Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Disclosure Act

Mr. President, our dependence on foreign oil is sapping America's power and independence as a nation. It is urgent we begin now to diversify the fuels we use to power our vehicles or risk ceding our national power to the rulers of faraway deserts, distant tundras, steaming rain forests or off-shore, drilling platforms half a world away.

I rise today as part of a bipartisan group of 10 Senators who represent the American Northeast, South, Midwest and West to introduce the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for America Security Act.

We chose this title because nothing less than our national security is at stake.

Besides myself, the rest of the ``Gang of Ten,'' or the ``Energy Security Ten,'' as some call us are Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Bill Nelson of Florida, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Barack Obama of Illinois. And we expect even more of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will be joining us soon.

I hope that in the future we all look back on the day this bill was introduced as the beginning of a major shift in our national security strategy. I hope that history will say we saw a challenge to our national security and prosperity and then met it and mastered it.

A recent report by the International Energy Agency, IEA, sums up the urgent need for our legislation.

According to the IEA, global demand for oil--now about 85 million barrels a day--will increase by more than 50 percent to 130 million barrels a day between now and 2030 if nothing is done.

The industrialized world's dependence on oil heightens global instability. The authors of the IEA report note that the way things are going ``we are ending up with 95 percent of the world relying for its economic well-being on decisions made by five or six countries in the Middle East.''

Besides the Mideast, I would add that Nigeria is roiled by instability, Venezuela's current leadership is hostile to us and Russia's resurgent state power has ominous overtones.

In fact, we are just one well-orchestrated terrorist attack or political upheaval away from a $100-a-barrel overnight price spike that would that would send the global economy tumbling and the industrialized world, including China and India, scrambling to secure supplies from the remaining and limited number of oil supply sites.

History tells us that wars have started over such competition.

Left unchecked, I fear that we are literally watching the slow but steady erosion of America's power and independence as a nation--our economic and military power and our political independence.

We are burning it up in our automobile engines and spewing it from our tailpipes because of our absolute dependence on oil to fuel our cars and trucks.

That dependence on oil--and that means foreign oil because our own reserves are less than 1 percent of the world's oil reserves--puts us in jeopardy in three key ways--a convergence forming a perfect storm that is extremely dangerous to America's national security and economy.

First, the structure of the global oil market deeply affects--and distorts--our foreign policy. Our broader interests and aspirations must compete with our own need for oil and the growing thirst for it in the rest of the world--especially by China and India.

As a study in the journal Foreign Affairs makes clear, China is moving aggressively to compete for the world's limited supplies of oil not just with its growing economic power, but with its growing military and diplomatic power as well.

Second, today we must depend for our oil on a global gallery of nations that are politically unstable, unreliable, or just plain hostile to us.

All that and much more should make us worry because if we don't change--it is within their borders and under their earth and waters that our economic and national security lies.

Doing nothing about our oil dependency will make us a pitiful giant-- like Gulliver in Lilliput--tied down by smaller nations and subject to their whims. And we will have given them the ropes and helped them tie the knots.

We can take on this problem now and stand tall as the free and independent giant we are by moving our nation--and the world--on to energy independence, by setting America free from its dependence on oil.

There is only one way to do this. We need to transform our total transportation infrastructure from the refinery to the tailpipe and each step in between because transportation is the key to energy independence.

Barely 2 percent of our electricity comes from oil.

Ninety six percent of the energy used to power our cars comes from oil--literally millions of barrels of oil per day. This is unsustainable and dangerous.

The Vehicle and Fuel Choices for America Security Act aims to strengthen America's security by transforming transportation from the refinery to the tailpipe and each step in between, thus breaking our dependence on foreign oil.

We start by making it our national policy to cut consumption by 10 million barrels a day over the next 25 years.

First, we need to rethink and then remake our fuel supplies. Gasoline is not the only portable source of stored energy. Tons of agricultural waste and millions of acres of idle grassland can be used to create billions of barrels of new fuels.

Our farmers could soon be measuring production in barrels of energy as well as bushels of food.

Then we must remake our automobile engines as well. Vehicles that get 500 miles per gallon--or that use no refined crude oil--are within our grasp. I know that sounds unbelievable. I am going to tell you how we can do it.

To help us get there, our bill also requires that by 2012, 10 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S. be hybrid, hybrid-electric plug-in or alternative fuel vehicles. That number will rise by 10 percent a year until it reaches 50 percent in 2016.

To help spur this market along, our bill amends our current energy policy to require that one quarter of federal vehicles purchased must be hybrids or plug-in hybrids.

My bill will detail how we can get there with available technology and previously unavailable Federal Government leadership. Coupling these new programs with the explicit oil-savings goals for the Federal Government is the key to the effectiveness of this proposal.

I can almost hear colleagues murmur, So, Senator Lieberman, what else is new? We've been hearing this for years and nothing has happened.

I can't blame you if you are skeptical. The struggle for oil independence has been going on at least since Jimmy Carter was President.

But things have changed since the days of Jimmy Carter and even since last summer. There is a new understanding of the depth of the crisis that our oil dependence is creating.

This summer's doubling of gasoline and crude oil prices hit tens of millions of Americans with the global reality of oil demand and pricing. And Hurricane Katrina reminded us how vulnerable our supplies can become.

This reality is bipartisan. And, along with my colleagues cosponsoring this bill, I think Americans are ready to set the serious goals that eluded us in the past and take the bold steps necessary to reach those goals.

Now let me give you more details.

The bill I will propose puts our Nation's transportation system on a new road--a road where the tanks are filled with more home-grown fuel-- and I do mean grown--not just American corn, but from American sugar, prairie grass, and agricultural waste.

We will push harder for more and quicker production and commercialization of biomass-based fuels.

The Energy bill signed into law last summer created a new set of incentives for these fuel alternatives, including their commercial production.

What my bill would do--again, by including a mass-production mandate for alternative fuel vehicles--is ensure that the investments would be made in the facilities to produce and market these new fuels by providing big demand for them.

The bill would also create a program to guarantee that filling stations had the pumps to provide the fuel to keep pace with the growing alternative-fuel fleet produced by the mandate.

Is there a model to give us confidence we can achieve this transformation? Yes.

Brazil is now enjoying substantial immunity from current high world oil prices, thanks to a long-term strategy, launched during the oil shocks of the 1970s, to integrate sugar cane ethanol into its fuel supply. They started initially with a mandate that all fuel sold in the country contain 25 percent alcohol. They are now up to 40 percent biofuels.

In addition to the fuel mandate, Brazil offered low-interest loans and tax breaks for the building of distilleries and subsidized a fuel distribution network.

Brazil has the advantage of a substantial sugar cane industry already in place. But we have our own vast potential to develop our own biofuel supply, using feedstock like corn, crop waste, switch grass, sugarcane and fast-growing trees and shrubs such as hybrid poplars and willows.

According to the Department of Energy, if two-thirds of the Nation's idled cropland were used to grow these kinds of energy crops, the result could be dramatic. Those 35 million acres could produce between 15 and 35 billion gallons of ethanol each year to fuel cars, trucks, and buses.

That is about 2.2 million barrels of fuel a day from right here in the U.S.A.

What Brazil offers us, more importantly, is a case study of government leadership to combine technology mandates and subsidies to wean its transportation sector from foreign oil to a domestic alternative.

From this January through this July--before this summer's fuel spike--we have sent almost $100 billion out of the country to purchase oil, while the Brazilians are now relying on home-grown fuel.

The key to their success is that they responded 30 years ago to the first storm warnings. We did not, and now the storm is at our shores, slapping against the levees of our economic strength and national security. We have to mobilize and lead a similar response as Brazil did.

If we do this right, our farmers could soon be measuring production in barrels of energy as well as bushels of food. Our energy would be guaranteed ``Made in America'' and the profits would be guaranteed ``Kept in America.''

For all these new fuels to be effective, we need the flexible fuel vehicles that can take advantage of them.

As I said earlier, our bill also requires that 50 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S. be hybrid, hybrid-electric plug-in, or alternative fuel vehicles by 2016.

Sound ambitious? It is not. It has already happened in Brazil. Several automakers selling cars in Brazil, including our own General Motors and Ford, already manufacture a fleet that is more than 50- percent flexible fuel cars that can run on any combination of gasoline and biofuels.

The technology exists now and adds a negligible cost--about $150--to the price of each vehicle. For this we get the flexibility to power a car with fuel made from corn, prairie grass, or agricultural waste from our own heartland that will cost a lot less than gasoline does today.

Maximizing fuel efficiency and promoting energy independence even further would be a new generation of flexible-fuel hybrid cars known as plug-ins because you can plug them in at night to recharge the battery.

Hybrids that use a use both a gasoline engine and electric motor for power are already getting 50 miles per gallon. Making them flexible fuel cars, as I've already said, can save us more than 2 million barrels of gasoline a day.

But we can do even better--dramatically better--with the plug-in hybrid that is just now on the threshold of commercialization. Like the present hybrids, it would use both a gasoline and electric motor. But the plug-in hybrid would be able to use the battery exclusively for the first 30 miles of a trip.

Think of that for a minute. Although Americans drive about 2.2 trillion miles a year, according the Census, the vast majority of those trips are less than 15 miles.

That means a plug-in hybrid would use zero--zero--gallons of gas or any combustible fuel for the vast majority of its trips. And experts tell me it could effectively get the 500 miles per gallon on longer trips.

Plugging in your car during off peak hours--when power is in surplus and cheaper--would soon just become part of the modem daily routine, like plugging in your cell phone or PDA before you go to bed.

And off-peak electricity can be the equivalent of 50 cent a gallon gasoline, I repeat--the equivalent of 50 cent a gallon fuel is feasible.

Of course, electricity does not come magically through the wires to our homes. That power would come from coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind or other sources--sources that we have in abundance here at home--and a little--very little--would come from oil.

This isn't pie in the sky. These vehicles could be in your garage within a couple of years. Some of the incentives for achieving this were included in the Energy bill signed into law in August. But they did not go nearly far enough.

We need to couple these incentives with real performance standards and sales requirements to ensure that as soon as possible new cars are running not just on gasoline but on biofuels and electricity.

As always, there is a do-nothing crowd that says the ever-rising price of gasoline and crude oil are the cure--that with higher prices people will reduce consumption and the market will respond with greater investments in the supply of oil to bring prices down.

But all that would do is perpetuate the problem. Market-driven oil- dependency is still dependency on foreign oil, driving us further down the current path toward national insecurity and economic and environmental troubles.

Some say that we can ease the crisis through greater domestic drilling--in places like the Arctic Refuge and other public lands or off our shores.

But that won't make a dent in the problem. In the world of oil, geology is destiny and the U.S. today has only 1 percent of the world's oil reserves. And that small new supply wouldn't matter much in the global market, since the price of oil produced within the United States rises and falls with the global market, regardless of where it is produced.

We just don't have enough oil in the U.S. anymore. And no matter how much more we drill, we will still be paying the world price of oil--not an American price.

Our present energy and transportation systems were born at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries with the twin discoveries of oil extraction and the internal combustion engine. Those systems have served us well bringing growth to our Nation and the world.

But it is now the 21st century, and it is time to move on. The era of big oil is over. It is time to revolutionize our entire energy infrastructure, from the refinery to the tailpipe, and begin a new era of energy independence.

It is time to set America free by cutting our dependence on foreign oil and by doing so strengthen our security, preserve our independence and energize our economy.

Mr. President, today I plan to introduce the Equal Access to Justice Reform Act of 2005.

This legislation contains adjustments to the Equal Access to Justice

Act (EAJA) that will streamline and improve the process of awarding attorneys' fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against the Federal Government. This is the fifth Congress in which I have introduced EAJA reform. I believe this reform is an important step toward reducing the burden of defending government litigation for many individuals and small businesses.

I am very pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation this year by my friend from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, who chairs the Small Business Committee. We hope that by working together on a bipartisan basis, we will increase the chances that this important project will become law.

The legislation we are proposing today deals directly with a problem that affects small businesses and individual Americans across this country who face legal battles with the Federal Government. Even if they win in court, they may lose financially because they incur the great expense of paying their attorneys.

It is important to understand what the Equal Access to Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise of this statute is very simple. EAJA seeks to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses that face the United States government in litigation. It establishes guidelines for the award of attorneys' fees when the individual or small business prevails in a case brought by the government. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available to the Federal Government in a legal dispute far outweigh those available to most Americans. This disparity is lessened by requiring the government, in certain instances, to pay the attorneys' fees of successful individual and small-business parties. By giving successful parties the right to seek attorneys' fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to prevent individuals and small business owners from having to risk their family savings or their companies' financial well-being to seek justice in court.

My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate. It arises from my experience as both a private attorney and a Member of the State Senate in my home State of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I became aware of how the ability to recoup attorneys' fees is a significant factor, and often one of the first considered, when parties decide whether to defend a case. Upon entering the Wisconsin State Senate, I authored legislation modeled on the Federal law, which had been championed by one of my predecessors in this body from Wisconsin, Senator Gaylord Nelson. Today, Wisconsin statutes contain provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute.

It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do all that we can to help ease the financial burdens on people who need to have their claims reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. The bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing today does a number of things to make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business owners across this country.

First, this legislation eliminates the restrictive provision in current law that prevents successful parties from collecting attorneys' fees unless they can show the government's position was ``not substantially justified.'' I believe that this high threshold for obtaining attorneys' fees is unfair. If an individual or small business battles the Federal Government in an adversarial proceeding and prevails, the government should pay the fees incurred. Imagine a small business that spends time and money fighting the government and wins, only to find out that it must undertake the additional step of litigating the justification of government's litigation position just to recover attorneys' fees. For the government, with its vast resources, this second litigation over fees poses little difficulty, but for the small business or individual, it may simply not be financially feasible.

This additional step presents more than a financial burden on the individual or small business litigant. A 1992 study also reveals that it is unnecessary and a waste of government resources. University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent reviewed EAJA cases in 1989 and 1990 and released a study on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Professor Krent found that only a small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial justification defense. While it is impossible to determine the exact cost of litigating the issue of substantial justification, Professor Krent found that the money saved by the government was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In short, eliminating this often-burdensome second step is a cost-effective step that will streamline recovery under EAJA and may very well save the government money in the long run.

A second improvement this bill makes to EAJA are modifications to the definition of a small business. Small businesses are currently defined for purposes of EAJA as businesses with a net worth of less than $7 million. We update that number to $10 million and also provide for an inflation adjustment every five years based on the Producer Price Index. This provision will ensure that EAJA continues to serve the small businesses it is intended to protect.

Another part of this legislation that will streamline and improve EAJA is a provision designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government can make an offer of settlement after an application for fees and other expenses has been filed. If the government's offer is rejected and the prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that party is not entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the date of the government's offer. Again, this will encourage settlement and speed the claims process. It will reduce the time and expense of the litigation.

This bill also requires the government agency that brought the case against the small business or individual to pay attorneys' fees from their own budgets. This provision ensures federal agencies will consider the financial impact of the actions they choose to bring against individuals and small businesses. OSHA, NLRB, EEOC, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration are exempt from this provision because they play a unique role in acting on behalf of workers to enforce the laws.

Finally, this bill will modify the definition of prevailing party to ensure that if claims filed against the government are the catalyst for a change in the position by the government that results in the individual or small business achieving a significant part of the relief sought, the individual or small business will be considered the prevailing party even if the case settles rather than going to a judgment. This reverses, in cases where fees are available under EAJA, the 2001 decision of the Supreme Court in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources.

We all know that the American small business owner faces many challenges. Government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to conducting business, and litigation can be costly. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived and implemented as a check on the formidable power of the federal government. It has already helped many individual Americans and small businesses. The legislation we are offering today will make EAJA more effective and more fair. I want to thank Senator Snowe for agreeing to work with me on this important bill. I hope our colleagues can support it.

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

Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have fought to ensure that small businesses across the country are treated fairly by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, Federal agencies take arbitrary or abusive enforcement actions against small businesses. Few repercussions deter the Federal Government from taking these unwarranted and unjust actions, which can irreparably injure the reputation and financial viability of a small business.

Enacted in 1980 on a bipartisan basis, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) intended to allow small businesses to collect legal fees after prevailing in litigation against the Federal Government. However, a number of barriers and inefficiencies exist within EAJA that prevent its effectiveness.

For example, EAJA currently requires a small business that has prevailed in litigation against the Federal Government to enter into a costly second proceeding with the government. At the second proceeding, the government can assert a ``substantial justification'' defense to prevent the small business from recovering its legal costs, even though the small business prevailed on the merits of the underlying case in court. Even in instances when the Federal Government based its actions entirely on erroneous facts or without any legal basis, if the Federal Government can show that it was ``substantially justified'' in taking its actions, then a small business will be barred from EAJA recovery.

In practice, courts typically give a very wide berth to the government's substantially justified defense--a reality that means that prevailing small businesses can rarely, if ever, recover their legal fees under EAJA. And while

a second proceeding may be in the best interest of the Federal agency-- especially because its case is being funded by the General Treasury-- the second proceeding may ultimately be more costly and more time consuming to the small business than the original, underlying case.

I believe that this is a flawed system. Small businesses are a driving force of the United States economy, representing 99.7 percent of all employer firms and generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs annually. It is in our Nation's best interest to protect and watch over small businesses, as their success and vitality are key to America's economy and job growth.

It's plain and simple: We should not idly stand by while the Federal Government mistreats our Nation's small businesses.

That is why today I introduce with my colleague Senator Feingold the Equal Access to Justice Reform Act of 2005 (EAJRA). This bill would ensure that small businesses are adequately protected from unreasonable regulations and actions, as well as update EAJA to better serve today's small businesses.

Under our legislation, small parties would be more likely to recover their legal fees when they prevail in litigation against the Federal Government. First, the EAJRA would eliminate the ``substantial justification'' defense, which would increase the likelihood that small businesses will be able to recover their legal costs after their winning their case.

Second, our legislation would modernize the EAJA by updating eligibility qualifications for small businesses. It would raise the threshold for qualifying small businesses from $7 million to $10 million net worth, and index that threshold for inflation. Given modern economic realities, a net worth of $7 million is no longer sufficient.

Third, the EAJRA would remove the hourly rate cap on attorney's fees. The current hourly rate cap of $125 was set during EAJA's enactment in 1980, and has yet to be adjusted for inflation. However, the market rate for competent legal services, especially for complex and high-risk litigation against the Federal Government, is far greater than the cap of $125 per hour. This limit prevents small businesses from receiving fair and just reimbursement of attorney's fees, placing them at a notable disadvantage.

Finally, the EAJRA would require agencies that lose lawsuits, other than the National Labor Relations Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to pay legal fees awarded under EAJA out of their own budgets and not the General Treasury. This would eliminate inefficient uses of Federal agency resources and would discourage marginal or abusive Federal enforcement actions directed at small parties. In addition, the Federal budget would no longer be unnecessarily burdened.

The EAJRA creates a fair and even playing field. It would equalize the level of accountability to Federal law among governments in the United States. It is a ``good government'' statute that would promote justice and equality of treatment between small and large entities, and would greatly increase transparency in the Federal Government.

This legislation is absolutely necessary. I urge my colleagues to support the Equal Access to Justice Reform Act so that we can ensure that our nation's small businesses are protected from unfair and unreasonable governmental actions.

Mr. President, constituents across the country in rural areas face serious health care issues, not only in terms of illness but also in lack of easily accessible services. One out of every five Americans lives in rural areas however only one out of every ten physicians practice in rural areas. Forty percent of our rural population lives in a medically underserved area. With access to care an average of thirty miles away, rural areas have much to gain from the ability to access healthcare information at a distance. We depend on our farmers and ranchers--they are the lifeblood of America and take care of the essentials in our lives such as feeding us and clothing us. We should make sure to take care of them as well.

Today, I am proud to be joined by my friend, Senator Bingaman in introducing the Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2005 to overcome the barriers to more rapid diffusion of innovative new technologies that will improve quality and access to care for Medicare beneficiaries, by implementing changes in Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements. Our legislation would create a new benefit category for remote patient management services in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Under this category, Medicare would cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions.

New technology that collects, analyzes, and transmits clinical health information is in development or has recently been introduced to the market. The promise of this remote management technology is clear: better information on the patient's condition--collected and stored electronically, analyzed for clinical value, and transmitted to the physician or the patient--should improve patient care and access.

Remote monitoring technology is also emerging to extend the provision of health care services to areas where there is a shortage of physicians. This technology allows physicians to monitor and treat patients without a face-to-face office visit, thereby increasing access to physicians for patients living in rural areas.

In its March 2001 report, ``Crossing the Quality Chasm,'' the Institute of Medicine stated that the automation of clinical and other health transactions was an essential factor for improving quality, preventing errors, enhancing consumer confidence in the health care system, and improving efficiency, yet ``health care delivery has been relatively untouched by the revolution in information technology that has been transforming nearly every other aspect of society.''

Three major areas in which remote management technologies are emerging in health care are the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes and cardiac arrhythmia.

Despite these innovations and their ability to improve care, many new clinical information and remote management technologies have failed to diffuse rapidly. A significant barrier to wider adoption and evolution of the technologies is the relative lack of payment mechanisms in fee- for-service Medicare to reimburse for remote, non-face-to-face management and disease management services provided by a physician.

Under existing Medicare fee schedules, physicians generally receive a fixed, predetermined amount for a given service. The cost of devices used or supplied in the service is usually bundled into the payment, and payments are primarily provided for face-to-face interactions between the physician and patient. The payment structure creates at least two problems for the wider adoption of patient management approaches using remote management technology.

To overcome the barriers to more rapid diffusion of innovative new technology for Medicare beneficiaries, changes in Medicare fee-for- service reimbursements are necessary. This legislation would create a new benefit category for remote patient management services in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Under this category, Medicare would cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions.

The quality of care provided through remote management would allow physicians to qualify for bonus payments conditioned on specific quality measures. This legislation directs the Secretary, through the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) to develop standards of care and quality standards for the remote management services provided for each medical condition covered. AHRQ would develop these standards working in conjunction with appropriate physician groups. The Secretary is also given the authority to develop guidelines on the frequency of billing for remote patient management services.

I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in ensuring rural Americans have the access to remote monitoring and the opportunity to keep pace with health technology by supporting the Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill, the ``Disabled Veterans Sports and Special Events Promotion Act of 2005''.

We discovered during World War II that sports and physical activity play a vital role in the rehabilitation of recently disabled military personnel. Young service members who had just returned from WWII and were undergoing rehabilitation were drawn to sports and other team activities. The appeal of sports for these veterans served as more than just a rehabilitation technique. In fact, sports served as a source of motivation as well as a path to a fuller life for young people in the aftermath of a disability. As would be expected, many of these veterans became exceptional athletes and sought opportunities for competition and excellence in the new world of competitive Paralympic sports.

With the onset of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new generation of U.S. military personnel with disabilities has emerged. These newly-disabled men and women are young, ambitious, goal-oriented and in their physical prime. Sport, which played a fundamental role for returning veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, has the capacity to assist military personnel in adjusting to life with a disability. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and its Paralympic partners recognize the opportunity to play a key role in the lives of returning military personnel with newly acquired disabilities.

The USOC Paralympic Military Program is a collaborative effort among the USOC, military installations and

commands, Veterans' Affairs (VA) offices and programs, and Paralympic organizations nationwide that are conducting Paralympic sport programs for active duty military personnel and veterans who have physical disabilities.

The Program has been established to enable severely injured service members and veterans to enhance their rehabilitation, readiness and lifestyle through participation in Paralympic sports. The Program is designed for recently injured service members, 2001 and after, Paralympic-eligible disabilities; however, other service members and veterans with physical disabilities who are able to engage in program activities are welcome. Paralympic-eligible disabilities are: amputations, visual impairments, Brain injuries affecting physical mobility, spinal cord injuries and, other mobility-impairing disabilities.

This bill would establish within the Department of Veterans Affairs an Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events which would establish and carry out sports programs for disabled veterans. In addition, the office would arrange for the VA to sponsor sports programs for disabled veterans conducted by other groups if the Secretary detennines that the programs are consistent with the VA's goals and missions. The office would provide for, facilitate, and encourage disabled veterans to participate in these programs. Finally, the office will cooperate with the USOC and their Paralympic Military Program to promote participation of disabled veterans in the Paralympics.

This bill allows those injured in service to our country the option to regain a healthy, active lifestyle through sport and competition. Competing in sports such as cycling, fencing, shooting, sled hockey, table tennis, and sitting volleyball gives these injured veterans the opportunity to rehabilitate their bodies and minds while competing at the highest level. It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill, we keep the people at the receiving end of our decisions and deliberations foremost in our minds.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.