belongs. That is what government of the people, by the people, and for the people has meant for over 200 years.

So, I end where I began, that is, with the concern about the confidence of Americans in Congress, our credibility, and the credibility of the legislative process being at stake. Let us not fool ourselves that these issues will ultimately be resolved without a fundamental overhaul of our campaign finances. I know when we eventually have this debate, the same tired arguments we have heard year after year will be trotted out in defense of the current system: Citizen funding is ``welfare for politicians''; we spend more on toilet paper than we do on campaigns; and political money equals speech.

That is ridiculous.

Some will argue that we must not curtail the first amendment rights of citizens, including the wealthiest Americans, to engage in the political process. I say let us have that debate. I welcome it.

I think most Americans would agree that the price of public funding of campaigns with clean money, uninterested money, is a small price to pay to restore that confidence in our political process, and to return control of that process to the governed. It is time for the Senate to come forward with fresh, bipartisan ideas on how we finance our campaigns.

I thank the majority and minority leaders and the Chairs and ranking member of both of these committees for their courtesies in bringing this legislation forward. I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues

over the next several days to conclude this process with a sound, strong piece of legislation.

We are here because of scandals that have wracked this town over the last number of days and weeks. We need to try to address those issues with this legislation. I believe we can.

Again, my compliments to my friend and colleague from Mississippi for his leadership, to Senator Collins of Maine, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and the respective members of these two committees--and to Tim Johnson and George Voinovich for the wonderful job they have done as leaders of our Ethics Committee in this body over the years.

With that, I yield the floor. I hope the chairman will maybe make such a proposal, but I suggest that we are going to be looking for amendments quickly. We are prepared to have time agreements on these amendments to allow for an adequate discussion of the proposal, and votes, if they are so needed. But if you will let us know what they are, we will help move this process along.

I want this debate to end this week. I think it can be done by Thursday. My goal is to have it done by Thursday. I ask the leaders to stay in session during the evenings, if we have to, to get the job finished. I hope that is not necessary.

Let us get amendments offered. Let us know what is on your mind, and we will line it up and see if we can't pass this bill by the end of the day on Thursday.

Exhibit 1

summary of s. 2349, rules committee-reported lobbying reform measure

Reported unanimously 11-0 (with remaining 7 members voting

in favor by proxy)

Sec. 1: Title: Legislative Transparency and Accountability

Act of 2006

Sec. 2: Out of Scope Matters in Conference Reports--

provides for a point of order to be made against individual

offending provisions, rather than the entire conference

report;

if the point of order is sustained, the Senate will recede

and concur with a further amendment (debatable question),

which if agreed to, shall return the bill to the House for

its concurrence;

provides that the point of order may be waived by a vote of

3/5 of the members (duly chosen and sworn) and that any

appeal of a ruling of the Chair also requires a 3/5 vote to

overturn.

Sec. 3: Earmarks (as amended by Sen. Feinstein)--

creates a new Rules XLIV on earmarks;

defines an earmark to be a provision that specifies the

identity of a non-Federal entity to receive assistance and

the amount of the assistance, with assistance defined as

being budget authority, contract authority, loan authority,

and other expenditures, tax expenditures, or other revenue

items;

requires that all earmarks in any Senate bill, Senate

amendment, or conference report, including an appropriation

bill, revenue bill, and authorization bill, be identified by

Member proposing the earmark and an explanation of the

essential governmental purpose of the earmark; and

publicly disclose all earmarks on the Internet for 24 hours

prior to consideration.

Sec. 4: Available of Conference Reports on the Internet--

amends Rules XXVIII to require that a conference report

must be publicly available on the Internet for 24 hours prior

to consideration;

requires the Secretary of the Senate to develop an website

for such purpose.

Sec. 5: Elimination of Floor Privileges--

amends Rule XXIII to eliminate floor privileges for an ex-

Senator, ex-Officer, and ex-Speaker of the House who is a

registered lobbyist, foreign agent, or someone who is in the

employ or representative of any party or organization for the

purpose of influencing the passage or defeat or amendment of

any legislative proposal;

allows the Rules Committee to provide regulations on

exceptions for the rule for ceremonial functions.

Sec. 6: Ban on Gifts From Lobbyists--

amends Rule XXXV to ban gifts from a registered lobbyists

or foreign agent;

EXCEPT for meals, which are allowed, under the current

dollar amount limits, but must be publicly disclosed on a

Member's website within 15 days of the meal.

Sec. 7: Travel Restrictions and Disclosure--

amends Rule XXXV to prohibit transportation or lodging to

be paid for by a registered lobbyist or foreign agent;

require advance approval for the trip by the Ethics

Committee;

require members to submit a certification to the Ethics

Committee, provided by the sponsor of the trip, certifying

that: the trip was not paid in whole or in part by a

registered lobbyist or foreign agent and the sponsor did not

accept funds from a registered lobbyist or foreign agent

specifically earmarked for this purpose;

require members to submit to the Ethics Committee,

certifying: a detailed itinerary of the trip; a determination

that the trip is primarily educational; is consistent with

the official duties of the Member, officer, employee; does

not create an appearance of use of public office for

private gain; and has a minimal or no recreation

component;

30 days after completion of travel, the member, officer, or

employee must file with Ethics Committee and the Secretary of

the Senate a description of the meetings and events attended,

the names of registered lobbyists who accompanied the member,

officer, or employee (unless such disclosure would jeopardize

the safety of the individual or adversely affect national

security); and post the information on the Member's website;

amend Rule XXXV to require the disclosure of any flight on

a non-commercial aircraft, excluding a flight on an aircraft

owned, operating, or leased by a government entity taken in

connection with the duties of the member, officer or

employee;

report to the Secretary of the Senate, the date,

destination, and owner or lessee of the aircraft, purpose of

the trip, and persons on the trip (excluding the pilot);

amend FECA to require disclosure of similar information for

flights taken by a candidate (except for the President or

Vice President) during the reporting period;

amend Rule XXXV to require the Secretary of the Senate to

publicly disclose all filings and require Members to post

such filings on their official website within 30 days of

travel.

Sec. 8: Post Employment Restrictions--

amend Rule XXXVII to prohibit highly compensated employees

from lobbying the entire Senate, effective 60 days after

enactment.

Sec. 9: Public Disclosure by Member of Employment

Negotiations--

amend Rule XXXVII to require that a Member shall not

directly negotiate prospective private employment until after

the election for his or her successor has been held, UNLESS

such Member files a statement with the Secretary of the

Senate, for public disclosure, regarding such negotiations

within 3 business days, including the name of the private

entity(ties) and the date negotiations commenced.

Sec. 10: Prohibit Official Contract by a Lobbyist Spouse or

Immediate Family of Member--

amend Rule XXXVII to prohibit a spouse or immediate family

member of a Member who is a registered lobbyist, or is

employed or retained by a registered lobbyist to influence

legislation, from having official contact with the personal,

committee, or leadership staff of that Member;

immediate family member means son, daughter, stepson,

stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father,

stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law,

brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the Member.

Sec. 11: Influencing Hiring Decisions (Sen. Durbin's

amendment)--

amend Rule XLIII to prohibit a Member from taking,

withholding, or offering or threatening to take or withhold

an official act or the official act of another with the

intent of influencing on the basis of partisan political

affiliation an employment decision or practice of a private

entity.

Sec. 12: Sense-of-the-Senate on Executive and Judicial

Branch Employees (Sen. Nelson's)--

express the sense-of-the-Senate that any applicable

restrictions on Congressional branch employees should apply

to the Executive and Judicial branches.

Sec. 13: Effective Date: date of enactment, except as

otherwise provided.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, let me add to the words spoken by others. With all due respect, we hear people talking about deficit financing, and I could not agree more. Twenty years ago I offered a pay-as-you-go bill that got 12 votes in the Senate. We ought to be doing that.

With all due respect, we have people in deep trouble, people not in a position to have resources to take care of themselves. Those here who live in the Northeast or the Midwest and the upper tier States understand this problem.

I cannot say how many times I have voted when matters affected the South or the West or when other parts of the country were devastated. I do so proudly. I tell my constituents in Connecticut that they are Americans, they are hurting, they need our help, and I give them my vote when they are in trouble.

I find it astounding when I listen to Members who say my constituents cannot get help in their time of need. That is what we are asking. It is cold where we live. We have a month and a half of winter left.

The Senators from Maine are asking for little consideration. The next time some Senator from some part of the country says they have a problem in the gulf States, we will not hear the Senators from Maine saying: I am sorry, we cannot deficit finance that. We will take care of our people.

That is what we are asking you to do today: Help us take care of our people. Support this, please.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dedicated public servant and a groundbreaker in her field, Lieutenant Regina Rush-Kittle. On March 3, Lieutenant Rush-Kittle will receive the Officer of the Year award from the Connecticut Association of Women Police.

Regina Rush-Kittle's long and distinguished law enforcement career began in 1983. After graduating from the University of Connecticut with a degree in political science, Lieutenant Rush-Kittle served as a correctional officer at a high security correctional institution for 2 years. She then joined the Middletown Police Department, becoming the first African-American female police officer on the force. She served as a patrol officer for 2 years prior to being accepted into the Connecticut State Police Academy.

Regina Rush-Kittle has been a trailblazer for African-American women in Connecticut law enforcement. After serving as the first African- American woman on the Middletown police force, she went on to become the first African-American woman to attain the rank of sergeant in the Connecticut State Police Department. Most recently, after scoring number one on both the lieutenants exam and master sergeants exam, Regina Rush-Kittle was promoted to lieutenant, the first African- American female to attain that rank in the department's 100-year history. Her current assignment as commander of the Bethany barracks makes her the first African-American woman in State history to command a barracks.

Lieutenant Rush-Kittle's tireless commitment to her community, her State, and her country extends beyond her achievements in Connecticut law enforcement. She is a long-serving Marine and Army Reservist. In 2003, she was deployed to Kuwait for a year, serving with the 804th Medical Brigade out of Fort Devens, MA. Upon her return in February 2004, she attained the rank of sergeant major, taking on responsibilities far beyond the normal obligations to serve 1 weekend per month and 2 weeks in the summer. Despite being eligible for retirement from the Reserves, Lieutenant Rush-Kittle continues to serve.

Regina Rush-Kittle is an outstanding citizen who goes above and beyond to protect her fellow citizens, her State, and her country. I commend her for her continued dedication, and congratulate her, her husband William, and her two children Jorrell and Gianna on this wonderful occasion.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection, STANDUP, Act of 2006--an important piece of legislation that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage drivers in our country.

We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative stage in a person's life, They are a bridge between childhood and adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and girls transition successfully into young men and women.

As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk- taking, A groundbreaking study published last year by the National Institutes of Health concluded that the frontal lobe region of the brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age of 25. In my view, this important report requires that we approach teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also requires that we have as a Nation an obligation to steer teenagers towards positive risk-taking that fosters further growth and development and away from negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and the well-being of others.

Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road. And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle causes severe harm and death.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between 15 and 20 years of age. Between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 young Americans between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes-- an average of 122 teenage deaths a week. Teenage drivers have a fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.

A recent analysis by the American Automobile Association's Foundation for Traffic Safety concluded that teenage drivers comprise slightly more than one-third of all fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which they are involved, whereas nearly two-thirds of all fatalities in those crashes are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.

Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that the chance of a crash by a driver either 16 or 17 years of age is doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with three or more peers in the vehicle.

Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often high- profile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers, and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle. Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.

One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before earning the full privileges associated with an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations, responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other motorists.

First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased in each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased by 40 percent between

1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at- fault'' crashes involving teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.

These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative. There are four principal components of this legislation which I would like to briefly discuss.

First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains four core requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system, implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, placing a restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision, and implementing a restriction on the use of electronic communications devices, such as cell phones, during non-emergency situations.

Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each, requiring at least 30 hours of behind- the-wheel driving for a novice driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated, misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or driving without a fastened seatbelt.

Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational materials on the GDL law.

Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non- compliance.

There are those who will say that the STANDUP Act infringes on States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that it is in the national interest to work to protect and ensure the lives and safety of the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists in our country. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.

The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well- known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly, these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection, STANDUP, Act of 2006--an important piece of legislation that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage drivers in our country.

We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative stage in a person's life, They are a bridge between childhood and adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and girls transition successfully into young men and women.

As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk- taking, A groundbreaking study published last year by the National Institutes of Health concluded that the frontal lobe region of the brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age of 25. In my view, this important report requires that we approach teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also requires that we have as a Nation an obligation to steer teenagers towards positive risk-taking that fosters further growth and development and away from negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and the well-being of others.

Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road. And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle causes severe harm and death.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between 15 and 20 years of age. Between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 young Americans between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes-- an average of 122 teenage deaths a week. Teenage drivers have a fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.

A recent analysis by the American Automobile Association's Foundation for Traffic Safety concluded that teenage drivers comprise slightly more than one-third of all fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which they are involved, whereas nearly two-thirds of all fatalities in those crashes are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.

Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that the chance of a crash by a driver either 16 or 17 years of age is doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with three or more peers in the vehicle.

Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often high- profile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers, and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle. Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.

One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before earning the full privileges associated with an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations, responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other motorists.

First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased in each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased by 40 percent between

1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at- fault'' crashes involving teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.

These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative. There are four principal components of this legislation which I would like to briefly discuss.

First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains four core requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system, implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, placing a restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision, and implementing a restriction on the use of electronic communications devices, such as cell phones, during non-emergency situations.

Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each, requiring at least 30 hours of behind- the-wheel driving for a novice driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated, misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or driving without a fastened seatbelt.

Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational materials on the GDL law.

Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non- compliance.

There are those who will say that the STANDUP Act infringes on States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that it is in the national interest to work to protect and ensure the lives and safety of the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists in our country. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.

The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well- known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly, these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting this important legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank the clerk for reading the full motion. Normally, I would interrupt the reading by the clerk, but I thought it important that those interested in the debate would understand what the motion is. This is a motion to instruct the conferees to support an amendment this body passed 2 weeks ago.

That evening, my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, in an awkward moment--it was a rather complicated moment involving an amendment--offered a substitute that took the heart of my amendment without the offsets that were included in my amendment, which this body adopted unanimously on a voice vote.

I am offering a motion to instruct the conferees to support that amendment. I also hope they will reconsider some of the offsets we suggested in the amendment I offered when this matter was debated by the full Senate. I would like to remind my colleagues that the proposal I offered the other evening was strongly endorsed and supported by the American Legion, a group that certainly understands the importance of providing the support and backing our veterans deserve, particularly those who are returning from theaters of conflict today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I ask unanimous consent this letter from the American Legion be printed in the Record.

I will have additional inclusions for the Record further in the debate as I lay out the arguments for this motion.

This is about priorities and choices. Those involved in public life are constantly asked to make choices and establish sets of priorities. It is not easy in many cases. Sometimes the choices are very difficult to make. In this case, the choice is a rather easy choice, it seems to me, given the facts presented by this motion. The amendment we offered 2 weeks ago and the substitute offered by the chairman of the Committee on Finance that this body adopted, provides for $12.9 billion for disability payments to veterans, $6.9 billion for veterans medical care, and $1 billion for veterans health facilities. I will explain those particular items in more detail in a few minutes. Basically, that was the amendment to which this body agreed.

The offset proposed in my amendment would have sunset the capital gains and dividends tax breaks for only those people making more than $1 million a year--which amounts to two-tenths of 1 percent of all taxpayers--99.8 percent of all other taxpayers under our proposal would not have been touched, only those making more than $1 million a year.

We suggested that the money saved by not providing the tax break for people in that small group be used to pay for the veterans benefits I have described. The House bill proposes to raise to $64.8 billion the amount we spend on tax benefits for the income group I have just described. We asked instead to reduce that amount in order to adequately provide for these veterans benefits.

I noticed earlier our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, referred to today's proceedings as being akin to the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' He stated that this is the third time the Senate has debated this bill in one form or another. I appreciated his discussion. Certainly, I can understand his frustration as the chairman of the committee that deals with such an important matter in this tax legislation. He and my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, have worked very hard on this legislation and would like to see it moved to conference. I agree. In fact, his reference to that movie is apt, and I endorse it.

The movie ``Groundhog Day'' reminds us sometimes in life we get another chance to get it right. That is what we are going to try to do this evening. That is why we are here today, to hopefully get it right when it comes to paying for urgent priorities

such as the health and safety of our troops and our veterans.

I don't know of another constituency group in America--maybe some of my colleagues might argue with what I am about to say, but I don't think there is another group of Americans who deserves as much of our attention as people who put their lives on the line for the United States of America every day. Those young men and women who are returning from theaters of conflict, broken individuals, at least in body--amputees, scarred, burned, and suffering tragic injuries of war-- deserve every bit of thanks, verbally, we can provide for them. But beyond that, they deserve our support and backing when it comes to the priorities of this Nation. I don't think it is asking too much, at a moment like this, to say to two-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers: How about a break; how about not taking that extra tax break and providing for the veterans benefits that are needed for these young men and women who are coming back from the theaters of conflict.

When this bill last came to the Senate 2 weeks ago, I offered an amendment that would have provided crucial health funds in a fiscally responsible manner to our wounded troops coming home.

Tax legislation passed in 2003 calls for spending $43 billion over the next 5 years on capital gains and dividend tax breaks for individuals making more than $1 million a year. The bill proposed by the House of Representatives would raise this number much higher--by this chart I am showing--to $64.8 billion. Instead of spending this money on the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States of America, my amendment would have used the resources to meet our veterans health needs--estimated by Nobel Prize- winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to be $18.9 billion over the next 5 years--establish a $1 billion trust fund for health facilities treating wounded and disabled veterans returning home, and reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion. That was the amendment I offered 2 weeks ago.

Regrettably, this Senate did not approve my amendment. We did, however, unanimously adopt, as I mentioned earlier, a substitute offered by my colleague from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, that still provides these needed funds--just without paying for them, as I and many other colleagues would have preferred. We believe you ought to pay for it.

Once again we are coming back. I regret the need for a ``Groundhog Day,'' but because of the procedures we operate under, I am getting a second chance. In effect, I am giving my colleagues a second chance to get this right. Do you believe it is that difficult a choice to make to reduce that $64.8 billion that we are about to provide to two-tenths of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans, to provide for the basic needs of our veterans returning from the theaters of conflict? That is the choice we will make when this vote occurs later today or this evening.

The House of Representatives has proposed not only keeping in place the scheduled dividends and capital gains tax breaks enacted in 2003 but adding 2 more years of them. My motion makes no statement about these tax breaks for the 99.8 percent of Americans who will get them. But for the two-tenths of 1 percent of the population that I am talking about, I think, frankly, they could do without this. I will tell you why.

Over the last number of years, we have provided $125 billion in benefits for this very narrow group of individuals. Between the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks alone, individuals in this narrow group--the top two-tenths of 1 percent of the population of our great country--have received more than $125 billion in benefits under the Tax Code. Meanwhile, our soldiers and veterans are being told to go without essential items such as body armor and the health care they need and deserve.

Again, politics is often about choices. In fact, in most cases it is about choices. What I am offering my colleagues tonight is a choice on whether we continue to underscore what the House has done or what we are doing by not paying for the benefits, or do we do what all of us would like to see done; that is, do we properly take care of these men and women coming back from the theaters of war.

The motion does not ask for the return of any of the $125 billion we have given between the 2001 and 2003 legislation. It simply acknowledges the reality that in a time of record budget deficits we need to make some different choices. Do we provide more tax breaks for a small group that has already received so much since this administration took office, as the House of Representatives proposes to do, or do we meet the needs of a nation at war in properly taking care of our wounded and disabled veterans as the funding approved by this Senate would do?

Over 2,200 men and women in uniform have died in combat in Iraq. Over 16,000 have been severely wounded in that conflict. But instead of addressing their needs fully and adequately, this administration has underfunded veterans medical health care.

Let me go back and make a point on tax, so everyone knows what I am talking about. Under the House bill, this is the choice: If we adopt in the conference the House bill and drop this amendment--some suggest it would not make it 10 feet down the hall between this Chamber and the House--we will be left with the wealthiest benefiting the most by extending the capital gains and dividends tax breaks.

The average tax cut in 2009, if this bill is agreed to, if you make $50,000 or less, will be $11. If you make between $50,000 and $100,000, your tax break is $77. If you make between $100,000 and $200,000, you get a $228 tax break. If you make between $200,000 and $1 million, you get a little more than $1,300 in a tax break. If you make $1 million or more, you get $32,111 in tax breaks. That is from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, their analysis of what would happen under this bill.

All we are suggesting is to take care of this by reducing that tax break for the people making over $1 million a year. I also want to see us beef up what could happen for the other individuals in the tax categories. The people making $100,000 and less, to receive $75 or $85 in a tax break is hardly what I call a windfall for people in this category.

I come back again to the beneficiaries under the motion I am making today and how they benefit. In fact, last year the administration devised its fiscal year 2006 VA budget that could only handle 23,000 veterans returning from Iraq. This number was drastically too low and the Veterans' Administration had to scramble to meet the needs of over 103,000 Iraq veterans on top of its already existing patient load. Imagine that. They submitted a budget that only provided for 23,000, and yet over 103,000 actually came back from that theater alone, to be added to the already overburdened patient flow.

Congress was forced, of course, as my colleague may recall, to intervene in the middle of the year, and in June of last year we approved an emergency spending bill that provided an additional $1.3 billion to address shortfalls in the VA health budget.

Now, I must stress that I have the greatest respect and admiration for former VA Secretary Tony Principi and the current occupant of that post, Jim Nicholson. I do not envy their jobs, particularly when they have an administration that does not seem to want to step up to the plate and provide the kind of backing at the budget office they deserve. They have led their Department with great distinction and have continued to do the best they can under the circumstances. But they have had a difficult task since the current occupants of the White House have repeatedly provided them with very, very limited resources.

I would like to show as well this article which appeared in the Washington Post. I will not read all of it, but I wish to point out a particular commendation for a Republican Member of the House, Steve Buyer, a Republican from Indiana, because it was from his insistent questioning at the time of the VA Under Secretary for Health that they were able to determine the $1 billion shortfall existed. Had it not been for the efforts of Steve Buyer, we may not have been able to correct the shortfall which existed at the time. From the beginning, our colleague, Senator Patty Murray, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee covering veterans and a lead sponsor of Democratic efforts to restore this amount, also led the charge, later joined by Larry Craig of

Idaho and others in her efforts. That is how the money got back in. But if it had not been for these Members, we might still be arguing about the shortfalls that were needed to provide for those people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed in the Record.

We cannot and should not address veterans' needs on the cheap again. According to some experts, this year, the VA health system is likely to face another shortfall of $2.6 billion due to the administration's drastically low veterans budget. And for all of the President's rhetoric about supporting our troops--and I do not in any way doubt he means it when he says it, but I remain concerned that the administration fails to back up the rhetoric with the kind of actions needed to see to it that these troops are going to get the support they deserve.

On the whole, I commend the President for finally proposing an increase of $1.9 billion in the VA budget for 2007. But as in previous years, the administration's priorities are wholly misplaced. In spite of the proposed increase, the President's 2007 request cuts the VA hospital construction budget by $576 million. To make matters worse, the administration's proposed budget would impose a doubling of veterans' prescription drug copays and assess a new $250 enrollment fee for thousands of veterans across our country.

As I mentioned on the floor before, the situation has gotten so dire that now our military personnel and veterans are having to rely on the charity of private citizens to build critical health facilities to meet their needs. According to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, our military personnel are suffering inordinate numbers of injuries resulting in brain damage, spinal injuries, and amputations. About 20 percent of those injured have suffered major head or spinal injuries and an additional 6 percent are amputees. Without financial support, our veterans are actually having to depend on the charity of private citizens to finance the construction of major rehabilitation centers for the most seriously wounded.

The Bush administration is simply not meeting its obligations to those wounded in Iraq--a war that has returned home amputees at twice the rate of Vietnam. And so, instead, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund is raising $37 million to build the Intrepid Center at Fort Sam Houston next year. It will be manned and operated by VA and Army personnel, but it is currently not expected to receive a dime from the U.S. Treasury for its construction because the White House would rather dole out scarce resources to the wealthiest of our fellow citizens who have already received so much. What kind of a choice are we making when we do that?

I remind my colleagues that the funding approved by this body--which without the support of this motion I fear will be wiped out in conference--will allow critical facilities such as this one to receive the investments they deserve from our Nation's Government.

Moreover, it will create a trust fund to allow private and State facilities that provide medical treatment to veterans to receive Federal funds as they meet our veterans critical health care needs. In addition to facilities such as the Intrepid Center, it will allow vital hospitals and veterans residences, such as the Connecticut State veterans home at Rocky Hill, the opportunity to tap into vital Federal resources as they strain to meet the increasing demands of caring for our veterans--young as well as old.

I cannot stress the importance of these programs enough. Our veterans need the critical care provided at our State veterans nursing homes and, regrettably, this administration is choosing to put scarce resources into more high-income tax breaks rather than address our veterans' essential living needs.

As a matter of fact, last year, the President actually proposed cutting off States' access to Federal funds to build and maintain State veterans homes. I did not make that up. That is what they proposed. It took an act of the Congress to reverse the President's budget proposal.

This year, although the Department has a list of 129--I am going to put these in the Record, Mr. President; I want my colleagues to see them--although the Department has a list of 129 State veterans projects approved for receiving Federal grants for new construction and improvements, 2006 allocations only provided enough for 13 of these 129 State projects around our country.

I will guarantee my colleagues, every one of your States is included in projects that will not be funded. These are your State veterans facilities, and these are good people out there doing a Herculean job of trying to provide for veterans from your States. Here they are, with 129 requests for projects they need, and only 13 of them will be funded because we are going to provide a huge tax break for people who have received $125 billion in tax breaks and are now about to get almost $70 billion more.

I would hope my colleagues would just, on this alone, be willing to support this motion. The proposed 2007 budget would flat-line this program of State construction at $85 million, providing funding, as I said, for 10 to 13 projects--it may not even be 13--and still leaving over 100 State veterans facilities looking for additional resources.

The funding approved by this body and supported by this motion I am offering this afternoon would address these shortfalls.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this Priority List of Pending State Home Construction Grant Applications--it lists the State, the facility in your State; and only the top 13 will be approved; maybe 13, maybe 10 next year--I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record so my colleagues can determine whether their State facility is on the list.

The funding approved by this body and supported by this motion would address these shortfalls and allow State homes to tap into a trust fund to provide more funding for construction that has already been approved by the VA.

In light of these facts, I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of not acting today. Call it Groundhog Day. Call it what you want. But the fact is, we have another chance now to get right what we didn't the other night.

Again, I support and appreciate what my colleague from Iowa did by offering an amendment to provide for these priorities. But we did not provide any funding for them. And there is not a Member of this Chamber who does not know what is going to happen. They did it as basically a political cover, to have an amendment which said: Yes, we agree with you, we should be paying for these priorities. But then, when I offered the amendment to pay for them, of course, I lost.

Today, you will get a second chance, like in the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' to try to get right what we got wrong the other night. You make the choice. If you think $64.8 billion in tax breaks for the two-tenths of 1 percent of the American population making more than $1 million a year is a more important priority than providing for State facilities that serve veterans, providing for disability payments and veterans medical care, then you explain that to your constituents. But that is the choice I am going to offer you this evening. Supporting the Senate position on this issue is the very least we can do to show our full backing of America's men and women in uniform. We owe these individuals at least that much.

I will end where I began. I do not think there is another constituency group in America that deserves as much support from the Congress as veterans do. Particularly in this day and age, if you go to Baghdad, if you go to Iraq, as many of my colleagues have, as I have-- and I see my colleague, Jack Reed, in the Chamber as well, a graduate of West Point and a veteran of the 82nd Airborne. You go there--and I have gone with him--and you meet these young men and women. It is a tough place to be. It is a tough place to be. It is a tough place to come back from, even under the best of circumstances. But if you come back physically broken, with arms and legs lost and scarred and burned, as 16,000 of them have, you deserve better. If you think millionaires deserve better than they do, I could not disagree with you more. And I am going to give you a chance tonight to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How long did that last vote require?

I thank the Chair.

Let me briefly explain to my colleagues the distinction between the vote you just took and the motion I offer. Very simply put, it is whether we are going to pay for the language we just adopted with the motion of the chairman of the Finance Committee to have $19.9 billion for veterans and then not provide the resources to achieve that goal. Everyone in this Chamber knows what will happen. That amendment will be dropped before this bill even gets out the door. If you adopt the motion I offer, you will support taking the $19.9 billion out of the $64.8 billion that the House of Representatives proposes to spend on the two-tenths of 1 percent of American taxpayers who make incomes of more than $1 million a year. For that small amount, we can pay the veterans who desperately need the kind of services all of us know they need. If you want to do something for the Grassley amendment, then adopt this motion which will provide the resources we have not adopted with the Grassley provision.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friend from Iowa, for the Dodd amendment, the offsets begin next year, 2007, on the capital gains and dividends tax breaks. The Grassley amendment I will support. I hope the Senator from Iowa will support my amendment. The distinction between the two amendments is whether you pay for it. I am grateful that the Senator from Iowa has taken my language on veterans resources going to veterans hospitals, things such as the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund facility at Fort Sam Houston in Texas, and others, so that we can provide for the 103,000 veterans who come out of Iraq and Afghanistan, where there is a shortfall today. If you take my amendment, we actually pay for it by asking one-fifth of 1 percent of those people who in the year 2007 and 2008 would be beneficiaries as a result of capital gains and dividends tax reductions; 99.8 percent of all the beneficiaries under the capital gains and dividends tax reductions would not be touched by the Dodd amendment.

This is a simple distinction here. If you think we ought to do something on behalf of our veterans, then we ought to have the courage to pay for it. You have to make choices. A modest reduction in the capital gains and dividends tax reduction for 2 years, coming from less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the population making over $1 million a year is very little to ask for.

I ask for the adoption of the Grassley amendment. I also urge you to adopt our amendment. I don't want to see this amendment drop before it gets to the Ohio clock, and I know that is what is going to happen if we don't pay for the amendment.

Mr. President, in a bizarre situation, pursuant to section 904 the Congressional Budget Act----

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of a number of colleagues: Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Boxer, Mikulski, Akaka, and Reed.

First, I thank the American Legion. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Legion endorsing the Dodd amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the distinction between this amendment and what we just voted on is, of course, paying for this. This amendment would provide at least around $18 billion, $19 billion in needed funds to serve returning veterans from theater of conflict.

We know last year that over 100,000 Iraqi veterans returned home. Yet the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget for the VA was only prepared to handle 23,000 veterans. There are shortfalls in every State across the country. There are shortfalls in private facilities as well as public ones. This amendment is for us finally to say let's do something for these people.

Last year, we were promised it would be accommodated in the appropriations process. It had to be done as almost an afterthought. I don't like offering this amendment on this bill. I understand the problems associated with it. But if we don't finally do something, these veterans will lose the support they deserve. That is why the American Legion is so strongly supporting this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to join me in seeing to it we have the resources to pay for this. If we don't pay for it, this amendment will not make it past the Ohio Clock. It will be dropped, and, once again, veterans will suffer. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to waive all provisions of the Budget Act and budget resolutions necessary for consideration of the pending amendment to this bill, and for inclusion of the language of the pending amendment in the consideration of an amendment between the Houses.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana.

I begin by once again expressing my appreciation to both he and my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and their staffs. They do tremendous work and we are all grateful to them and the members of their staffs for pulling together important pieces of legislation such as this one. It is not an easy job. It is one of the most important, if not the most important, committees of the Senate. They do a remarkable job and I personally thank them for a tremendous job. I know we don't make their lives any easier when we, who are not on the committee, offer different amendments

and ideas, but we have ideas we would like to suggest as well.

Let me mention, if I can--I will state the obvious--that we are a nation at war. It has been said over and over again by others, but maybe not often enough. We enjoy a relative calm and comfort in Washington these days, but as we speak, we know that there are the young men and women of our armed services who are in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are bravely defending our freedom on battlefields overseas, and keeping America safe and secure at home. The President, last evening, in the State of the Union Address spoke to this issue, and the thunderous response from Democrats and Republicans in the joint session of Congress, I think, evidenced the strong support we all feel for these brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States both on troubled battlefields as well as elsewhere around the globe. They deserve our unending support and admiration for their work.

We all know that over 2,200 men and women in uniform have been killed in Iraq, and over 16,000 have been severely wounded. The U.S. Government should have few higher priorities than taking care of our military veterans who have served in harm's way to defend our freedom.

Sadly, however, the Bush administration in recent years has had other priorities, it would seem. Throughout the last 5 years, the administration failed, in my view, to meet its commitments to our troops and their families, despite the rhetoric coming from the White House. In fact, just days ago we learned the Pentagon has now only started to address the inexcusable and shocking shortfalls in troop protection. Three years into the Iraq war and more than 4 years after the start of the conflict in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has just now decided to order more than 200,000 additional sets of body armor. Sadly, it may take another year before all of this equipment reaches our soldiers and marines deployed in harm's way.

The administration's failures have not ended there. When our troops have come home, the Government's efforts to meet their needs also has fallen short. In fact, last year, despite adamant denials by the administration, we now know as a matter of fact that the President's 2006 budget fell over $1 billion short of meeting veterans' health care needs. Although our colleagues such as Dan Akaka of Hawaii and Patty Murray of Washington, had said so from the very outset last year on this floor and warned about what was being done, Congress had to step up as late as June to restore funding in an emergency supplemental.

Such an occurrence, in my view, is unconscionable--that the White House's Office of Management and Budget seemed to treat America's veterans and their health care needs as almost an afterthought. I fear the administration is poised to repeat that mistake in 2007 as well.

Indeed, we already know that our Federal resources are straining to meet veterans' needs, particularly the needs of military personnel just returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the Department of Defense, 120,000 servicemembers, or 28 percent of military veterans returning from Central Asia, are being treated in the VA system. But for some reason, the administration refuses to incorporate those very figures into its development of the VA budget.

Other medical facilities treating America's brave men and women are straining as well--military hospitals, such as Walter Reed, put on the base closure list by the administration; State veterans facilities funded by State budgets already stretched far too thin, such as my own State of Connecticut's State Veterans medical and residential facilities at Rocky Hill; and private health facilities that help veterans throughout the country.

It has been noted recently in the press that a rehabilitation center for amputees and other wounded soldiers is being built near the Brooke Army Medical Center. This critical facility, to be established at Fort Sam Houston, will be the nation's premier facility for treating troops who have lost limbs, suffered severe burns, blindness, and head injuries on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But as the San Antonio Express-News recently asked on its front page: Why isn't the Federal Government paying for any of it? In fact, although eventually this facility will be handed over to VA and Army personnel to administer, its construction is being fully financed with donations of private citizens.

I admire those making these contributions to support this facility for our heroes, but the idea that the Federal Government would not be taking better care of our veterans, I think, is an outrage. But apparently, the Bush administration believes that our military veterans should have to rely on the charity of private citizens to provide the resources for their critical care--because to the White House, tax breaks for millionaires seems to be a far bigger priority.

Such logic simply makes no sense. It is our Federal Government's responsibility to meet its obligations to our combat veterans.

I mentioned the other night that I had a knee replacement operation a few weeks ago. I go downstairs in this very building and I get rehabilitation. We have a wonderful facility where I can spend an hour each day and get rehabilitation. I am happy to do that.

Explain to this Senator why it takes private donations to provide facilities for rehabilitation for veterans coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan who lost a leg, is blind, or has suffered burns or other serious injuries? There is something wrong with a situation when Members of Congress can get taken care of, but our veterans do not.

The amendment I will be offering tomorrow will provide critical resources to facilities such as the Center for the Intrepid in Texas which, due to current shortfalls in the federal government, is being constructed using exclusively private funds.

Again, I respect immensely those making the private donations, but we have to do better on behalf of our veterans than we are doing. It is unconscionable that we now have to rely on the charity of citizens to establish important rehabilitation centers for our military veterans.

We already know that our Federal resources are being stretched thin as a result of this administration's policies. The package of budget reconciliation legislation this body has considered over the previous few months presents us with a clear choice in philosophies: Do we invest in the priorities that will meet our commitments to America's brave men and women who have sacrificed on the battlefield for our country, or do we continue to prolong a primitive agenda that has failed to address the major challenges of our era?

We heard the President at least begin to say the right things in his State of the Union Message last evening to support our troops, and I thank him for that, but it is not enough just to talk about these issues; we need to do far more. We need to start matching our words with our policies. Rather than put Federal resources toward important facilities, including the ones I have mentioned, the President has decided to reward the wealthiest of our fellow citizens with these tax cuts.

One could argue that no Presidential administration in history has been as generous toward the ultra-affluent as this administration has. Under the tax breaks of 2001 and 2003 alone, individuals with incomes greater than $1 million a year, who represent two-tenths of 1 percent of the population, have received more than $125 billion in tax-cut benefits. Meanwhile, our soldiers and veterans are being told to go without essential items and rely on private donations to take care of them with items such as body armor and the health care they need and deserve.

If we cancel the final 2 years of the capital gains and dividend tax breaks for two-tenths of 1 percent--two-tenths of 1 percent, Mr. President--of individuals with incomes greater than $1 million--only two-tenths of 1 percent--then we can save approximately $28 billion, while still preserving reduced rates for 99.8 percent of all the other Americans.

My amendment would make this change, and with the $28 billion saved over the next 2 years, funds would be distributed to health facilities that treat military personnel and veterans. These facilities would include, as I mentioned, Federal military hospitals, VA hospitals and clinics, State and other institutions that treat military

veterans throughout our Nation. We owe it to America's men and women in uniform.

This is not hyperbole. These are the facts. It is tragic, in this day and age, that we can't do a better job of servicing these brave individuals. So at an appropriate time tomorrow, I will offer this amendment which will do what I have been talking about.

Again, I thank my colleague from Montana and my colleague from Iowa for their gracious leadership on this bill.