Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help curtail abuses of government-issued credit cards throughout the Federal Government. I am pleased to join Representative Wilson who is introducing an identical measure in the House today and I thank him for his interest and work on this important issue. I am also very glad to have Senator Byrd co-sponsor my bill. He has been a staunch advocate for improved management of government credit programs and I have been honored to work with him on this issue in the past.

As many of my colleagues are aware, I have been working for several years to expose abuses of government purchase cards and travel cards, starting with the largest user of government charge cards, the Department of Defense. Working with the GAO, former subcommittee Chairman Horn in the House, and others, we have been able to uncover a disturbing number of instances where DOD-issued credit cards have been abused. When I say abused, I mean government credit cards were used to pay for everything from cars to Caribbean cruises. The list also includes furniture, breast implants, and gentleman's clubs.

So what does all of this mean for the American taxpayer? In the case of government purchase cards, it means that hardworking Americans are paying for government employees' Christmas shopping. Purchase cards are intended to be used to purchase supplies or other items needed by a government agency and are paid directly by the agency with taxpayer money. However, it is hard to justify payments on a sapphire ring, kitchen appliances, and gift certificates to department stores as necessary office expenses. Astoundingly, these are examples of charges that have been made and paid for out of the taxpayer's pocket with no questions asked.

Government travel cards work differently, but are still subject to abuses that negatively impact the American public. They are issued to individual employees for use on official travel. The employee must pay the bill and is reimbursed by the agency. Unfortunately, government travel cards are routinely issued to individuals who have a bad credit history or even a record of credit card fraud. This opens up the door for abuse. Not only have travel cards been used for questionable travel expenses, but travel cards have been used when employees are not on official travel to pay for items from gambling and prostitution to tickets for a pop music concert by the Backstreet Boys. Some employees have committed fraud by repeatedly writing bad checks to pay travel card bills and some have taken government funds in reimbursement for travel expenses and not paid off their travel card bills.

When a travel card bill is not paid on time, the agency loses out on rebates that the agency would otherwise receive from the credit card company. These rebates add up. In fact, in fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government received $71 million in rebates, but this amount declined in fiscal year 2002 to $69.2 million mainly due to delinquencies in paying off travel cards. We're talking real money and, especially in a time of budgetary belt-tightening, this trend cannot be allowed to continue. In addition, since Bank of America took over the DOD charge card contract in 1998, it had to ``charge off'' over $61 million dollars in bad debt. The military service branches have recovered less than $24 million of that amount, leaving almost $40 million in losses to the credit card company. In fact, the situation got so bad that Bank of America considered dropping its account with DOD. Although actions by DOD to reduce delinquencies and recover bad debt through methods like salary offsets have now improved the situation somewhat, this scandal has left a black mark on the reputation of the Federal Government. Furthermore, these losses inflicted on credit card companies by Federal employees hurt the millions of innocent Americans who are credit card customers by raising the interest rates and fees the company must charge.

What we have learned through our investigation of the travel card and purchase card programs in the Department of Defense is that these abuses were allowed to occur as a result of weak internal controls. The revelations about DOD sparked questions about the possibility of similar deficiencies in other departments. In fact, subsequent work with the GAO and agency Inspectors General has uncovered weak internal controls in the travel card and purchase card programs of agencies like the Department of Education, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture leading to wasteful and questionable purchases with taxpayer dollars. We know about HUD employees using agency purchase cards for personal shopping sprees at stores like Best Buy and JC Penny, FAA employees purchasing individual subscriptions to Internet providers and gift cards from Home Depot, and Department of Agriculture employees using travel cards to buy a car and enroll in bartending school. The list goes on.

Clearly, this is a problem that needs to be addressed government- wide. Ideally, Federal agencies would get their own houses in order. Unfortunately, the atrocious abuses that have been uncovered in the charge card programs of agency after agency would likely never have come to light without congressional oversight. In fact, the positive developments we have seen so far in curtailing government credit card abuses have been the result of Congress cajoling the bureaucracy to put controls in place. The bill I am introducing today would require all agencies to promulgate regulations to establish safeguards and internal controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of Federal purchase cards and travel cards.

The GAO has now issued an Audit Guide for auditing and investigating the internal control of government purchase card programs, which it developed based on its experiences auditing various agencies purchase card programs. This excellent guide outlines five standards for internal control to curtail fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases. These include: establishing a positive control environment among agency management and employees, providing for a risk assessment, implementing control activities to enforce management directives and help ensure actions are taken to reduce risks, recording and communicating information to program managers and others who need it, and ongoing monitoring. My bill would go a long way to push agencies toward the effective management approach GAO has outlined.

In fact, my bill requires agencies to establish policies for purchase card programs, and travel card programs where applicable, that incorporate many of the specific recommendations GAO has made to various agencies as a result of its investigations. These include: training for cardholders as well as approving officials and agency program coordinators, establishing who is eligible to be a cardholder and limits on how much they can charge, limiting the number of cards distributed to those who really need them, establishing requirements for documentation and records to support each purchase, cancelling cards for employees who leave or transfer, and establishing penalties to hold card holders and approving officials accountable for misuse.

My bill also requires that credit checks be performed before issuing a government charge card and that no one found to be not creditworthy be issued a government credit card. In my opinion, it is absurb that this is not standard practice. Government employees who could never get a private credit card due to bad credit, bankrupty, or history of fraud will no longer be handed a government charge card with no questions asked.

Finally, my bill would provide that the each agency Inspector General will periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potential fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. The information continually provided to the head of each executive agency as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Comptroller General by each agency IG will be an enormous help in strengthening and maintaining a rigious system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards.

Due to aggressive congressional oversight and the efforts of talented investigators working for the GAO and agency IG's, we now know that weak internal control over agency purchase and travel card programs has lead to waste, fraud, and abuse across the Federal Government. It has come to the point that Congress must intervene to require agencies to put in place the policies and procedures necessary to stop the misuse of taxpayer dollars and the abuse of the public trust. I wish I could say this bill is a silver bullet and that once enacted, all the problems with government credit cards will disappear, but I don't pretend this is the case. Ultimately, it is up to agency officials and program managers to implement best practices for managing purchase card and travel card programs. To that end, I would encourage all agencies to take a close look at the GAO Audit Guide and use its approach. Meanwhile, continued congressional oversight will still be necessary. Nevertheless, my bill will serve to kick-start the bureaucracy into taking this problem seriously and I believe it will be a big step toward putting the lid back on the Federal cookie jar. I know many of my colleagues are equally appalled by the many tales of credit card fraud and abuse perpetrated on the American public and I would urge senators to join me in this effort.

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

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the senior Senator from South Dakota and Democratic leader. I thank him for his concern and his work on this issue.

Two years have passed since several anthrax letters were sent to a few journalists and, obviously, to public officials, killing inadvertent victims. These are victims whose only sin, apparently, was doing their jobs, and these attacks have left several other people sick and out of work.

The Senate and all who work here--the Senate family--are still adjusting to the aftermath of these attacks 2 years later. We see it in new layers of security. We see it in new mail-handling procedures in which mail to Capitol Hill now is screened and irradiated before it is delivered.

The U.S. Postal Service has had to develop and implement new safety measures to protect its customers and its workers. Meanwhile, nearly two dozen of our fellow Americans who merely came into contact with these anthrax-laden letters have become the forgotten victims of terror. Some have suffered poor health, and some have not been able to return to work.

I am pleased to join with Senator Daschle and my other good friends, Senators Lautenberg, Nelson of Florida, Feingold, Corzine, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Clinton, to introduce the Anthrax Victims Fund Fairness Act of 2003. This will allow these forgotten victims of terror and their families to seek help through the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

They need this help to pay for medical expenses and to provide for themselves and their families if they have been unable to return to work. They are our fellow citizens, and they were unwittingly on the front lines when our new, shadowy struggle against terrorism began.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we learned that the United States was not impervious to acts of terrorism of the kinds that have rained death and destruction on other societies far away. The attacks shocked the world and left the American people with the terrible knowledge that we could once again become victims, targets of terrorists at any time.

Only a few days after September 11, our worst fears were confirmed. Between September 22 and November 14, nearly two dozen Americans from five States and the District of Columbia became casualties of a sinister bioterrorism attack. Twenty-two Americans ranging in age from 7 months to 94 years were stricken in these attacks of anthrax. It is a rare disease that had only afflicted a handful of Americans in the last century. We would ultimately learn that 11 people had been infected with cutaneous or skin anthrax, and 11 contracted the more serious form of the disease called inhalation or pulmonary anthrax. Five of our fellow Americans died from these attacks.

The victims of the anthrax attacks vary in gender, race, religion, age, economic status, and locale. But they all have one thing in common: Everyone suffered. The targets were members of the news media, and two Members of the Senate, myself and Senator Daschle, but the victims--not the targets, but the victims--who suffered the most were employees of the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, news organizations, the Senate, and the aides, the children, and the senior citizens whose mail came in contact with the anthrax-laden letters.

In the fall of 2001, I worked with Speaker Hastert, Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Congressman Gephardt, Senators Hatch, Kohl, DeWine, Schumer, and Clinton to establish the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001. This fund ensured that victims of the September 11 attacks would be eligible for compensation for the horrific losses they suffered. After extensive negotiations with the Bush administration, we established the September 11 fund to provide victims an alternative to what would have been a lengthy battle in court.

Under the stewardship of Ken Feinberg, the Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and with the supervision of the Department of Justice, more than 1,000 of the 3,016 families of those who died in the September 11 attacks and more than 1,000 of the unknown number who were injured have filed claims.

The fund, which has no cap, had paid out $633 million by September 10, 2003, with an average award of about $1.6 million for death claims. It is a dignified way of doing it.

As we reach the 2-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism

as we did for the victims of September 11. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by a year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax tests.

As we reach the two-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism as it did for the victims of September 11, 2001. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by 1-year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax cases.

The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, have confirmed 18 anthrax infections, and an additional four are considered to have been confirmed through other methods. Applicants would be subject to the same criteria and restrictions as were set for the September 11 victims. Eligible individuals who choose to file claims would then be considered by the Special Master who would make a final determination on level of compensation within 120 days of receiving the claim. Compensation will be targeted to help the neediest victims and their families. Any life insurance, death benefit, or other Government payment previously received by victims and their families would be taken into account, and filing a claim would preclude other civil remedies.

Yesterday marked the 2-year anniversary of the opening of the letter that spread anthrax throughout the Hart Senate Office Building, exposing 31 Senate employees to a highly potent and aerosolized form of anthrax and shutting down the Dirksen Senate Office Building for 2 weeks, the Hart Senate Office Building for 3 months and briefly closing the United States Capitol, the symbol of democracy. Our staffs were fortunate to receive excellent care and guidance from the Sergeant at Arms, the CDC, the attending physician, his dedicated staff of men and women and the Environmental Protection Agency, and none of the employees of the Senate were ultimately infected. Those days are indelibly etched in our memories.

To this day--and this is the first time I have ever spoken on the floor about the anthrax attack. I have to be honest, it is something that has been on my mind, on the mind of my wife, our children, our families, ever since that day.

Senator Daschle and I do not know what motivates somebody to target us and to endanger our staffs and so many others. Senator Daschle and I were the targets of the Senate letters, but we were not stricken with anthrax, and we have made very clear that we would not be covered by the terms of this legislation.

We will never know why we were singled out, but we do know what happened to people who were totally innocent. The letters were not addressed to them as they were to us.

Eighteen of the victims were not as fortunate as were most of us in the Senate family. While some did recover after receiving antibiotics, others have had their lives changed forever. Some are stricken with ailments, such as post-traumatic stress, depression and fatigue. They continue to suffer from the after-effects of the disease.

One postal worker who was infected with anthrax filed a $100 million suit against the U.S. Postal Service in January 2003. He did not want to have to take his case to court, but he says he felt he had to after repeated attempts to receive compensation and assistance in treating his illness. Last month, on September 24, the widow of the first anthrax victim in Florida filed lawsuits seeking more than $50 million and alleging that insufficient security at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, MD, and negligent actions by companies with military contracts, caused her husband's death. This bill would help these and other victims without forcing them to take their cases to the legal system.

The perpetrator or perpetrators of these acts of terrorism remain at large. I have no idea who directed these letters to Senator Daschle and myself. The F.B.I. continues its search. These victims cannot wait until the search is over. They deserve help now and we owe it to them to provide it.

Yesterday I joined with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, both Senators from New York, and with others in introducing separate legislation to extend and broaden the fund's coverage to cover the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the 1998 East African embassy attacks and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attacks. I applaud Senator Specter for his leadership in this area. All Americans who have been victimized by acts of terrorism deserve our sympathy, our respect and our support.

Our hearts went out to the victims of these acts of terrorism and to their loved ones. Now they also need our help, and it is my hope that we will do the right thing by these victims of terrorism.

Mr. President, as we look at the situation in America and in the world today, we face serious challenges. Obviously, the war on terrorism is one of the most serious challenges we have had in many decades, one that is different because there are no specific battles that are won or lost. There may not be a moment when we say it is over. Because we are dealing with a moving, shadowy element that uses the most dastardly types of attacks on individuals, innocent men, women, and children.

We have seen the situation in Florida, where the people there have been hit repeatedly by hurricanes and disasters. I guess you could say in many respects these are times that try men and women's souls.

We are under attack in a lot of ways. But, also, these are the times that require a certain trumpet. We cannot have uncertainty in terms of leadership. We cannot have an uncertain trumpet. We have to have direction, strong leadership, and courage to take a stand and follow it through. That is why I am very much worried about what I see in Senator Kerry and the positions he has taken, first on one side and then the other.

I was greatly distressed last week when we had the Prime Minister of Iraq here. He is a man who is showing strength, leadership, and great courage because his life is on the line every day with repeated assassination attempts directed at him. He came here. He said: Thank you, America. He said: We are going to have elections. We are going to have peace and freedom and democracy. We chose justice and the rule of law rather than chaos and anarchy. He did a magnificent job. I was inspired by what he is doing and by his speech.

Yet Senator Kerry attacked his speech before he even left town. Where are the basic courtesies that we have in the past extended to leaders of other countries?

President Bush, on the other hand, has shown strength, leadership, and courage. He is dealing with the issues of security. People see in him and hear in his voice a determination, a commitment, that will get us through this. But Senator Kerry has been flip-flopping back and forth on Iraq for not just the campaign but actually for years, going back to 2002 where he took one position and where now, in 2003 and 2004, he has taken a different position.

On September 20, 2004, he said that our most important task is to win the war on terrorism. On March 6, 2004, he balked at calling the war on terror an actual ``war.''

On September 20 he said Iraq was a ``diversion from'' the war on terror. Yet back in December of 2003 he said that Iraq is ``critical'' to the success of the war on terror.

In September of 2004 he said the evil of Saddam was enough to justify the war. Yet before that he agreed with the administration's goal of regime change. He also said that Saddam's ``breach of international values'' was a sufficient cause of war.

In 2004 he said Saddam's ``downfall . . . has left America less secure.'' Yet in December of 2003 he questioned the judgment of those claiming Saddam's capture doesn't help American security.

The list goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

But it goes beyond just the war on Iraq. What worries me is there is a pattern here, across the board, not only in that area that threatens our very security and our lives, the war on terrorism, but in area after area, issue after issue.

For instance, in 1991 Senator Kerry supported most-favored trade status for China and now he criticizes the Bush administration for trading with China.

Which is it? You cannot be for it and against it when you talk about international trade. Trade is good. America can compete. We do need to enlarge the pie. We need to make sure we have fair trade. But you cannot vote one way on trade and then be critical of it on the other side.

In October 2003, Senator Kerry called the fence that is being built in Israel for security purposes a ``barrier to peace.'' He was critical of it. Yet in February of 2004, he calls the fence a ``legitimate act of self-defense.'' You can't get into a very dangerous and sensitive situation like this and say one thing and then the other. What is it? Which is it? An uncertain trumpet takes lives.

Even in the case of eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class, Senator Kerry said he will fight to keep the tax relief for married couples. He said Democrats fought to end the marriage penalty tax. Yet in 1998, he voted against eliminating the marriage penalty relief for married taxpayers with a combined income of less than $50,000 a year. Last week when we actually extended the elimination of that marriage penalty tax, of course, he didn't vote.

He even flip-flopped on the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is a favorite punching bag now.

I was here when the death debate occurred. I remember the broad unanimous support involved in passing that legislation. We needed to do some things to give our law enforcement people the ability to deal with these terrorists. If you look at what has transpired since then, this great fear of having your library card checked or a ``knock in the night'' is not occurring. So he voted for it, and now he attacks the PATRIOT Act. He said:

We are a nation of laws, and liberties, not of a knock in

the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

I think that is an unfair shot at our former colleague, the Attorney General of the United States. Again, Senator Kerry was for the Patriot Act and now he is against it.

On the gay marriage amendment, in 2002, Senator Kerry signed a letter urging the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet now in 2004 he won't rule out supporting a similar amendment. Which is it? Is it one thing in Massachusetts and another here in Washington?

Also, I think when you get into other issues like the death penalty for terrorists, these are relevant issues we can't take the wrong position on. Yet, in 1996, he attacked Governor Weld of Massachusetts for supporting the death penalty for terrorists. But now he said he might support the death penalty for terrorists.

On the No Child Left Behind Act, he voted for it, and now he attacks it as a ``mockery.'' He trashed it as an ``unfunded mandate'' with ``laudable goals.''

Let me tell you that I am a son of a schoolteacher. I was in public education all my life. I didn't go to some elite school. I went to public education. I stay in touch with teachers and administrators. And they tell me it is making a difference. We have goals and challenges. Teachers are doing better, students are doing better, and the money has been going up every year.

On issue after issue, he has flip-flopped.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this lengthy list be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will help protect the health of contact lens wearers, by ensuring that all contact lenses satisfy the same regulatory requirements for approval.

Currently, non-corrective contact lenses, such as decorative lenses that change eye color or have some design on them, are regulated under the Food and Drug Administration's cosmetic authority. The problem is this. The FDA does not review cosmetics for safety or effectiveness before they are sold to the public. This means that the FDA cannot require manufacturers to test non-corrective lenses for safety problems, cannot set ``good manufacturing practices,'' and cannot even require that these lenses carry directions for safe use. This lack of FDA review and lack of established safety standards can lead to the marketing of lenses that are neither safe nor suitable for wearing.

An article in the most recent issue of the medical journal Eye & Contact Lens describes the cases of six people injured by the sale of unregulated colored contact lenses. As the article points out, four of the six patients reside in the greater Cleveland area. This obviously concerns me. But what concerns me more is that three of the five female patients were teenagers.

One such case involved a teenage girl from Cleveland who bought colored contact lenses from a video rental store for the purpose of matching her eyes with her dress. The lenses were sold without fitting or instructions. Prior to putting these lenses in her eyes, she had no previous problems with her vision and had never worn contact lenses.

Shortly after wearing the colored contact lenses, she was urgently admitted to a Cleveland hospital where it was determined that the vision in her left eye had become so poor that she could only make out hand motions. She stayed in the ICU for four days because that was the only place where she could receive the treatment necessary for her eye. Worse yet, her doctor feared that she would not only lose her sight, but that she might actually lose her eye.

In an effort to restore vision, her doctor recommended a corneal transplant, which she underwent. Nearly two years after the infection started, her vision has not been fully restored. For the rest of her life, this young girl will be at risk for rejection of the transplant, cataracts and glaucoma.

This type of injury can be prevented. The bill that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today would allow non-corrective lenses to be reviewed before they are marketed and before they are accessible to young people. This bill, which has the endorsement of leading organizations in eye care--representing thousands of health care professionals and consumers and the contact lens industry--would clarify that all contact lenses are devices and are to be approved under the FDA's device authority. Applying the medical device requirements across-the-board to all contact lens manufacturers and distributors would help ensure that all companies are held to the same important safety standards.

Our bill would be a positive step forward in helping to prevent unnecessary eye injuries. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Voinovich to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation would honor the great men that have served as our former Chief Executives and have influenced the development of our great Nation. This act would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. Preserving this heritage is vital to enabling our children and grandchildren to learn about the leadership and infinite wisdom of our past Presidents.

We often forget that the best learning tool is that which a child can touch, see, and relate. When a child boards a bus for a field trip to visit historic sites, that is truly when hands-on learning takes place. Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals they heard about or read about in the classroom provides a completely different atmosphere to appreciate history. This learning can continue only through the preservation of the birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs of our former Presidents.

Family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining such important sites. Operating costs must be met before maintenance needs, and slowly the sites deteriorate.

I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home State of Ohio--a state that has been home to eight Presidents. During one such visit at the Ulysses S. Grant house, I found it very disturbing to see the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the famous front porch where then candidate Harding gave his campaign speeches actually began to pull away from the house. Fortunately, we were able to obtain

the funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. However, by providing Federal assistance for maintenance projects today, we can help prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow.

These Presidential sites are far too important to let them slowly decay. My legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five-member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually.

I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of significant importance to our Nation's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Act of 2003.

Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in the United States. The major risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents over the last 2 decades. Today 1 in 7 young people are obese and 1 in 3 are overweight. This is not a problem. This is a crisis with potentially dire consequences that demands our immediate attention.

Obese children are twice as likely as non-obese children to become obese adults. Overweightness and obesity can result in physical, psychological, and social consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-esteem, and discrimination. Obesity is a complex multi-factorial disease that is difficult to prevent but even more difficult to treat. Our best bet at improving the lives of children who currently are obese and preventing more from joining the ranks is to encourage environments that foster healthy eating and activity in our communities, in our homes, and in our schools.

It is the need to improve the nutritional environment of our schools that I want to address today. Our school breakfast and lunch programs were originally designed to combat hunger in our nation. They have been and continue to be a vital component of the food security safety net. However, today we have another problem: obesity and overweight, and the child nutrition programs need to be updated to meet the needs of our current health challenges while maintaining their role securing healthy food for all children.

Only 2 percent of children currently consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet from the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Three out of four high school students in the U.S. do not eat the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day and 3 out of 4 children consume more saturated fat than it recommended in the dietary Guidelines for Americans. Although the school lunch and school breakfast programs have made great strides in improving health by meeting these guidelines, our work in creating healthy school environments is not yet done.

Since obesity is a complex issue, stemming the tide will take a myriad of interventions. I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, Dole, and others who have introduced bills that would improve the Child Nutrition programs and the children and schools they serve while preserving its mission to provide nutritionally sound meals to the young people who need them.

Today I am introducing another bill vital to improving our children's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Bill. This bill has four key components.

First, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for school lunch. School food service directors have been expected to improve the quality of their meals without any concurrent funding increase for years, and it's time that changes. An additional 10 cents per meal may not sound like much but it will offer school food service directors significantly greater flexibility in purchasing quality food including leaner meats, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits.

Second, the bill requires the secretary of agriculture to evaluate the nutrition guidelines for school meals every five years. The science of nutrition is a dynamic and rapidly changing field. Guidelines are appropriately based on the best science of the time but as that science evolves, so should the guidelines regulating school meals. Our children deserve the benefit of the most current science. Thus, updates are to be based on current and sound scientific evidence, current public health concerns, and cultural appropriateness.

Next the bill will liberalize the current milk guidelines so as to only require schools to require low fat or no fat milk as is appropriate for school-age children. Schools would have the option of providing other milk products so long as they are cost and nutritionally equivalent.

Finally, serving healthy food is an important first step, but accompanying that food with adequate nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of healthy eaters and active adults. Thus, the bill provides increased funding for nutrition education. Specifically, it would provide guaranteed funding at the state level for implementation and administration of the Team Nutrition Program. This is a program that has existed in statute for years, but because its administration has rarely been funded, it has not been implemented. It is time we commit to nutrition education as part of making a strong commitment to our children's health and well-being.

Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well- being of our nations' youth. Let us implement these vital advances in the child nutrition program now while we are reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act. The cost of improving the health of our children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do nothing.

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