Easement Owners Fair Compensation Claims Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, in his first State of the Union address, President Abraham Lincoln said, ``It is as much the duty of government to render prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals.'' President Lincoln said this in reference to the United States Court of Claims which he proposed Congress to establish for the purpose of justly resolving the claims of citizens against the United States. One of the most fundamental rights we enjoy in this nation is the right to know that our property is free from confiscation absent the protections of the Fifth Amendment. When the government does confiscate a citizen's property, the United States Constitution requires the government to provide the citizens from whom the property is confiscated full and fair compensation for the property that has been taken.

A matter has come to my attention in which the United States government falls tragically short of meeting this obligation. I refer to those individual property owners in St. Louis County whose property has been confiscated by the Federal Government for use as a public recreational trail under the Federal Trails Act. These citizens' property was taken more than 12 years ago when it was converted to a recreational trail under the Federal Trails Act, and they have still not received compensation. This is so despite the fact that the Justice Department has admitted in a settlement agreement and in numerous court pleadings that the Federal Government has confiscated their property and that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that the Federal Government pay these property owners the fair value of the property taken. The Justice Department and the property owners each hired appraisers who determined the fair value of the property and after 6 years of litigation in the Federal Court of Claims a settlement agreement was reached.

Yet, two days before this agreement was to be approved by the judge, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in a Georgia case called Caldwell v. United States. The

Justice Department and the U.S. Court of Claims have interpreted that case as announcing a new rule for the time when a property owner must file a claim to recover the value of his property taken by operation of the Trails Act. This ``new rule'' is inconsistent with the understanding of Congress when we enacted the Trails Act and, as announced by the dissenting opinion in the Caldwell case, is ``contrary to all authority''. The Federal Circuit decision ruled that the statute of limitations for Trails Act compensation claims begins to run, not when the property owners land is actually taken from the landowner, but when the Surface Transportation Board issues a notice that there is a possibility that the land might be taken in the future.

Mr. Speaker, this ``new rule'' announced by the Caldwell court, as it has been interpreted and applied by the Justice Department and the lower courts, will work a great injustice to a limited number of property owners whose property has been confiscated but will now be denied compensation, while at the same time requiring the Federal Government to pay compensation for property that might never be converted to a public recreational trail. The new Caldwell rule will cost the Federal Government plenty--requiring taxpayers to pay significantly greater interest for compensation claims during the time before the property was ever taken from the land owners.

Mr. Speaker, this injustice is best illustrated by the letter I received from Gale and Sara Illig. Mr. and Mrs. Illig live in my home county of St. Louis, Missouri and their property was taken for a recreational trail. I incorporate Mr. and Mrs. Illig's letter in these remarks.

Dear Congressman Akin: We have a small business. Gale is in

commercial holiday decorating and Sarah helps in the

business. After a number of years of saving, in 1984 we

bought our home in Grantwood Village. By most standards it is

a modest home but it is a home that we love and have worked

hard to care for and improve over the years. This home is

where we have raised our family and now spend our retirement

years. We are not a family of great wealth and our home

represents our most significant asset.

When we bought our home in 1984, one of the features that

appealed to us was the quiet and secluded community and

location. A screened-in sun porch on the south side of our

home is one of our favorite rooms. Outside the sun porch and

further to the south is the now abandoned Missouri Pacific

Railroad right-of-way. We own the property over which the

MoPac held an easement for this branch-line of their

railroad. The tracks themselves were just a single line and

they were infrequently used. Between the tracks and our home

was a large, attractive hedge which gave us privacy.

In 1992 a not-for-profit nature trail group negotiated with

MoPac to acquire this now abandoned railroad right-of-way. We

have been told that the federal government gave the trail

group the authority to acquire this abandoned railroad right-

of-way and to prevent us from using our property. We

understand that the federal Trails Act gave them this ability

to take our property even though under Missouri law we had

the right to use and occupy this property once it was

abandoned by MoPac. We wrote to Senator Bond in 1992

expressing concern about the effect this trail would have

upon our home and property value. While the railroad had a

full 100 foot width easement, they only used a very narrow 12

feet that was occupied by the train tracks and, as noted,

that was used infrequently. Because of the Trails Act, the

trail organization now claims the right to use the full 100

foot width of the original railroad easement, including the

right to cut and remove all of the foliage on this part of

our property. Additionally, with the trail use we now have,

quite literally, hundreds of people biking and walking

through our property where previously we enjoyed a quiet and

secluded home.

Now, we want to make clear that we do not oppose

recreational hiking and biking trails and we think parks and

recreational trails are a fine thing. It is just that when,

as in our situation, the federal government runs the trail

through our property without our consent we believe that we

should be fairly compensated for this taking of our property.

This public trail runs just several feet from our sunroom and

across almost the entire southern third of our property.

We have always understood that the U.S. Constitution

provided us the guarantee that if our property were to be

taken we would be compensated. I mentioned that we are a

family of modest means and this is true. This causes us to

feel even more painfully the effect that this taking of our

property has had upon our own home value.

The government took our property almost 13 years ago. We

spent more than 6 years in a lawsuit with the government

seeking to be compensated for the government's taking of this

property. In that lawsuit, the Justice Department agreed that

this taking of our property represented a value of $72,065

taken from us by the federal government. The Justice

Department also agreed that they would pay us this money and

that they were responsible to make this payment under the

Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Justice

Department also agreed to pay us interest on this because it

has now been 13 years since our property was taken. The

Justice Department's agreement that they would pay us was

long overdue but was very welcome.

As we get older we face the realistic understanding that we

will not be able to live in our home forever. During the

twelve years since the trail was created, Gale has suffered

both cancer and a multiple heart valve replacement. The value

that we have built up in our home is an asset that we look to

provide for our needs when we reach a point where we can no

longer care for this home and need to move into other living

arrangements. For this reason the $72,065 plus interest since

1992, while not much money to the federal government, is

quite literally huge to us. This is why we were so pleased

when the settlement was reached last December.

* * * what happened next, * * * is still one of the most

outrageous experiences in our life and represents a great

injustice to us personally. Two days before the hearing with

the Judge to approve the settlement, we understand that the

Court of Appeals decided a Georgia Trails Act case. The

government claimed this case changed the law and meant that

now they now no longer had to pay us what they had agreed

they were obligated to pay us for the confiscation of our

property.

We are not lawyers so maybe that is why we cannot

understand the nuances of this, but, to us, a very simple

principle is involved. The government has taken our property,

the government agreed that they have taken our property (I am

told by [our attorney] that the government agreed to this not

just once, but on multiple occasions in formal statements

filed with the Court), the government agrees how much they

owe us for the property, including interest, and the

government is required by the U.S. Constitution to pay us

this money. Then, at literally the last minute, they claim

the law has changed because of a case in Georgia so they

no longer have to pay us. This is just flat wrong! And, no

amount of legal nuance can make it right.

Congressman Akin, a lot of us in St. Louis experienced the

same sense of outrage during the October 16th Cardinals game

against the Astros when the home plate umpire, Cuzzi, called

what was clearly a ball to be a strike on Jim Edmonds and

then threw Jim Edmonds out of the game. That bad call did not

necessarily change the outcome of the game. But the tragic

effect of this bad call by the Court in the Georgia case and

the bad call by the Department of Justice to use that case as

an excuse for the government to escape its obligation to pay

us for our property represents a devastating financial

setback for our family.

We have always worked hard, saved our money, and paid our

taxes and expected that the federal government would treat us

in a fair and just manner. We must tell you that we see this

effort by the government to now escape their clear

constitutional obligation to pay us (and the other one

hundred property owners from whom they admit taking property)

as a very fundamental injustice. For that reason, we are

extremely grateful to have you represent us in the Congress

and greatly appreciate your efforts to address this

injustice. We are grateful for your help on this matter of

such great importance to us.

Warmest regards,

Sarah and Gale Illig.

Mr. Speaker, this letter demonstrates my initial point that the Federal Government has dramatically fallen short of President Lincoln's standard of ``providing prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens''. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4581 remedies this injustice and also returns administration of the Trails Act to a manner consistent with Congress' intention when initially passed.

The Purpose of H.R. 4581, the Easement Owners' Fair Compensation Claims

Act of 2005

The Easement Owners' Fair Compensation Claims Act of 2005 will remedy the injustice worked by the Federal Circuit Decision in Caldwell v. United States. It will establish clearly Congress's intent regarding when the Trails Act is intended to interfere with a property owner's interest and it will provide that those property owners in the limited number of cases affected by this Caldwell decision are, in fact, provided full, fair compensation for the property that the Federal Government took from them while, at the same time, assuring that the Federal Government does not use taxpayers' funds to pay for claims where it did not take any property and where ultimately, no recreational trail is ever created. In so doing, we will bring justice on behalf of those owners whose property is taken and we will also preserve and steward the taxpayers' resources by not paying for claims where no recreational trail for public use is ever created. This bill will provide the constitutionally mandated compensation to those property owners whose lands have been confiscated (as the Justice Department has already admitted) while on a broader level saving the Government from having to pay money for property that is never taken for a public recreational trail and prevent the Federal Government from having to pay interest for a ``taking'' of property years before the property owner's State law right to use and possess the property is ever interfered with.

In short, H.R. 4581 restores the date for starting the statute of limitations to the date

when the property owners' rights to the property are actually taken by the Federal Government. This is consistent with Congress's intention when the Trails Act amendments were passed in 1983 and will assure compensation to those property owners whose property the Government already acknowledged taking but not require the Government to pay compensation or interest for property never converted to trail use. H.R. 4581 will not undercut the operation of the Trails Act but will actually make it more cost efficient and will fairly treat those property owners whose property is actually taken for a trail.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign, the ``National Innovation Education Act''. The intent of this bill is to enhance our science and technology talent base and improve national competitiveness through strengthened education initiatives. Enhancing academic success, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math--often called the STEM disciplines--through innovative educational programs will stimulate change and growth within elementary, secondary and postsecondary institutions, improve current educational opportunities for all students, allow graduates greater opportunity for economic success and greater ability to successfully compete in the global market.

This bill proposes initiatives spanning the education spectrum that seek to improve quality instruction and access to STEM learning for all students. Recent recommendations from the Council on Competitiveness and The Augustine Commission at the National Academy of Sciences, among others, target national concerns around the content and quality of K-16 in STEM disciplines, particularly with regard to minority and low- income students, the need to stimulate innovation, and the need to enhance teacher preparation and professional development in the STEM fields.

An increasing number of researchers express alarm at the nearly one out of three public high school students who won't graduate and the failure of our systems to adequately prepare high school graduates, and particularly minorities, for success in college and the work place. Addressing the challenge of successfully thriving in a world of change, the Council on Competitiveness examined the pressing issue of attracting more young Americans to science and engineering fields. Currently, less than 15 percent of U.S. students have the prerequisite skills to pursue scientific or technical degrees in college. Only 5.5 percent of the 1.1 million high school seniors who took the college entrance exam in 2002 planned to pursue an engineering degree. And there continues to be poor representation of women and minorities in these fields. The National Academies report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' notes that amongst the U.S. science and technology workforce 38 percent of PhDs were foreign born. Changes need to be enacted to not only increase the number of students pursuing math and science degrees but to prepare them to pursue these degrees.

Indeed, numerous national reports in recent years have called for efforts to improve K-12 education, teacher preparation and professional development in the STEM areas. Recommendations include increasing the numbers of postsecondary students pursuing careers in the areas of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology and increasing the numbers of postsecondary students in the STEM fields who will then pursue concurrent degrees in education. Increasing funding for not only STEM education but STEM research has received strong recommendations as an important and timely approach to addressing improvements in education and innovation. Finally, a critical factor to ensuring program success is the ability to engage and then hold students' interests in the various STEM fields enough to encourage them to pursue STEM careers.

Our bill seeks to craft a comprehensive response to many of these issues, and includes the following provisions.

Title I--Improving Pre-kindergarten Through Grade 16, supplies a remedy to the critical issue of the disconnect existing between high school outcomes and college expectations. Through the formation of partnerships between P-12 and higher education systems in the states-- P-16 Commissions--academic success in postsecondary education becomes the priority agenda item for reform. We anticipate that P-16 Commissions will bring about an increase in the percentage of academically prepared students, particularly low-income and minority students, and a decrease in the percentage of college students requiring remedial coursework, particularly with respect to math, science, and engineering.

Many States across our country have already seen the wisdom of a P-16 Commission and have been working on goals and implementation. The results, although preliminary for many States, are vastly encouraging. Title I will provide support both to States with existing P-16 bodies, or States seeking to establish such commissions. It will give priority to the States also seeking to establish or enhance data systems. We hope that States will have an opportunity to craft a vision that will reach all students over time so that their educational pathway of access to and success in college will be ensured.

Magnet schools have the capacity to create learning environments tailored to the interests and needs of its community and can offer a focused curriculum capable of attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds. Title II of our bill authorizes the National Science Foundation to award grants to assist in the promotion of innovation and competitiveness through the development and implementation of magnet school programs. These programs would encourage students to meet state academic content standards through the development and design of innovative educational methods, practices and curricula that promote student achievement in STEM courses and encourage student enrollment in postsecondary institutions.

In addition, Title II authorizes NSF grants to elementary and middle schools creating pilot programs implementing innovation-based experiential learning environments. Innovation-based experiential learning is a teaching model that seeks to seed traditional technical studies with new exposure to methods for creative thinking and translating ideas into practical applications. Such programs would likely involve immersing students in hands-on experimentation that helps students discover new concepts and use those concepts to solve real-world problems.

The interrelated demands that mathematics and science education places upon schools to prepare both teachers and students must be addressed consecutively. Teachers need to be better prepared to teach STEM topics across the board and students need to have access to teachers who are well versed in their content subjects.

Title III of our bill authorizes funding to increase the number of graduates from postsecondary institutions with concurrent degrees in education and STEM fields. This program is based on the successful UTeach model at the University of Texas at Austin. Encouraging science and math majors to concurrently pursue certification in the field of education will help increase the number and quality of teachers in these fields. The model program at the University of Texas has experienced impressive success in attracting and keeping promising young STEM teachers. Our bill also calls for the establishment of Teacher Professional Development Institutes to promote innovative and effective approaches to improving teacher quality by providing professional development support for educators already in the classroom. The Teacher Institute Model encourages collaboration between urban teachers and university faculty to improve student learning by enhancing teacher mastery of subject matter. It is based upon the model which has been in operation at Yale University in New Haven, CT for over 25 years.

Our Nation recognizes the pressing need to increase funding for STEM research and boost the number of students in undergraduate and graduate programs pursuing mathematics and science degrees for our country's continued development, prosperity and security.

Within the final title of our bill, Title IV, NSF basic research funding is doubled. NSF is authorized to expand funding for STEM education through increased fellowships and trainee programs at the undergraduate and graduate level. A clearinghouse at the National Science Foundation of successful professional science master's degree program elements will be made available to postsecondary institutions as well as grants for developing pilot programs or improving current programs. In addition the NSF Tech Talent program is reauthorized with increased funding. This program provides competitive grants to undergraduate universities to develop new methods of increasing the number of students receiving degrees in science, math, and engineering. Finally, it is in our interest to examine and understand the emerging field of services sciences, a multidisciplinary curriculum partnering science, technology, engineering, and math with management and business disciplines. To this end, the National Science Foundation will conduct a collaborative study with leaders from institutions of higher education to come to an understanding of how best to support this new field.

Our National Innovation Education Act takes a broad and comprehensive approach to addressing national prosperity, security and our ability to compete internationally with recommendations for enhanced education initiatives in order to improve our national competitiveness. Improving current education for all students will allow graduates greater opportunity for economic success and greater ability to successfully compete in the global market. Our very Nation's future prosperity and security depends upon our willingness as leaders to infuse education with the requisite innovative vision that will inspire our youth to reach for goals that are achievable only beyond the ordinary bounds.

I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, June brings the beginning of the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season, and according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we can expect it to be a busy one. The administration is predicting 13 to 16 named storms, with as many as 4 to 6 predicted to become major hurricanes of category three strength or higher.

As our gulf coast communities learned last fall, it only takes one of these storms to utterly destroy the homes, businesses and lives of millions of Americans. We owe it to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, as well as to the unsuspecting victims of future disasters, to fix the Federal disaster loan program and build it to be responsive to the needs of disaster victims.

That's why I am introducing the Small Business Disaster Loan Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2006. This bill seeks to improve coordination between responding agencies in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. The priority of first responders should be addressing the needs of victims, and the laws establishing disaster response should allow for maximum agency collaboration in addressing those needs.

To this end, we have directed the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate disaster assistance application periods when possible. The Small Business Administration is directed to address any inconsistencies between the Federal regulations and the administration's standard operating procedures that govern the disaster loan program.The Administrator is also directed to work to the maximum extent practicable to gain speedy access to all relevant tax records for loan applicant consideration, and when considering applications, is directed to consider an applicant's credit rating from the day prior to the disaster's occurrence.

The Comptroller General is directed to study the current disaster assistance application and referral process that has resulted in an approval rate of only 35 percent of total disaster loan applicants. The Administrator is also directed to report on how this process can be improved. To increase awareness of available disaster loan assistance, the bill directs the Administrator to develop a proactive marketing plan that will get information on disaster loans in the hands of those who need it. The bill includes an additional study to be conducted by the Comptroller General on industries that may have difficulty accessing disaster loans.

In addition to reauthorizing the disaster loan program for a period of 3 years beginning in 2007, this bill provides the increased capital that homeowners and small business owners need and currently have trouble accessing following a major disaster. A presidential declaration of catastrophic national disaster will allow the Administrator to offer economic injury disaster loans to adversely affected business owners beyond the geographic reach of the disaster area. In addition, private lenders are encouraged to make disaster loans through the 7(a) and 504 lending programs with reduced fees, and the Administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with private contractors in order to expedite loan application processing for direct disaster loans.

Disaster victims are often in need of capital prior to when traditional assistance programs are available. To address this need, this bill establishes a process for providing Federal bridge loans, allowing States to redirect funding previously designated for Community Development Block Grants and use these funds to provide bridge loans and grants to disaster victims. Having this waiver in place will allow States to ensure that victims have the speedy access to capital while they wait for alternative sources of assistance.

Non-profit entities working to provide services to victims should be rewarded and given access to the capital they require to continue their services. To this end, the Administrator is authorized to make disaster loans to nonprofit entities, including religious organizations.

So that businesses are not limited during major disasters by a loan cap that is not sufficient to meet their needs, the bill increases the aggregate amount of loans available to $10,000,000 during a declared major disaster or a catastrophic national disaster.

This bill strengthens the Stafford Act by requiring a 10 percent goal for local firms to participate in the recovery and reconstruction effort. The bill also encourages the utilization of expedited procurement tools for small, small disadvantaged, service-disabled, and historically underutilized businesses.

Construction and rebuilding contracts being awarded are likely to be larger than the current $2 million threshold currently applied to the SBA Surety Bond Program which helps small construction firms gain access to contracts. This bill increases the guarantee against loss for small business contracts up to $5 million and allows the Administrator to increase that level to $10 million, if deemed necessary.

The bill also allows faster payments to small firms in order to increase their ability to gain access to bonds. To make bonding more attractive to surety providers in the disaster area, the Administrator may wave fees for sureties offering bonding in the disaster area and allows the sureties to use the State-approved rates for bonds awarded in the disaster area.

The bill also provides for small business development centers to offer business counseling in disaster areas, and to travel beyond traditional geographic boundaries to provide services during declared disasters. To encourage small business development centers located in disaster areas to keep their doors open, the maximum grant amount of $100,000 is waived.

So that Congress may remain better aware of the status of the administration's disaster loan program, this bill directs the administration to report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives regularly on the fiscal status of the disaster loan program as well as the need for supplemental funding. The administration is also directed to report on the number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses during a disaster declaration.

Many small businesses depend on the contributions of America's military reservists, and have been struggling through the months that these brave men and women have served their country through active duty. This bill authorizes the Administrator to provide grants to the smallest of these firms to assist them as they seek to remain open.

Gas prices continue to soar, and fuel dependent small businesses are struggling with the cost of energy. This bill provides relief to small business owners during times of above average energy price increases, authorizing energy disaster loans through the Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture to companies dependent on fuel.

Residents of the gulf coast continue to rebuild from last year's hurricane season, and they do so despite the slow and inadequate response from their Federal Government. By increasing access to capital for small businesses suffering as a result of a disaster, and by ensuring that Federal agencies charged with disaster response are doing their jobs in a coordinated manner that puts the needs of victims first, we can ensure that the Federal Government is better prepared to respond to future disasters.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act to address, in a comprehensive way, the abuse, misuse, and fraud that has occurred with Government charge cards. Some people might ask, ``Why are you bothering with legislation? Is it that big of a problem?'' It is true that most Government employees who are entrusted with a travel card or a purchase card do not abuse it. It may also be true that the amount of money concerned is only a fraction of any agency's annual budget. Well, when you have agencies like the Department of Defense with an over $500 billion budget, even a small fraction means a lot of taxpayers' money. When I asked GAO to look into instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with Government charge cards, starting with the Department of Defense, we found that purchase cards were used to spend taxpayer money for a sapphire ring, LA-Z-Boy reclining rocking chairs, and a dinner party for a general at Treasure Island Hotel and Casino that included $800 for alcohol. Government travel cards were used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. Government travel cards are for official travel-related expenses only, not tickets to a Dallas Cowboys game or a Janet Jackson concert, but these are real examples of improper purchases GAO uncovered in reports I had requested. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

Based on what we found in DoD, I worked with GAO to uncover similar problems in the U.S. Forest Service where one employee purchased five digital cameras at a cost of $2,960, six computers for $6,019, three palm pilots totaling $736, jewelry worth $1,967, and $6,101 in other items like cordless telephones, figurines, and Sony Playstations, all for personal use and all at taxpayer expense. GAO subsequently found similar problems at

other agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Housing an Urban Development. I have cited just some of the extreme examples, but there are many more instances where employees purchased items that were not needed by the agency or where a cheaper alternative would meet the purpose just as well. This occurred because of weak internal controls within the agencies and is something that clearly needs to be addressed governmentwide. Based on oversight from Congress, GAO, and agency inspectors general, the situation has improved in many agencies and I am pleased that the Office of Management and Budget has begun to bring about an improved control environment through direction contained in OMB Circular 123. However, there is more to be done and my experience has convinced me that legislation is necessary.

The Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act is largely based on the recommendations by GAO regarding what controls are necessary to prevent the kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse we have uncovered. Since I originally introduced this legislation in the last Congress, I have collected input and ideas and worked to refine the bill to make it both comprehensive and workable. The provisions in my bill are simply commonsense internal controls that should be present in every Federal agency to prevent improper purchases. These include: performing credit checks for travel cardholders and issuing restricted cards for those with poor or no credit to reduce the potential for misuse; maintaining a record of each cardholder, including single transaction limits and total credit limits so agencies can effectively manage their cardholders; implementing periodic reviews to determine if cardholders have a need for a card; properly recording rebates to the Government based on prompt payment; providing training for cardholders and managers; utilizing available technologies to prevent or catch fraudulent purchases; establishing specific policies about the number of cards to be issued, the credit limits for certain categories of cardholders, and categories of employees eligible to be issued cards; invalidating cards when employees leave the agency or transfer; establishing an approving official other than the purchase cardholder so employees cannot approve their own purchases; reconciling purchase card charges on the bill with receipts and supporting documentation; submitting disputed purchase card charges to the bank according to the proper procedure; making purchase card payments promptly to avoid interest penalties; retaining records of purchase card transactions in accordance with standard Government recordkeeping polices; utilizing mandatory split disbursements when reimbursing employees for travel card purchases to ensure that travel card bills get paid; comparing items submitted on travel vouchers with items already paid for with centrally billed accounts to avoid reimbursing employees for items already paid for by the agency; and submitting refund requests for unused airline tickets so the taxpayers don't pay for tickets that were not used.

My bill would also provide that 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. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help in strengthening and maintaining a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. In addition, my bill requires penalties so that employees who abuse Government charge cards cannot get away scotfree. In cases of serious misuse or fraud, the bill provides that employees must be dismissed and suspected cases of fraud will also be referred to the appropriate U.S. attorney for prosecution under Federal antifraud laws. Hopefully this will send a clear message that such activity will not be tolerated so as to act as a deterrent for others.

I am proud of the oversight work that I do to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse, but sometimes I feel like Sisyphus, doomed to eternally roll a boulder up a hill only to see it fall again. Instead of eternally looking over the shoulder of agencies to find waste that should never have occurred and then poking and prodding them to close the barn door after the horse has gotten out, we need to put the internal controls in place to make sure these problems don't happen in the first place. This bill will accomplish that for the Government charge card programs so that American taxpayers can sleep soundly knowing that their money isn't being charged away by some bureaucrat. I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense measure and that it will be enacted into law in short order.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006, along with my colleague, Senator Cantwell of Washington. Our bill would extend the successful nutrition labeling that has been on packaged foods since the mid nineties to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more outlets and food sold in vending machines. The aim of this bill is to help Americans to take better charge of their health by giving them the tools that they need to make sound nutrition choices for themselves and their children.

It is no secret that poor health and the resulting health costs are major problems in the United States. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health care spending in the United States in 2004 was $1.8 trillion, and is expected to double by approximately 2014. Furthermore, chronic diseases, which are, in many cases preventable, account for approximately 75 percent of health care costs annually.

Poor nutrition, diet-related chronic diseases, overweight, and obesity are public health threats of the first order. Heart disease and stroke are the first and third leading causes of death in the United States and together, they account for about 40 percent of annual deaths in the United States. In addition, nearly two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese.

But it is not just adults who are affected by poor diets. Kids are increasingly at risk as well. According to the National Academy of Sciences, over the last three decades, the obesity rate has doubled among preschoolers and adolescents, and tripled for kids between ages 6 and 11. For children born today, it is estimated that 30 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls will develop diabetes. Some scientists are predicting that the current generation of children may well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents, largely because of poor diets and diet-related chronic disease.

The issues are economic as well. The economic impact of chronic disease can be seen in the annual costs associated with various conditions. Cardiovascular disease and stroke are estimated to cost $352 billion annually. The yearly economic impacts of obesity, cancer, and diabetes are estimated at $117 billion, $172 billion, and $132 billion, respectively. So we need to promote common-sense steps to prevent these conditions. Increasing consumer knowledge is one of them.

This bill will give consumers a much-needed tool to make wiser choices and achieve healthier lifestyles. Will individual steps like this, by themselves, be enough to turn the tide of chronic disease and poor health? Of course not. But we must look for opportunities to give consumers information they can use to take better control of their health.

In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been extremely positive. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults read and use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets. It's time to extend this same opportunity to consumers who want to make smart nutrition choices in restaurants and at vending machines.

More and more of Americans' food dollars are spent in restaurants. Restaurants play an increasingly important role in Americans' diet and health. But restaurants were excluded from the NLEA.

Today, American adults and children consume a third of their calories at restaurants. Nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of overweight and obesity. We also know that when children eat in restaurants, they consume twice as many calories as when they eat at home. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants. However, while they are fully informed about the nutrition content of food available in supermarkets, consumers at restaurants are almost totally in the dark, left to guess about what is in the foods they are ordering. This legislation seeks to remedy this so that consumers can make the same informed choices in a restaurant that they are currently able to make in the grocery store.

This legislation requires restaurants to convey only minimal but essential information, including calories, grams of fat and trans fat, and milligrams of sodium for each serving. In addition, it recognizes there may be inadvertent human errors that affect things such as variations in serving sizes and food preparation, so the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services,

in promulgating regulations, to allow for some reasonable leeway. And finally, it recognizes that menus change from time to time, so the labeling requirements would not apply to daily specials or to temporary menu items. In short, we are not trying to require information for every individual thing that is made available at restaurants, but we are asking restaurants to provide clear and consistent information on those menu items that are broadly and consistently available.

There are some who will say this is impractical and an extraordinary burden on restaurants. I disagree. I have been through this debate before, when Congress was considering the NLEA. We heard the same parade of arguments and horror stories. But the law was passed anyway and, lo and behold, the sky did not fall. To the contrary, businesses made simple adjustments. Americans got access to the necessary information. It had positive health benefits. And at the end of the day, things worked out just fine.

In fact, you can even look at the Senate to see the potential success of this law. A couple of years ago, I wrote to the administrator of the Senate cafeteria, to which I often send out for lunch. I simply requested that the cafeteria, if possible, provide nutrition information on standard menu items. Not more than a couple of months later, printed handouts were available in the cafeteria with detailed nutrition information on the daily menu. This is not McDonald's, Burger King or Arby's. This is the Senate cafeteria. And by gosh, if the Senate cafeteria can do this without an undue burden, then surely so can the largest restaurant chains in the country.

I believe that most Americans want to take more charge of their health. They want to make the best decisions for both themselves and for their children. But it is hard to do so without nutrition information upon which they can base their informed decisions. This legislation seeks to give Americans the information they want and need. This will be a simple but very important step in the right direction, helping ourselves and our children to live healthier, happier, and more productive lives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006.