A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on Baytron and Baytron P.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me in this effort.

Lead is a poison we have known about for a long time. Studies have long linked lead exposure to learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma, and even death. Lead is particularly damaging to children because their developing brains are more susceptible to harm.

A study released last week found that children with even very low levels of lead exposure have four times the risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than normal and that childhood lead exposure leads to 290,000 cases of ADHD.

The major source of lead exposure among U.S. children is lead-based paint. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recognized this hazard and banned leaded paints. But today, 30 years later, about 24 million older homes, and millions of other buildings, have deteriorating lead paint and elevated levels of lead-contaminated dust.

We know how children are typically exposed. We know what the health effects from exposure are. And we know how to fix the source of the exposure. The one thing we don't know how to do is reverse the brain damage once it has occurred. So, otherwise healthy children wind up facing a lifetime of disadvantage because we have failed to eradicate this insidious problem.

Every day, millions of American parents drop their children off at child care facilities on their way to work. Nearly 12 million children under age 5 spend 40 hours a week in child care. And every day, many of those children in older buildings may be exposed to lead poisoning.

While many child care facilities have taken steps to ensure sources of potential lead exposure are eliminated, too many operate in older buildings that need repair or remodeling to ensure these sources are contained. These facilities may be in wealthy communities, but more often than not, they are in poor communities where parents have few choices for child care. I'm sure many of these facilities would fix the problem if they only had the resources.

The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act protects our children in two ways.

First, the bill establishes a five-year, $42.6 million grant program to help communities reduce lead exposure in facilities such as day care centers, Head Start centers, and kindergarten classrooms where young children spend a great deal of time. Communities

could use the funds for testing, abatement, and communicating the risks of lead to children and parents.

Second, the bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish regulations to eliminate sources of lead exposure in child care facilities, starting with new facilities in 18 months and all facilities in five years.

It's a straightforward fix to a straightforward problem. I hope my colleagues join me in helping to create lead-safe environments in all child care facilities.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Illinois, to introduce the Patriot Employers Act of 2006.

This measure is designed to help businesses and American workers seeking to compete in the global economy. By reducing corporate taxes for those firms that invest in America and American employees, the Patriot Employers Act rewards companies that, among other things, pay decent benefits, provide health coverage and support our troops by paying a full differential salary for deployed National Guard employees.

Too often we hear troubling news reports of American companies outsourcing jobs and exploiting corporate tax loopholes--by setting up incorporated offices, for example, in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Such companies fail to see that they are connected to the markets in which they operate, and by dodging their financial responsibilities, they are harming the very economy that they, too, will need to rely on in the future.

Recognizing these challenges, this bill says that we are going to align our corporate tax policy with the corporate practices we want to encourage.

The Patriot Employers Act cuts taxes for American companies that: maintain headquarters in the U.S.; pay at least 60 percent of employees' healthcare premiums; maintain or increase their U.S. workforce relative to their workforce located abroad; pay an hourly rate several dollars above the outdated minimum wage; provide either a defined benefit retirement plan or a defined contribution plan with an employer match; and provide full differential salary and benefits for National Guard employees called into active duty.

It is important that our American firms remain competitive and innovate, in part by investing in the long-term health of those workers and communities in which they operate and impact. Increasing corporate shareholder value and acting in the interests of the public good are not mutually exclusive goals, and this legislation recognizes that point. All of us have a stake in improving returns to all corporate stakeholders, including investors, managers, employees, consumers, and our communities.

To this end, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I hope that it will renew attempts by lawmakers--both legislative and otherwise--to engage productively with the business community to address their long-term market concerns while promoting the well-being of American workers. Government does not create jobs; entrepreneurs and businesses do. The future of the American economy requires that American businesses continue to grow and improve their productivity and competitiveness. It requires that American companies have the very best workforce and infrastructure to compete and win in every market they enter.

Ensuring American competitiveness will demand new thinking from leaders in business, labor, education, and government: it will demand new responses and roles, new coalitions and collaborations, among these stakeholders. Long-term American competitiveness will demand bipartisan commitment to strengthening all parts of our economy and improving opportunities for all Americans.

The Patriot Employers Act is an important step in this process. Let's align business incentives with the investments we need in the future of the American workforce. Let's begin the conversation about how to ensure American competitiveness for the 21st century and beyond.

I urge quick support for this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is significant both in the problems it seeks to address and the man it seeks to honor.

Since the day he arrived in Congress more than two decades ago, Lane Evans has been a tireless advocate for the men and women with whom he served. When Vietnam vets started falling ill from Agent Orange, he led the effort to get them compensation. Lane was one of the first in Congress to speak out about the health problems facing Persian Gulf war veterans. He's worked to help veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he's also helped make sure thousands of homeless veterans in our country have a place to sleep.

Lane Evans has fought these battles for more than 20 years, and even in the face of his own debilitating disease, he kept fighting. Today, veterans across America have Lane Evans to thank for reminding this country of its duty to take care of those who have risked their lives to defend ours.

I am very proud today to introduce the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. This bill honors a legislator who leaves behind an enduring legacy of service to our veterans. The legislation also is an important step towards caring for our men and women who are currently fighting for us.

Today, nearly 1.5 million American troops have been deployed overseas as part of the global war on terror. These brave men and women who protected us are beginning to return home. Six hundred thousand people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are now veterans, and at least 184,400 have already received treatment at the VA. That number is increasing every day. Many of these fighting men and women are coming home with major injuries. As a country, we are only beginning to understand the true costs of the global war on terror.

For instance, last week, the Government Accountability Office reported that VA has faced $3 billion in budget shortfalls since 2005 because it underestimated the costs of caring for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The VA wasn't getting the information it needed from the Pentagon and was relying on outdated data and incorrect forecasting models. We cannot let these kind of bureaucratic blunders get in the way of the care and support we owe our servicemembers.

To avoid these costly shortfalls in the future, we have to do a better job keeping track of veterans. That's why the first thing the Lane Evans Act does is to establish a system to track global war on terror veterans. The VA established a similar data system following the Persian Gulf War. That effort has

been invaluable in budget planning as well as in monitoring emerging health trends and diseases linked to the gulf war. The Gulf War Veterans Information System also has been important to medical research and improved care for veterans. The sooner we begin keeping accurate track of our fighting men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, the better and more efficiently we will be able to care for them.

The Lane Evans Act also tackles Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mental health patients account for about a third of the new veterans seeking care at the VA. The VA's National Center for PTSD reports that ``the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most sustained combat operations since the Vietnam War, and initial signs imply that these ongoing wars are likely to produce a new generation of veterans with chronic mental health problems.''

This bill addresses PTSD in 2 ways. First, it extends the window during which new veterans can automatically get care for mental health from 2 years to 5 years. Right now, any servicemember discharged from the military has up to 2 years to walk into the VA and get care, no questions asked. After that, vets have to prove that they are disabled because of a service-connected injury, or they have to prove their income is below threshold levels. Unfortunately, it can take years for symptoms of PTSD to manifest themselves. The time it takes to prove service-connection for mental health illness is valuable time lost during which veterans are not receiving critically needed treatment. The Lane Evans Act allows veterans to walk into a VA any time 5 years after discharge and get assessed for mental health care. This both extends the window and shortens the wait for vets to get care.

Second, the legislation makes face-to-face physical and mental health screening mandatory 30 to 90 days after a soldier is deployed in a war zone. This will ensure that our fighting force is ready for battle, and that we can identify and treat those at risk for PTSD. By making the exams mandatory, we can help eliminate the stigma associated with mental health screening and treatment.

Another problem veterans face is that the VA and DoD do not effectively share medical and military records. Older veterans often have to wait years for their benefits as the Department of Defense recovers aging and lost paper records. Under the Lane Evans Act, the Department of Defense would provide each separating service member at the time of discharge with a secure full electronic copy of all military and medical records to help them apply for healthcare and benefits. DoD possesses the technology to do this now. The information could be useful to VA to quickly and accurately document receipt of vaccinations or deployment to a war zone. The electronic data will also be helpful in future generations when family members of veterans seek information about military service, awards, and wartime deployment that goes well beyond the existing single-sheet DD-214 discharge certificate, which is all veterans currently receive.

Finally, the legislation improves the transition assistance that guardsmen and reservists receive when they return from deployment. A 2005 GAG report found that because demobilization for guardsmen and reservists is accelerated, reserve units get abbreviated and perfunctory transition assistance including limited employment training. VA should provide equal briefings and transition services for all service members regarding VA healthcare, disability compensation, and other benefits, regardless of their duty status.

Lane Evans dedicated his life to serving this country and dedicated his time in Congress to serving veterans. The legislation I am introducing today, honors both the man and his mission, and will continue his legacy to the next generation of American veterans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2006,'' with Senator Lautenberg which would reaffirm the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office's, GAO, authority to audit the financial transactions and evaluate the programs and activities of the intelligence community (IC). Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, is introducing similar legislation.

The bill Senator Lautenberg and I offer today is in keeping with legislation introduced in 1987 by Senator John Glenn, the former chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to ensure more effective oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal.

The need for greater oversight and availability of information to appropriate congressional committees is not new. What is new is that Congress does not have the luxury of failure in this era of terrorism. Failure brings terrible consequence.

Since 9/11, effective oversight is needed now more than ever for two very basic reasons: First, intelligence reforms have spawned new agencies with new intelligence functions demanding even more inter- agency cooperation. The Congress needs to ensure that these agencies have the assets, resources, and capability to do their job in protecting our national security. However, now the Congress cannot do its job properly, in part, because its key investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, is not given adequate access to the intelligence community, led by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Moreover, intelligence oversight is no longer the sole purview of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Other committees have jurisdiction over such departments as Homeland Security, State, Defense, Justice, Energy, and even Treasury and Commerce, which, in this war on terrorism, have intelligence collection and sharing responsibilities. Nor is the information necessary for these committees to exercise their oversight responsibilities restricted to the two intelligence committees as their organizing resolutions make clear. Unfortunately, the intelligence community stonewalls the GAO when committees of jurisdiction request that GAO investigate problems despite the clear responsibility of Congress to ensure that these agencies are operating effectively to protect America.

This is not always the case. Some agencies recognize the valuable contribution that GAO makes in improving the quality of our intelligence. As Lieutenant General Lew Allen, Jr., then Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), observed in testimony before the Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect To Intelligence Activities, on October 29, 1975: ``Another feature of congressional review is that since 1955 resident auditors of the General Accounting Office have been assigned at the Agency to perform on-site audits. Additional GAO auditors were cleared for access in 1973, and GAO, in addition to this audit, is initiating a classified review of our automatic data processing functions.'' Not surprisingly, this outpost of the GAO still exists at the NSA.

Second, and equally important, is the inability of Congress to ensure that unfettered intelligence collection does not trample civil liberties. New technologies and new personal information data bases threaten our individual right to a secure private life, free from unlawful government invasion. The Congress must ensure that private information being collected by the intelligence community is not misused and is secure.

Over 30 years ago, Senator Charles Percy urged Congress to ``act now to gain control over the Government's dangerously proliferating police, investigative, and intelligence activities.'' He noted that ``we find ourselves threatened by the specter of a `watchdog' Government, breeding a nation of snoopers.''

The privacy concerns expressed by our former colleague have become vastly more complicated. As I have noted, the institutional landscape has become littered with new intelligence agencies with ever-increasing demands and responsibilities on law enforcement at every level of government since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. They have the legitimate mission to protect the country against potential threats. Congress' role is to ensure that their mission remains legitimate.

The intelligence community today consists of 19 different agencies or components: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Central Intelligence Agency; Department of Defense; Defense Intelligence Agency; National Security Agency; Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; Department of State; Department of Treasury; Department of Energy; Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation; National Reconnaissance Office; National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency; Coast Guard; Department of Homeland Security, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service, entitled ``Congressional Intelligence Oversight,'' be included in the Record.

As both House Rule 48 and Senate Resolution 400 establishing the intelligence oversight committees state, ``Nothing in this [charter] shall be construed as amending, limiting, or otherwise changing the authority of any standing committee of the [House/Senate] to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or agency of the Government relevant to a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.''

Despite this clear and unambiguous statement, the ability of non- intelligence committees to obtain information, no matter how vital to improving the security of our Nation, has been restricted by the various elements of the intelligence community.

Two recent incidents have made this situation disturbingly clear. At a hearing entitled ``Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process, Part II,'' before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia on which I serve as Ranking Member, on November 9, 2005, GAO was asked about steps it would take to ensure that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget, and the intelligence community met the goals and objectives outlined in the OPM security clearance strategic plan. Fixing the security clearance process, which is on GAO's high-risk list, is essential to our national security. But as GAO observed in a written response to a question raised by Senator Voinovich, ``while we have the authority to do such work, we lack the cooperation we need to get our job done in that area.'' The intelligence community is blocking GAO's work in this essential area.

A similar case arose in response to a GAO investigation for the Senate Homeland Security Committee and the House Government Reform Committee on how agencies are sharing terrorism-related and sensitive but unclassified information. The report, entitled ``Information Sharing, the Federal Government Needs to Establish Policies and Processes for Sharing Terrorism-Related and Sensitive but Unclassified Information'' (GAO-06-385), was released in March 2006.

At a time when Congress is criticized by members of the 9-11 Commission for failing to implement its recommendations, we should remember that improving terrorism information sharing among agencies was one of the critical recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. Moreover, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated the sharing of terrorism information through the creation of an Information Sharing Environment. Yet, when asked by GAO for comments on the GAO report, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence refused, stating that ``the review of intelligence activities is beyond GAO's purview.''

However, as a Congressional Research Service memorandum entitled ``Overview of `Classified' and `Sensitive but Unclassified' Information,'' concludes, ``it appears that pseudo-classification markings have, in some instances, had the effect of deterring information sharing for homeland security.'' I ask unanimous consent that the memo be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Unfortunately I have more examples, that predate the post 9-11 reforms. Indeed, in July 2001, in testimony entitled ``Central Intelligence Agency, Observations on GAO Access to Information on CIA Programs and Activities'' (GAO-01-975T) before the House Committee on Government Reform, the GAO noted, as a practical matter, ``our access is generally limited to obtaining information on threat assessments when the CIA does not perceives [sic] our audits as oversight of its activities.'' I ask consent that this testimony also be printed following my remarks.

It is inconceivable that the GAO--the audit arm of the U.S. Congress--has been unable to conduct evaluations of the CIA for over 40 years.

If the GAO had been able to conduct basic auditing functions of the CIA, perhaps some of the problems that were so clearly exposed following the terrorist attacks in September 2001 would have been resolved. And yet, it is extraordinary that five years after 9-11 the same problems persist.

Once more I refer to Senator Glenn's bill S. 1458, the ``General Accounting Office-Central Intelligence Agency Audit Act of 1987.'' On its introduction he said, ``in the long run, I believe carefully controlled GAO audits of CIA will lower the probability of future abuses of power, boost the credibility of CIA management, increase the essential public support the Agency's mission deserves, assist the Congress in conducting meaningful oversight, and in no way compromise the CIA mission.'' Unfortunately, S. 1458 did not become law, and nearly 20 years later, the CIA's apparent management challenges led to the creation of the Director of National Intelligence with the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. If Senator Glenn's proposal made in 1987 had been accepted, perhaps, again, some of the problems that became apparent with our intelligence agencies following 9-11 might never have occurred.

I want to be clear that my legislation does not detract from the authority of the intelligence committees. In fact, the language makes explicit that the Comptroller General may conduct an audit or evaluation of intelligence sources and methods or covert actions only upon the request of the intelligence committees or at the request of the congressional majority or minority leaders. The measure also prescribes for the security of the information collected by the Comptroller General.

However, my bill reaffirms the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct audits and evaluations--other than those relating to sources and methods, or covert actions--relating to the management and administration of elements of the intelligence community in areas such as strategic planning, financial management, information technology, human capital, knowledge management, information sharing, and change management for other relevant committees of the Congress.

Attached is a detailed description of the legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

There being no objection the materials were ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006. And, I do so because it is my sincere belief, that in order to better prevent attacks here at home, we must dramatically reorder the priorities of the Federal Government.

This legislation, which I unsuccessfully attempted to attach to the port security legislation 2 weeks ago, will reorder our priorities by creating a homeland security trust fund that will set aside $53.3 billion to invest in our homeland security over the next 5 years. Through this trust fund we will allocate an additional $10 billion per year over the next 5 years to enhance the safety of our communities.

Everyone in this body knows that we are not yet safe enough. Independent experts, law enforcement personnel, and first responders have warned us that we have not done enough to prevent an attack and we are ill-equipped to respond to one. Hurricane Katrina, which happened just over a year ago, demonstrated this unfortunate truth and showed us the devastating consequences of our failure to act responsibly here in Washington. And, last December, the 9/11 Commission issued their report card on the administration's and Congresses' progress in implementing their recommendations. The result was a report card riddled with D's and F's.

And, to add to this, the FBI reported earlier this summer that violent crime and murders are on the rise for the first time in a decade. Given all of this, it is hard to argue that we are as safe as we should be.

To turn this around, we have to get serious about our security. If we establish the right priorities, we can do the job. We can fund local law enforcement, which the President has attempted to slash by over $2 billion for fiscal year 2007. We can give the FBI an additional 1,000 agents to allow them to implement reforms without abandoning local crime. We can secure the soft targets in our critical infrastructure, to ensure that our chemical plants and electricity grids are protected from attacks. We can immediately re-allocate spectrum from the television networks and give it to our first responders so they can talk during an emergency.

I know what many of my colleagues here will argue. They will argue that it is simply too expensive to do everything. This argument is complete malarkey. This is all about priorities. And, quite frankly this Congress and this administration have had the wrong priorities for the past 5 years.

For example, this year the tax cut for Americans that make over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that, just one year of the Bush tax cut for Americans making over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. In contrast, we dedicate roughly one-half of that-- approximately $32 billion--to fund the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We have invested twice as much for a tax cut for millionaires--less than 1 percent of the population--than we do for the Department intended to help secure the entire nation.

For a Nation that is repeatedly warned about the grave threats we face, how can this be the right priority? The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006 would change this by taking less than 1 year of the tax cut for millionaires--$53.3 billion--and investing it in homeland security over the next 5 years. By investing this over the next 5 years at just over $10 billion per year, we could implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations and do those commonsense things that we know will make us safer.

For example, under this amendment, we could hire 50,000 additional police officers and help local agencies create locally based counter- terrorism units. We could hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents to help ensure that FBI is able to implement critical reforms without abandoning its traditional crime fighting functions. We could also invest in security upgrades within our critical infrastructure and nearly double the funding for state homeland security grants. And, the list goes on.

We continually authorize funding for critical homeland security programs, but a look back at our recent appropriations bills tells us that the funding rarely matches the authorization. Just this July we passed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Budget. In that legislation, the Senate allocated only $210 million for port security grants--which is just over one-half of the amounts authorized in the

bipartisan port security legislation that passed the Senate 2 weeks ago.

Yet, another example of this problem is our shameful record on providing funding for rail security. For the last two Congresses, the Senate has passed bipartisan rail security legislation sponsored by myself, Senator McCain and others. This legislation authorizes $1.2 billion to secure the soft targets in our rail system, such as the tunnels and stations. Notwithstanding, we have only allocated $150 million per year for rail and transit security with less than $15 million allocated for intercity passenger rail security.

So, while it is critical that we have acknowledged the need for increased rail security funding by passing authorizations, unless we invest the money, it doesn't really mean much. Unfortunately, this is an example that is repeated over and over.

We know that the murder rate is up and that there is an officer shortage in communities throughout the Nation. Yet, we provide $0 funding for the COPS hiring program and we've slashed funding for the Justice Assistance Grant.

We know that our first responders can't talk because they don't have enough interoperable equipment. Yet, we have not forced the networks to turn over critical spectrum, and we vote down funding to help local agencies purchase equipment every year.

We know that only 5 percent of cargo containers are screened, yet we do not invest in the personnel and equipment to upgrade our systems.

We know that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Yet, we allow industry to decide what is best and provide scant resources to harden soft targets.

The 9/11 Commission's report card issued last December stated bluntly that ``it is time we stop talking about setting priorities and actually set some.''

This legislation will set some priorities. First, we provide the funding necessary to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Next, we take the commonsense steps to make our Nation safer. We make sure that law enforcement and first responders have the personnel, equipment, training they need, and are sufficiently coordinated to do the job by providing $1.15 billion per year for COPS grants; $160 million per year to hire 1,000 FBI agents; $200 million to hire and equip 1,000 rail police. $900 million for the Justice Assistance Grants; $1 billion per year for interoperable communications; $1 billion for Fire Act and SAFER grants.

In addition, we could invest in new screening technologies to protect the American people by providing $100 million to improve airline screening checkpoints and $100 million for research and development on improving screening technologies. We also set aside funding to soften hard targets by setting aside $500 million per year for general infrastructure grants; $500 million per year for port security grants, and $200 million per year to harden our rail infrastructure. And the list goes on.

I will conclude where I started. This is all about setting the right priorities for America. Instead of giving a tax cut to the richest Americans who don't need it, we should take some of it and dedicate it towards the security of all Americans. Our Nation's most fortunate are just as patriotic as the middle class. They are just as willing to sacrifice for the good of our Nation. The problem is that no one has asked them to sacrifice.

The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006 will ask them to sacrifice for the good of the Nation, and I'm convinced that they will gladly help us out. And to those who say this won't work, I would remind them that the 1994 Crime Bill established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, specifically designated for public safety, that put more than 100,000 cops on the street, funded prevention programs and more prison beds to lock up violent offenders. It worked; violent crime went down every year for 8 years from the historic highs to the lowest levels in a generation.

Our Nation is at its best when we all pull together and sacrifice. Our Nation's most fortunate citizens are just as patriotic as those in the middle class, and I am confident that they will be willing to forgo 1 year of their tax cut for the greater good of securing the homeland. The bottom line is that with this legislation, we make clear what our national priorities should be, we set out how we will pay for them, and we ensure those who are asked to sacrifice, that money the government raises for security actually gets spent on security.

This legislation is about re-ordering our homeland security priorities. I realize that it will not be enacted this year, but I will introduce this legislation again in the next Congress and I will push for its prompt passage and I hope to gain the support of my colleagues in this effort.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a bill that will help inform the Congress and the American people about our Nation's trade agreements.

The trade policy debate here in Washington is heated and polarized. Supporters of ``free trade'' often view trade agreements uncritically and without question while others are suspicious of any agreement that makes it easier to trade with other countries. I believe that trade policy decisions should be based on an understanding of the concrete results of these agreements and the impact that they have on our economy and the American people, rather than on preconceived notions.

My bill, the Trade Agreement Accountability Act, will inject factual analysis in to this debate. The bill requires the International Trade Commission to report on the effects of every trade agreement we sign. These reports will examine the good and the bad of every trade agreement after two years, after five years and then every five years after it goes into effect. They will study the effect of each trade agreement on a sector-by-sector basis, and conduct an assessment and quantitative analysis of how each agreement is fostering economic growth, improving living standards and helping to create jobs.

In short, this bill will help educate policymakers and the American people about this important debate. I hope that by evaluating the results of past agreements, we will be able to better understand the consequences of future ones.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Obama, in support of the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would close an important gap in primary prevention strategies by providing critical resources to make all nonhome-based childcare facilities and Head Start Programs lead-safe within 5 years.

Lead is highly toxic and continues to be a serious, persistent, and entirely preventable threat to the health and well-being of our children. Lead poisoning continues to pose an unacceptable environmental health risk to infants, children, and pregnant women in the United States, particularly in minority and low-income communities. A CDC survey conducted between 1999 and 2002, estimated that 310,000 American children under 6 were at risk for exposure to harmful lead levels in United States. Childhood lead poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. A study from the New England Journal of Medicine also found that children suffered up to a 7.4- percent decrease in IQ at lead levels that CDC considers safe. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even death.

It is critical that we remove lead hazards where our children live, learn, and play. We especially need to eliminate these risks and hazards that continue to persist in childcare facilities and schools. Nearly 12 million children under age 5 spend 40 hours a week in childcare. Lead paint in older buildings is a primary source of exposure, but significant lead exposure can also come from tap water. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that about 14,200 childcare facilities have considerable lead-based hazards present. In addition, a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, identified significant, systemic problems with the way in which the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitors and regulates the levels of lead in our Nation's drinking water, including a complete lack of reliable data on which to make assessments and decisions. The GAO study found that few schools and childcare facilities nationwide have tested their water for lead, and no focal point exists at either the national or State level to collect and analyze test results. Few States have comprehensive programs to detect and remediate lead in drinking water at schools and childcare facilities. Only five States have required general lead testing for schools, and of those, only four require childcare facilities to test for lead when obtaining or renewing their licenses. Almost half the States reported having no lead efforts of any kind. State and local officials need more information on the pervasiveness of lead contamination to know how best to address the issue.

Each year in New York State an additional 10,000 children under the age of 6 years are newly identified as having elevated blood lead levels, and over 200,000 children in New York have had documented lead poisoning between 1992 to 2004. Exposure to lead results in increased expenses each year for New York in the form of special educational and other educational expenses, medical care for lead-poisoned children, and expenditures for delinquent youth and others needing special supervision. It is estimated that these increased expenses, as well as lost earnings, exceed $4 billion annually. New York City and Rochester have been at the forefront of grassroots efforts to combat lead poisoning, and this bill would provide important resources and incentives to implement their model programs nationwide.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Debit and Check Card Consumer Protection Act of 2006, an important piece of legislation in the battle against consumer fraud. Despite consumers' best efforts, debit and check card fraud is a serious problem making consumer liability an important issue. Unfortunately, current consumer protection laws do not adequately protect debit and check card holders from fraud.

Over the last decade, debit and check card use has experienced double digit growth and now over 80 percent of American consumer households possess a debit or check card. This growth has outpaced that of credit cards and recent reports indicate that between 2001 and 2003 consumers made 42.5 billion

transactions with debit cards, 2.3 billion more transactions than with credit cards.

While debit and check card growth benefits the American economy, consumers continually face greater challenges to prevent and protect themselves from debit and check card fraud. Recent statistics show that in 2005, ATM/debit card fraud in the United States generated losses of $2.75 billion. During the same period, ATM fraud alone affected 3 million U.S. consumers.

Despite these findings, debit and check card consumer liability protections under the law remain substandard as compared to credit cards. Under current law, debit and check card holders are liable for fraudulent transactions dependent upon when they report the fraud. In some cases the consumer can be held accountable for $500 worth of fraudulent transactions. Conversely, credit card holders who face similar consumer challenges are liable for a maximum payment of $50 and are allowed to refuse or ``chargeback'' a payment when goods or services fail to arrive or they are dissatisfied with a transaction. Debit and check card holders are not provided with similar ``chargeback'' protections. Fortunately, some debit and check card issuers provide customers with stronger liability protections; however, it is essential that consumers are assured liability protections under the law, not just through a company's policy.

The Debit and Check Card Consumer Protection Act of 2006 remedies these inconsistencies between credit card liability protections and debit and check card liability protections by simply affording the same level of protection to debit and check card users given to credit card users. This legislation is an important step in ensuring consumer protections in an economy increasingly driven by electronic commercial transactions, and I am proud that Consumers Union, one of the largest nonpartisan advocate organizations for consumer rights, has endorsed it.

The time has come to strengthen debit and check card liability protections for the American consumer, and I urge my colleagues to support this simple and commonsense remedy to a growing problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Citizen Petition Fairness and Accuracy Act of 2006. This legislation will help speed the introduction of cost-saving generic drugs by preventing abuses of the Food and Drug Administration citizen petition process.

Consumers continue to suffer all across our country from the high-- and ever rising--cost of prescription drugs. A recent independent study found that prescription drug spending has more than quadrupled since 1990, and now accounts for 11 percent of all health care

spending. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world, returning more than 15 percent on their investments.

One key method to bring prescription drug prices down is to promote the introduction of generic alternatives to expensive brand name drugs. Consumers realize substantial savings once generic drugs enter the market. Generic drugs cost on average of 63 percent less than their brand-name equivalents. One study estimates that every 1 percent increase in the use of generic drugs could save $4 billion in health care costs.

This is why I have been so active in the last year in pursuing legislation designed to combat practices which impede the introduction of generic drugs--including S. 3582, the Preserve Access to Generics Act, which would forbid payments from brand name drug manufacturers to generic manufacturers to keep generic drugs off the markets, and S. 2300, the Lower Priced Drugs Act, legislation I co-sponsored to combat other conduct which impedes the marketing of generic drugs. The legislation I introduce today targets yet another practice by brand name drug companies to impede or block the marketing of generic drugs-- abuse of the FDA citizen petition process.

FDA rules permit any person to file a so-called ``citizen petition'' to raise concerns about the safety or efficacy of a generic drug that a manufacturer is seeking FDA approval to bring to market. While this citizen petition process was put in place for a laudable purpose, unfortunately in recent years it has been abused by frivolous petitions submitted by brand name drug manufacturers (or individuals acting at their behest) whose only purpose is to delay the introduction of generic competition. The FDA has a policy of not granting any new generic manufacturer's drug application until after it has considered and evaluated any citizen petitions regarding that drug. The process of resolving a citizen petition (even if ultimately found to be groundless) can delay the approval by months or years. Indeed, brand name drug manufacturers often wait to file citizen petitions until just before the FDA is about to grant the application to market the new generic drug, solely for the purpose of delaying the introduction of the generic competitor for the maximum amount of time possible. This gaming of the system should not be tolerated.

In recent years, FDA officials have expressed serious concerns about the abuse of the citizen petition process. Last year, FDA Chief Counsel Sheldon Bradshaw noted that ``[t]he citizen petition process is in some cases being abused. Sometimes, stakeholders try to use this mechanism to unnecessarily delay approval of a competitor's products.'' He added that he found it ``particularly troublesome'' that he had ``seen several examples of citizen petitions that appear designed not to raise timely concerns with respect to the legality or scientific soundness of approving a drug application, but rather to delay approval by compelling the agency to take the time to consider the arguments raised in the petition, regardless of their merits, and regardless of whether the petitioner could have made those very arguments months and months before.''

And a simple look at the statistics gives credence to these concerns. Of the 21 citizen petitions for which the FDA has reached a decision since 2003, 20 or 95 percent of them have been found to be without merit. Of these, ten were identified as ``eleventh hour petitions'', defined as those filed less than 6 months prior to the estimated entry date of the generic drug. None of these ten ``eleventh hour petitions'' were found to have merit, but each caused unnecessary delays in the marketing of the generic drug by months or over a year, causing consumers to spend millions and millions more for their prescription drugs than they would have spent without these abusive filings.

Despite the expense these frivolous citizen petitions cause consumers and the FDA, under current law the government has absolutely no ability to sanction or penalize those who abuse the citizen petition process, or who file citizen petitions simply to keep competition off the market. Our legislation will correct this obvious shortcoming and give the Department of Health and Human Services--the FDA's parent agency-- the power to sanction those who abuse the process.

Our bill will, for the first time, require all those who file citizen petitions to affirm certain basic facts about the truthfulness and good faith of the petition, similar to what is required of every litigant who makes a filing in court. The party filing the citizen petition will be required to affirm that the petition is well grounded in fact and warranted by law; is not submitted for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay in approval of competing drugs; and does not contain any materially false, misleading or fraudulent statement. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to investigate a citizen petition to determine if it has violated any of these principles, was submitted for an improper purpose, or contained false or misleading statements. Further, the Secretary is authorized to penalize anyone found to have submitted an abusive citizen petition. Possible sanctions include a fine up to one million dollars, a suspension or permanent revocation of the right of the violator to file future citizens' petition, and a dismissal of the petition at issue. HHS is also authorized to refer the matter to the Federal Trade Commission so that the FTC can undertake its own investigation as to the competitive consequences of the frivolous petition and take any action it finds appropriate. Finally, the bill directs the HHS that all citizen petitions be adjudicated within six months of filing, which will put an end to excessive delays in bringing needed generic drugs to market because of the filings of these petitions.

While our bill will not have any effect on any person filing a truly meritorious citizen petition, this legislation will serve as a strong deterrent to attempts by brand name drug manufacturers or any other party that seeks to abuse the citizen petition process to thwart competition. It will thereby remove one significant obstacle exploiting by brand name drug companies to prevent or delay the introduction of generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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