Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize Mr. Allan W. McWilliams of Berryville, VA, who has served on the town council for 24 years. Mr. McWilliams served as ward representative from 1982 until 1991 and assumed his current role as the town's recorder in 1991.

Mr. McWilliams, who is affectionately known as ``Bugs,'' has made numerous contributions as one of the town's leaders. During his tenure on the town council, Mr. McWilliams has worked to promote fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and responsible planned growth. He has overseen the development of a professional community police force and has helped to implement a long-range capital planning project. As a resident of Berryville for more than 50 years and an owner of a business in downtown Berryville for the past 27 years, Mr. McWilliams is truly committed to the growth and success of this town.

Mr. McWilliams, who is married to Barbara and is the father to Jeffery and Michelle, has brought an innovative spirit and common- sense, principled leadership to the Town of Berryville. I am grateful for his service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and am pleased to join his colleagues, friends and family members in honoring him upon his retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, my good friend from Nebraska, Senator Nelson, and 11 other Senators--Senators Craig, Inhofe, Lott, Dole, Vitter, Ensign, Martinez, Burr, Crapo, Sununu, and Thune--to introduce legislation to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard under which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State. The bill is a companion bill to H.R. 4547, which Congressmen Cliff Stearns of Florida and Rick Boucher of Virginia have introduced in the House.

Our bill would allow any person with a valid concealed carry permit or license issued by a State to carry a concealed firearm in any other State if they meet certain criteria. The laws of

each State that govern where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply and would be fully respected within its borders. The bill would simply require States to recognize each other's concealed carry permits and licenses, just as they recognize drivers' licenses. It would not create a Federal licensing system.

The right-to-carry movement has enjoyed great success throughout our Nation. To cite just one example, the murder rate in my Commonwealth of Virginia has plunged a dramatic 40 percent since the right-to-carry law that I signed as Governor took effect in 1995.

This is commonsense legislation. It recognizes that Congress has affirmed an individual's right to carry firearms for ``protective purposes in the Gun Control Act, 1968, and in the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, 1986. In addition, last year, when this Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on a strong bi-partisan vote, we preserved all law-abiding citizens' access to firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including, of course, self-defense.

I urge all my colleagues to join with Senator Nelson and me in cosponsoring this bill to increase the safety of the many law-abiding Americans who have chosen to carry a firearm for protection against criminal attack.

Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Virginia always refers to me as the ``junior Senator from Virginia,'' what an honor it is to serve with Senator John Warner. He has served our country since World War II, through Korea, in a variety of ways. He is a genuine American hero who has just made history tonight, his 10,000th vote cast.

There have only been 25 other Senators in the 218 years of the U.S. Senate who have cast that many votes. I know I speak for the people of Virginia, as his partner, and for all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we look forward to casting many more votes with this genuine American hero who has devoted his life to freedom, to justice, and showing us the proper manners, cordiality, and also the way to get things done for the American people.

We all salute you, Senator John Warner.

(Applause, Members rising.)

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize James Monroe, a Virginia patriot on the 248th anniversary of his birth and to honor his service to our Nation as a soldier, legislator and as the fifth President of the United States of America. I rise today to honor his undeniable legacy.

James Monroe, born April 28, 1758, Monroe attended the College of William and Mary, fought with distinction in the Continental Army, and practiced law in Fredericksburg, VA. As a youthful politician, he joined the anti-Federalists in the Virginia Convention which ratified the Constitution, and became an advocate of Jefferson principles.

A student of Thomas Jefferson's after serving in the Revolutionary War, James Monroe was an adherent of Mr. Jefferson's principles of individual freedom and restrained representative government, which would guide him through 50 years of public service. Elected to the Virginia General Assembly in 1782, Monroe served in the Continental Congress and in the first United Senate before his first two terms as Minister to France. He returned to his Virginia, and as many students of Mr. Jefferson have done since, served 4 years as a native Governor.

Elected President of the United States in 1816, Monroe's Presidency has long been referred to as the Era of Good Feeling. James Monroe helped resolve longstanding grievances with the British and acquired Florida from the Spanish in 1819. James Monroe signed the Missouri Compromise that called for the prohibition of slavery in western territories of the Louisiana Purchase, which James Monroe was instrumental in obtaining. He renounced European intervention or dominion in the Western Hemisphere with one of our Nation's greatest foreign policy documents, the Monroe Doctrine.

In 1820, Monroe achieved an impressive reelection, losing only one electoral vote, preserving the honor of a unanimous election for George Washington.

My own family has strong ties to the legacy of James Monroe. My wife Susan and I enjoyed our wedding on the grounds of his home: Ashlawn- Highland in Charlottesville. In fact, part of Monroe's property in Albemarle County is now on the grounds of his teacher's great institution of learning, the University of Virginia and is respectfully referred to as Monroe's Hill.

The life of James Monroe is one that embodied virtue, honor and commitment during his accomplished life of public service. It is fitting that he would pass from this Earth on Fourth of July, 1831. It is with sincere admiration that I respectfully ask my colleagues to recognize James Monroe's 248th birthday as a reminder of his remarkable and magnificent leadership for the people of Virginia and the United States.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize the Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond, Incorporated, which has served the business community of Richmond for 100 years. What began as a small advocacy group founded by 12 merchants in 1906 has grown into a thriving organization that serves 4 cities and 10 counties in central Virginia.

The Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond has worked tirelessly to ensure that its companies grow and prosper. It has also demonstrated a commitment to serving the larger community of Greater Richmond by investing in institutions and programs that promote innovation, encourage fellowship and ensure the safety of its residents.

The Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond, recognizing the importance of leadership, cooperation, integrity and foresight, has truly been a positive force in making central Virginia a wonderful place to do business. I am confident that it will continue to serve the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia for many years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the growing success of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and legislation I have introduced to expand Health Savings Accounts.

In a positive action, Congress created Health Savings Accounts as part of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). Health Savings Accounts are an alternative to traditional health insurance--a savings product that offers a different and attractive way for consumers to pay for their health care. HSAs enable an individual to pay for current health expenses and save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

An individual must have coverage under an HSA qualified health plan to open and contribute to an HSA. HSA qualified health plan premiums generally costs less than traditional health care coverage. Therefore, an individual can put the money he or she saves on insurance into a personal Health Savings Account.

I've always described myself as a common sense Jeffersonian conservative, which means I trust free people and free enterprise more than a meddlesome, burdensome government and that's why I'm such a strong advocate for Health Savings Accounts. Individuals own and control the money in their HSAs. Unlike a Flexible Spending Account, funds remain in the account from year to year, just like an IRA. There are no ``use it or lose it'' rules for HSAs. HSAs can become, over time, a strong, affordable health insurance product providing a savings ``nest egg'' for health care expenses.

In addition, HSAs allow individuals to make decisions on how to spend their money without relying on a third party. More specifically, the individual makes decisions about how much. money he or she wants to put into the account, whether to save for future medical expenses, or pay expenses that health insurance plans may not cover.

The individual also decides what types of investments to make with the money in the account that will allow the account appreciate and grow in value. I want to make clear right here that the individual does not have to invest their money if he or she doesn't want to. This is only an option. The bottom line is that Health Savings Accounts give people the freedom to make the health care choices that best fit their needs and that best represent Mr. Jefferson's ideals and my own.

Now, there are critics of health savings accounts. However, there is convincing evidence that HSAs have proven effective in controlling health care costs and providing an affordable option for Americans without health Insurance coverage.

Critics who claim that rich people gain most from the tax breaks of HSAs should look at the facts. Of the 3 million Americans who have enrolled in HSA plans, 32 percent were previously uninsured, and the uninsured are not typically wealthy. Critics suggest HSAs will drive up the cost of premiums. However, a recently released study from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions showed HSA qualified plans had a 2.8 percent annual premium increase, compared to 8 percent for all other plans. This low rate of increase is another reason HSA qualified plans are affordable to those with lower incomes.

Another common criticism of HSAs is that the tax break benefits are ``too generous.'' But the President's proposal offering both a tax deduction and tax credit for money used to fund HSAs is no more generous than current tax benefits for employer-sponsored health coverage. However, our laws and proposal only level the playing field.

Proponents of HSAs do not pretend that HSAs are going to ``fix'' the entire health care system, although they may go a long way toward doing so with more individual responsibility and opportunity. HSAs are an additional option--one that is affordable and chips away at part of the problem: the millions of uninsured Americans. Individuals need health insurance, especially for costly medical services, not only tax deductions for out-of-pocket spending. It is the combination of two products--the HSA and HSA-qualified health insurance plan--that has allowed over one million previously uninsured Americans to afford real health coverage.

I am very pleased to see the positive results of Health Savings Accounts. But we cannot let this momentum slow down. We must do more to promote HSAs and give individuals more control over their health care needs--and that is why I am here today. I am introducing legislation that would increase the maximum amount individuals can contribute to their HSA.

Under current law, an individual's contributions are limited to the lesser of the amount of the deductible or $2700 for self-only coverage, ($5450 for family coverage), for 2006. Under this proposal, a person could contribute--without paying income or payroll taxes on the contribution--up to the plan's out-of-pocket maximum, which is higher than the deductible. So for an individual, the maximum out-of-pocket for 2006 cannot exceed $5250 or $10500 for a family. It is important to note though, that each HSA qualified health plan sets their own limit on out of pocket expenses, therefore, for an individual their out-of- pocket expenses may be lower than maximum $5250 but more than the current limit of $2700. Nevertheless, this legislation allows individuals to save more money for their current and future health care needs and I am proud to be introducing it.

Moreover, this proposal will remove the tax bias against consumer- directed

health plans. Today, the tax code subsidizes health care purchased through insurance but generally does not subsidize health care paid out-of-pocket. This encourages excessive reliance on insurance for even predictable, non-catastrophic care, which in turn reduces consumer sensitivity to the cost of health care. My proposal would help improve the efficiency and slow the growth of our nation's health care spending.

Studies estimate that the average retiree will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings for out-of-pocket old-age health costs. HSAs provide strong tax incentives to encourage such savings. On a side note, I have introduced legislation, the Long-Term Care Act that compliments this HSA proposal. Under the Long-Term Care Act, we would allow individuals to use their 401(k) savings to pay for long-term care insurance. Both proposals provide commonsense approaches that will encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and reduce individuals' reliance on programs such as Medicaid.

HSAs have proven to be an effective health cost containment tool. While there is a cost to the federal government associated with the tax benefit portion of HSA plans, we must weigh that cost against the cost of doing nothing and allowing cost shifting to those with insurance. Our health care system needs to switch to a preventive care system, which will keep future health care costs down rather than our current costly reactionary system. If we continue down our current path and make no significant changes to our health care system, the unfunded liability of entitlement spending will reach $26 trillion by the year 2030, consuming the entire federal budget. We're at a crucial point, and I believe my legislation, and HSAs in general, offer a step in the right direction for personal responsibility in fostering affordable health care and savings.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the growing success of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and legislation I have introduced to expand Health Savings Accounts.

In a positive action, Congress created Health Savings Accounts as part of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). Health Savings Accounts are an alternative to traditional health insurance--a savings product that offers a different and attractive way for consumers to pay for their health care. HSAs enable an individual to pay for current health expenses and save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

An individual must have coverage under an HSA qualified health plan to open and contribute to an HSA. HSA qualified health plan premiums generally costs less than traditional health care coverage. Therefore, an individual can put the money he or she saves on insurance into a personal Health Savings Account.

I've always described myself as a common sense Jeffersonian conservative, which means I trust free people and free enterprise more than a meddlesome, burdensome government and that's why I'm such a strong advocate for Health Savings Accounts. Individuals own and control the money in their HSAs. Unlike a Flexible Spending Account, funds remain in the account from year to year, just like an IRA. There are no ``use it or lose it'' rules for HSAs. HSAs can become, over time, a strong, affordable health insurance product providing a savings ``nest egg'' for health care expenses.

In addition, HSAs allow individuals to make decisions on how to spend their money without relying on a third party. More specifically, the individual makes decisions about how much. money he or she wants to put into the account, whether to save for future medical expenses, or pay expenses that health insurance plans may not cover.

The individual also decides what types of investments to make with the money in the account that will allow the account appreciate and grow in value. I want to make clear right here that the individual does not have to invest their money if he or she doesn't want to. This is only an option. The bottom line is that Health Savings Accounts give people the freedom to make the health care choices that best fit their needs and that best represent Mr. Jefferson's ideals and my own.

Now, there are critics of health savings accounts. However, there is convincing evidence that HSAs have proven effective in controlling health care costs and providing an affordable option for Americans without health Insurance coverage.

Critics who claim that rich people gain most from the tax breaks of HSAs should look at the facts. Of the 3 million Americans who have enrolled in HSA plans, 32 percent were previously uninsured, and the uninsured are not typically wealthy. Critics suggest HSAs will drive up the cost of premiums. However, a recently released study from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions showed HSA qualified plans had a 2.8 percent annual premium increase, compared to 8 percent for all other plans. This low rate of increase is another reason HSA qualified plans are affordable to those with lower incomes.

Another common criticism of HSAs is that the tax break benefits are ``too generous.'' But the President's proposal offering both a tax deduction and tax credit for money used to fund HSAs is no more generous than current tax benefits for employer-sponsored health coverage. However, our laws and proposal only level the playing field.

Proponents of HSAs do not pretend that HSAs are going to ``fix'' the entire health care system, although they may go a long way toward doing so with more individual responsibility and opportunity. HSAs are an additional option--one that is affordable and chips away at part of the problem: the millions of uninsured Americans. Individuals need health insurance, especially for costly medical services, not only tax deductions for out-of-pocket spending. It is the combination of two products--the HSA and HSA-qualified health insurance plan--that has allowed over one million previously uninsured Americans to afford real health coverage.

I am very pleased to see the positive results of Health Savings Accounts. But we cannot let this momentum slow down. We must do more to promote HSAs and give individuals more control over their health care needs--and that is why I am here today. I am introducing legislation that would increase the maximum amount individuals can contribute to their HSA.

Under current law, an individual's contributions are limited to the lesser of the amount of the deductible or $2700 for self-only coverage, ($5450 for family coverage), for 2006. Under this proposal, a person could contribute--without paying income or payroll taxes on the contribution--up to the plan's out-of-pocket maximum, which is higher than the deductible. So for an individual, the maximum out-of-pocket for 2006 cannot exceed $5250 or $10500 for a family. It is important to note though, that each HSA qualified health plan sets their own limit on out of pocket expenses, therefore, for an individual their out-of- pocket expenses may be lower than maximum $5250 but more than the current limit of $2700. Nevertheless, this legislation allows individuals to save more money for their current and future health care needs and I am proud to be introducing it.

Moreover, this proposal will remove the tax bias against consumer- directed

health plans. Today, the tax code subsidizes health care purchased through insurance but generally does not subsidize health care paid out-of-pocket. This encourages excessive reliance on insurance for even predictable, non-catastrophic care, which in turn reduces consumer sensitivity to the cost of health care. My proposal would help improve the efficiency and slow the growth of our nation's health care spending.

Studies estimate that the average retiree will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings for out-of-pocket old-age health costs. HSAs provide strong tax incentives to encourage such savings. On a side note, I have introduced legislation, the Long-Term Care Act that compliments this HSA proposal. Under the Long-Term Care Act, we would allow individuals to use their 401(k) savings to pay for long-term care insurance. Both proposals provide commonsense approaches that will encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and reduce individuals' reliance on programs such as Medicaid.

HSAs have proven to be an effective health cost containment tool. While there is a cost to the federal government associated with the tax benefit portion of HSA plans, we must weigh that cost against the cost of doing nothing and allowing cost shifting to those with insurance. Our health care system needs to switch to a preventive care system, which will keep future health care costs down rather than our current costly reactionary system. If we continue down our current path and make no significant changes to our health care system, the unfunded liability of entitlement spending will reach $26 trillion by the year 2030, consuming the entire federal budget. We're at a crucial point, and I believe my legislation, and HSAs in general, offer a step in the right direction for personal responsibility in fostering affordable health care and savings.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my colleagues the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor of this legislation and I want to thank my colleagues, including Senators Stevens and Inouye, for working with me on this important issue.

In recent months, a number of Web sites have been selling consumers' confidential phone records to anyone willing to pay a small fee. According to experts, these records are usually obtained by unscrupulous individuals who fraudulently pose as customers requesting their own records. This common fraud is no less harmful, and in some cases even more disconcerting, than when a third-party uses false pretenses to obtain an innocent person's confidential financial records. In some cases, even physical harm can result from one's private phone records becoming public. We cannot allow these reprehensible practices to continue.

The goal of the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act is to prevent the unauthorized and intrusive third party access of American consumers' phone records. Specifically, our legislation makes it illegal to solicit, acquire or sell a person's confidential phone records without that person's consent. It also specifically prohibits the practice commonly referred to as ``pretexting,'' where individuals obtain records by fraudulently misrepresenting that they have the authorization to obtain the records.

Fully combating this problem requires a team effort. That is why our legislation requires telephone companies to comply with minimum security requirements, similar to those required of financial institutions. Companies must do their part to protect their customers' records.

In order to deter this bad behavior, our legislation increases the penalties for violators. Should someone fraudulently solicit, obtain or sell an individual's phone records, they will be subject to an $11,000 penalty for each record, up to $11 million. Phone companies are subject to a $30,000 penalty, up to $3 million if they do not sufficiently protect their customers' phone records.

Finally, the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act recognizes the importance of enforcement. The legislation provides the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General with strengthened enforcement authority. Additionally, telephone companies are given the authority to take legal action against those entities or individuals who have illegally acquired confidential phone records.

This legislation will send a clear message to the unscrupulous individuals profiting from the invasion of an innocent individual's privacy, that this fraudulent and deceptive behavior will not be tolerated. We are prepared to use all of the appropriate tools to eliminate this harmful practice.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my colleagues the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor of this legislation and I want to thank my colleagues, including Senators Stevens and Inouye, for working with me on this important issue.

In recent months, a number of Web sites have been selling consumers' confidential phone records to anyone willing to pay a small fee. According to experts, these records are usually obtained by unscrupulous individuals who fraudulently pose as customers requesting their own records. This common fraud is no less harmful, and in some cases even more disconcerting, than when a third-party uses false pretenses to obtain an innocent person's confidential financial records. In some cases, even physical harm can result from one's private phone records becoming public. We cannot allow these reprehensible practices to continue.

The goal of the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act is to prevent the unauthorized and intrusive third party access of American consumers' phone records. Specifically, our legislation makes it illegal to solicit, acquire or sell a person's confidential phone records without that person's consent. It also specifically prohibits the practice commonly referred to as ``pretexting,'' where individuals obtain records by fraudulently misrepresenting that they have the authorization to obtain the records.

Fully combating this problem requires a team effort. That is why our legislation requires telephone companies to comply with minimum security requirements, similar to those required of financial institutions. Companies must do their part to protect their customers' records.

In order to deter this bad behavior, our legislation increases the penalties for violators. Should someone fraudulently solicit, obtain or sell an individual's phone records, they will be subject to an $11,000 penalty for each record, up to $11 million. Phone companies are subject to a $30,000 penalty, up to $3 million if they do not sufficiently protect their customers' phone records.

Finally, the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act recognizes the importance of enforcement. The legislation provides the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General with strengthened enforcement authority. Additionally, telephone companies are given the authority to take legal action against those entities or individuals who have illegally acquired confidential phone records.

This legislation will send a clear message to the unscrupulous individuals profiting from the invasion of an innocent individual's privacy, that this fraudulent and deceptive behavior will not be tolerated. We are prepared to use all of the appropriate tools to eliminate this harmful practice.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my colleagues the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor of this legislation, and I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Sununu for working with me on this important issue.

The goal of the Wireless Innovation Act is to unleash the power of advanced technological innovation to facilitate the development of wireless broadband Internet services. Specifically, our legislation allocates certain areas within the broadcast spectrum that are otherwise unassigned and unused, known as white spaces, for wireless broadband services.

Unfortunately today, many people, from rural areas to big cities, either do not have access to broadband Internet service or simply cannot afford it. Our legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Additionally, in areas where broadband access currently is provided, either from a Cable modem or DSL connection, our legislation will allow for a third alternative choice for consumers.

The Wireless Innovation Act encourages the most robust and efficient use of this Nation's spectrum. After the transition to digital television is complete in February of 2009, 64 percent of the spectrum allocated to broadcast television use in the Richmond, VA, area will be vacant. Instead of sitting dormant, this valuable spectrum can be used to provide greater Richmond area residents with affordable wireless broadband, which some estimate to be as low as $10 per month. These white spaces exist in virtually every geographic area of the country, and I believe it is a valuable public resource that should be used for the benefit of all American consumers.

I recognize and fully appreciate the value that our television broadcasters serve in each and every local community. That is why our legislation protects incumbent local television stations from potential interference that may be caused using white spaces. In fact, my legislation ensures that all unlicensed devices must comply with the clear rules established by the Federal Communications Commission so there is no interference to licensed systems. These rules, along with the power of technology, can protect the television broadcast stations from any harmful interference.

Using white spaces to deliver wireless broadband across the country creates a new opportunity for innovators and entrepreneurs to provide a competitive broadband service at extremely low cost. This is especially compelling in rural areas where distance is so frequently the enemy of wire-line networks and the primary reason for the high cost of rural broadband deployment.

At a time when the United States is lagging behind much of the world in broadband penetration--and more than 60 percent of the country does not subscribe to broadband service primarily

because it is either unavailable or unaffordable--our legislation would put this country one step closer to closing the economic digital divide and achieving ubiquitous broadband Internet access throughout the country.

Providing a way to encourage the widespread adoption of broadband Internet access is vital to helping us keep pace with the new global economy. The benefits to Americans will include more jobs, better access to information and commerce, increased productivity, improved healthcare delivery, and more access to education and videoconferencing.

While the foreseeable benefit of this legislation is facilitating the development of wireless broadband services, the true beauty of unlicensed spectrum is that it allows for continued advancement and innovation, yielding benefits that are unimaginable today. A decade ago, no one could have imagined WiFi Internet access and yet, through the use of unlicensed spectrum, it was created. Four years ago, I worked on legislation with Senator Boxer to make more unlicensed spectrum available in the upper spectrum bands for further advancement and deployment of WiFi services. The Federal Communications Commission followed our lead and eventually made this spectrum available. Since then, WiFi has flourished.

Today, WiFi Internet access can be found in consumers' homes, Starbucks Coffee shops, book stores, entire cities such as Alexandria, VA, and even here in the Senate Office buildings. The Telecommunications Industry Association estimates that sales of WiFi equipment reached $4.35 billion in 2004, and predicts spending on WiFi infrastructure will increase to $7 billion in 2008. It is now time to enable the next generation of wireless innovation by allowing these white spaces to be used for next generation wireless broadband services.

A guiding principle I have followed throughout my time in public service is that the Internet should remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of the country forever. That is why I sponsored the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, signed by the President in December 2004. That guiding principle is also what leads me, together with Senators Kerry and Sununu to introduce the Wireless Innovation Act today. With passage of this legislation, we can move forward to create an alternative that promotes broadband adoption using advances in technology and spectrum efficiency.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my colleagues the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor of this legislation, and I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Sununu for working with me on this important issue.

The goal of the Wireless Innovation Act is to unleash the power of advanced technological innovation to facilitate the development of wireless broadband Internet services. Specifically, our legislation allocates certain areas within the broadcast spectrum that are otherwise unassigned and unused, known as white spaces, for wireless broadband services.

Unfortunately today, many people, from rural areas to big cities, either do not have access to broadband Internet service or simply cannot afford it. Our legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Additionally, in areas where broadband access currently is provided, either from a Cable modem or DSL connection, our legislation will allow for a third alternative choice for consumers.

The Wireless Innovation Act encourages the most robust and efficient use of this Nation's spectrum. After the transition to digital television is complete in February of 2009, 64 percent of the spectrum allocated to broadcast television use in the Richmond, VA, area will be vacant. Instead of sitting dormant, this valuable spectrum can be used to provide greater Richmond area residents with affordable wireless broadband, which some estimate to be as low as $10 per month. These white spaces exist in virtually every geographic area of the country, and I believe it is a valuable public resource that should be used for the benefit of all American consumers.

I recognize and fully appreciate the value that our television broadcasters serve in each and every local community. That is why our legislation protects incumbent local television stations from potential interference that may be caused using white spaces. In fact, my legislation ensures that all unlicensed devices must comply with the clear rules established by the Federal Communications Commission so there is no interference to licensed systems. These rules, along with the power of technology, can protect the television broadcast stations from any harmful interference.

Using white spaces to deliver wireless broadband across the country creates a new opportunity for innovators and entrepreneurs to provide a competitive broadband service at extremely low cost. This is especially compelling in rural areas where distance is so frequently the enemy of wire-line networks and the primary reason for the high cost of rural broadband deployment.

At a time when the United States is lagging behind much of the world in broadband penetration--and more than 60 percent of the country does not subscribe to broadband service primarily

because it is either unavailable or unaffordable--our legislation would put this country one step closer to closing the economic digital divide and achieving ubiquitous broadband Internet access throughout the country.

Providing a way to encourage the widespread adoption of broadband Internet access is vital to helping us keep pace with the new global economy. The benefits to Americans will include more jobs, better access to information and commerce, increased productivity, improved healthcare delivery, and more access to education and videoconferencing.

While the foreseeable benefit of this legislation is facilitating the development of wireless broadband services, the true beauty of unlicensed spectrum is that it allows for continued advancement and innovation, yielding benefits that are unimaginable today. A decade ago, no one could have imagined WiFi Internet access and yet, through the use of unlicensed spectrum, it was created. Four years ago, I worked on legislation with Senator Boxer to make more unlicensed spectrum available in the upper spectrum bands for further advancement and deployment of WiFi services. The Federal Communications Commission followed our lead and eventually made this spectrum available. Since then, WiFi has flourished.

Today, WiFi Internet access can be found in consumers' homes, Starbucks Coffee shops, book stores, entire cities such as Alexandria, VA, and even here in the Senate Office buildings. The Telecommunications Industry Association estimates that sales of WiFi equipment reached $4.35 billion in 2004, and predicts spending on WiFi infrastructure will increase to $7 billion in 2008. It is now time to enable the next generation of wireless innovation by allowing these white spaces to be used for next generation wireless broadband services.

A guiding principle I have followed throughout my time in public service is that the Internet should remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of the country forever. That is why I sponsored the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, signed by the President in December 2004. That guiding principle is also what leads me, together with Senators Kerry and Sununu to introduce the Wireless Innovation Act today. With passage of this legislation, we can move forward to create an alternative that promotes broadband adoption using advances in technology and spectrum efficiency.

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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