Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006

Mr. President, how much time remains under the Smith unanimous consent request for a half hour?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to join my colleague at this time to discuss the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act that Senator Smith and I are introducing today.

Mr. President, first, I want to say how much I appreciate Senator Gordon Smith. At a time when our citizens all across the land and in our home State of Oregon believe there needs to be more bipartisanship, Senator Smith doesn't just talk about it, he is consistently willing to meet me more than halfway on critical issues, and he does that with other colleagues in the Senate.

As we begin our time discussing this legislation, I want to let him know how much I appreciate the chance to cooperate with him once again. As he stated, we did put the issue of catastrophic health coverage at the top of our bipartisan agenda for the Senate session.

What it comes down to, Mr. President, is that Senator Smith and I believe it is a moral blot on our Nation for a country as good and rich as ours to send millions of its citizens to bed at night fearing they will be wiped out if a serious medical illness hits them. That is the reality. It is the reality for families who have no coverage at all, and it is the reality for families who have some measure of coverage, say, through an employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough.

Senator Smith and I want, in a bipartisan way, to tackle both of those kinds of concerns. That is why we have put forward the legislation we introduced today. I think now is an ideal time for bipartisanship on the catastrophic health coverage issue.

If you look back over the last few years, Senator Kerry, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, had an excellent proposal with respect to catastrophic coverage, and I said so in the course of that campaign. But I also said at the time that I thought our distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, also had a good catastrophic coverage proposal. You could debate the various merits of the Kerry proposal and the Frist proposal--which approach involved a little more government, which approach involved the private sector--but at the end of the day, for the purposes of government work, they were pretty darn similar.

So when Senator Smith and I sat down after the 2004 election, we said let's finally get this done. Democrats and Republicans have been talking for years about how to make sure that all our citizens have a safety net under them so that they will not get wiped out from medical illness. We settled on this approach, which we thought would give us the opportunity to try some fresh, creative ideas for protecting our citizens.

Let me give an example of what happens in, for example, South Carolina, Oregon, or anywhere else in this country. If you have a small business with six people working there, and one of them gets sick, that essentially blows up the whole health premium structure for all six of the employees.

What we ought to look at is something called reinsurance. Under reinsurance, that employee who gets sick could get a bit of help for their high bills through a modest role for government, and if government steps in, in that kind of instance, you have an opportunity to hold down all of the costs for the entire six-person firm. So we should have been looking at reinsurance years ago, but because Senator Smith, who chairs the Senate Aging Committee, has been examining these questions and has worked with me, now we are going to have a chance to tackle it in a way that I think is going to give us the opportunity to get the job done.

We are also very concerned about people who have no coverage at all. So what happens if you have no coverage at all is folks walk into a hospital in Oregon or in South Carolina, usually they show up in the emergency room, and the hospital has to absorb those costs. What we would do is give that person who now has no coverage at all the possibility of actually buying some private coverage in the marketplace with a bit of a subsidy in order to be able to have coverage that would pick up at least a portion of those bills that the hospital is now absorbing.

At the end of the day, those are the two principal kinds of instances we are facing--folks who have some coverage through a private employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough, and folks who don't have any coverage at all. Under that approach, we would like to make it possible for them to get into the private insurance market, protect them from catastrophic illness. We think we can do it with a modest subsidy coming from government.

My sense is that we are now looking at health care on two tracks in our country. The first track is a track that suggests we can take steps right now in areas like catastrophic coverage to protect our citizens. There are other ideas I have advanced during this Congress. For example, Senator Snowe and I have now gotten a majority of Senators to agree with our proposal to lift the restriction so Medicare can bargain and hold down the costs. That, like the question of catastrophic coverage, is a step you can take right now. Let's protect our citizens from the catastrophic illness and let's hold down the costs of medicine. Those are practical, bipartisan approaches that can be taken today. We ought to pursue them and get them done.

I also think there is another track to health care. I noticed that Senator Hatch was on the Senate floor. He and I were the authors of the legislation creating the Citizens' Health Care Working Group that is going to look at opportunities to make sure that all Americans have decent, affordable coverage. We have only been on that issue for more than 60 years--going back to the 81st Congress, in 1945, and Harry Truman. I have said let's also work on that second track that involves getting all Americans under the tent for essential and affordable health care coverage.

That obviously isn't going to get done in the next 15 minutes. But if the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, as Senator Smith and I have sought to do on the catastrophic issue, and as Senator Hatch and I have sought to do on a broader approach to look at health care that works for all Americans--if we team up and look at health care on those two tracks, I think we can make a great contribution for our country.

There are no costs going up in the United States like medical bills. We spent $1.7 trillion last year on health care. There are 290 million Americans--I guess we are approaching 300 million. When you divide $1.7 trillion by 290 million Americans, it comes to something like $25,000 that could be sent to every family of four in America with the amount of money now being spent on health care.

So while we are spending enough money, my sense is that we are not spending it in the right places. Once again, Senator Smith has given us an opportunity to think creatively about better ways to approach the use of the health care dollars. I was pleased when Senator Smith suggested in our legislation that we also make it possible to include a focus on health care prevention. We are not doing enough with health care prevention in this country. The Medicare Program shows that pretty well. Medicare Part A, for example, will pay huge checks for senior citizens' hospital bills, but Medicare Part B pays virtually nothing for prevention to keep people well. That makes no sense. We need a sharper focus on health care prevention, and one of the things that I think is attractive about Senator Smith's leadership on this issue is that he has said even in the context of looking at catastrophic health care, let's put a sharper focus on prevention. We are going to make it possible in this legislation to do that.

I note we have other colleagues on the floor. I have secured time to focus on the Voting Rights Act legislation later in the afternoon, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk for a few minutes about the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act Senator Smith and I are introducing today. We have focused on a number of issues in a bipartisan fashion over our years in the Senate, but this has the potential to be the biggest as it relates to the needs of our citizens at home.

We want to make sure when folks go to bed at night, they don't have to fear they are going to be wiped out financially by a serious medical illness. This legislation moves us one step closer toward the goal. We hope many colleagues on both sides of the aisle will want to support the legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I today are introducing the

Medicare Prescription Drug Lifeline Act. This legislation provides a solution for those seniors falling into the coverage gap, also known as the doughnut hole of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The doughnut hole occurs when the spending for a senior's drug expenses reaches $2,250: at the point, the senior is on their own until their spending for prescription drugs reaches a total of $5,100, where the benefit picks up again. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that nearly 7 million seniors will fall into the coverage gap this year.

Seniors who enter this ``no man's land'' of spending face the same problems seniors faced before the drug benefit even began: they skip doses, they don't take all their medicine to make it stretch, and they are forced to choose between their food and fuel costs and their prescription drug costs.

This legislation would take three steps to deal with this problem: First, the Secretary of HHS would be required to let seniors know they are approaching the coverage gap. Second, it would allow seniors, when they are notified that they are reaching the coverage gap, to switch plans to avoid the gap. Finally, the legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to examine ways in which the benefit could be redesigned to eliminate the gap without increasing Federal spending. Together, these provisions will give seniors a lifeline to coverage.

Senator Snowe and I both voted for the legislation that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When we did so, we pledged that we would continue to work to improve the benefit. Senator Snowe and I have teamed up together on many occasions to try to reduce the cost of the prescription drug program by giving the Secretary the same power other Government officials have to bargain for better prices. Our legislation has won a majority of votes in the Senate, and we intend to continue to press for that power.

The latest effort is aimed at another shortcoming in the law: finding a way to help seniors avoid falling into the coverage gap. Senator Snowe and I believe that our legislation will help seniors a straightforward way to avoid the gap.

Congress needs to address both these issues and we will continue our strong commitment to seniors by working to improve the drug benefit.

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, and Bingaman, on the 37th anniversary of the lunar landing when American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin set foot on the Moon, to introduce the Spaceport Equity Act of 2006--a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry.

On June 18th, the Washington Post reported on the launching of Kazakhstan's first satellite and their catapult into the space transportation industry. Home to the world's largest space center, the Baikonur Consmodrome, this ex-Soviet state is joining the list of rivals to the U.S. space industry. America's competitive edge is declining and will continue to do so unless we act now. My colleagues and I recognize this, and that is why we are introducing this most important legislation.

U.S. satellite manufacturers face increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of a sufficient domestic launch capability. The United States once dominated the commercial satellite-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent;

however, that market share has since declined to 50 percent. An even smaller share of U.S.-manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports. This comes at an estimated loss of $1.5 to $3.0 billion to the U.S. economy.

The space economy is made up infrastructure of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in both the Government and private sector that deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms. Many everyday goods and services rely on space infrastructure, including broadcast, cable, and satellite television, global internet services, satellite radio, cellular and international phone calls, etc.

Satellites are also used for global positioning systems, known as GPS, which enable us to have hands-on directions in our cars and vehicles. GPS is also influential in the trucking, aviation, and maritime industries for day-to-day operations and for our Nation's military operations. Thousands of gas stations use inexpensive small satellite dishes to connect to credit card networks so customers can pay instantly at the pump. Satellites also generate 90 percent of the weather forecasting data in the United States and are used to track hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather phenomenon.

These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA, priority for launches at these facilities is given to Government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a back seat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability. This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors.

Spaceports are subdivisions of State governments that provide additional launch infrastructure than that available at Federal facilities. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Spaceport authorities function much like airport and port authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to the industry, which in turn benefits the surrounding communities. Many States are forming space authorities to pursue ways of developing space transportation infrastructure.

The Florida Space Authority was the first such entity, which was created as a subdivision of the Florida State government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Florida Space Authority is focused on leading the State's space industry in new directions through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and provide innovative, forward-thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry.

The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, but efforts are underway to establish 13 additional commercial spaceports in Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly impacted by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from government-sponsored or subsidized competitors in Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, Russia, and now Kazakhstan.

Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion dollars in economic activity, over $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs; and $56.5 billion, more than half of this economic activity, was from satellite services. A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' And 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.''

The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies--those influenced by space technology research and development. Home roof insulation and air filtration, antilock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and lasik surgery all owe thanks to NASA and space-based research. The list of space ``spin-off' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. marketshare in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will impact other fields.

As you can see, this once government-dominated industry is now becoming a diverse mix of government and commercial entities--also leading way into future avenues of commercial space transportation, such as space tourism.

The increase in recent commercial launches includes the debut of the first commercial crewed suborbital launches of SpaceShipOne--leading the way to public space travel. ``Space tourism,'' as public space travel is now referred, has the potential to become a major growth industry. Recent market studies have shown space tourism has the potential to become a billion-dollar industry within 20 years.

Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010. If the United States continues as is, we will only be able to capture 10 percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the United States is expected to pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the United States means a loss to our economy and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism.

Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities, which get priority over commercial projects. If the United States is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry.

On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in spaceport infrastructure. According to recent studies by the Florida Space Authority, increase spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015--this does not include the economic activity generated from impacted tourism, secondary contracts, and spinoff technologies.

Other modes of transportation--highways, airports, and seaports-- currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports?

This Spaceport Equity Act of 2006 would provide spaceports with the same treatment provided for airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equity Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects.

Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt

bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector.

This proposal does not provide direct Federal spending for our commercial space transportation industry but, rather, creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private capital investment in industry infrastructure. By issuing tax-free bonds to finance spaceport infrastructure, space authorities could provide site-specific and vehicle-specific tailoring to promote the competition and innovation necessary to maintain the U.S. competitive edge in the space transportation industry.

This is an efficient means for achieving our space transportation needs, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this most important effort by cosponsoring this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will reform our immigration policies to make the United States more competitive, called the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership, or ``SKIL'' bill. Other original cosponsors of this legislation include Senators Allard, Allen, Bennett, Enzi, and Lott.

Our ability to innovate is crucial to the success of our economy. By investing in science and technology, we revolutionize our economy and improve the world. The President has responded to this need by proposing the American Competitiveness Initiative. And I am a proud co- sponsor of legislation that has been introduced in the Senate: the Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE bills) and National Innovation Act.

But there is still more that can be done. Immigration policy must be part of any discussion of competitiveness. The United States does not produce enough engineers--China graduates four times as many engineers as the U.S., and within a few years, approximately 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will be in Asia. Foreign students fill that gap right now in the U.S., but then our immigration policy-- not our economy--forces them to return home because there are not enough highly skilled work visas.

In the long run, we must improve our schools and encourage more U.S. students to study engineering and mathematics. But we also must adapt immigration policy so that when U.S. students are educated in engineering fields, there will be U.S. jobs for them to fill. With the SKIL bill, foreign students who graduate from U.S. institutions will be able to stay and work in the United States. The bill will allow companies to retain highly skilled and educated workers.

The SKIL bill requires the government to change its processes so that companies do not waste valuable resources. If a worker has been in the U.S. and has complied with all immigration laws, he should be allowed to renew his visa here in the U.S. Why make that worker go to a consulate when all of the processing can be done here in the U.S.?

The SKIL bill exempts from annual visa limit any foreign student graduating from a U.S. university with a Master's or PhD in essential fields. Foreign workers with extraordinary skills, such as a Nobel Prize winner or an international scholar--should not have to wait for a visa. The President has also called for an increase in H-1B visas.

As Chair of the Immigration subcommittee, I have seen how immigration--both legal and illegal--affects all aspects of our lives. I am pleased that there is so much discussion about immigration and about improving avenues for workers to enter our country. But immigration today will shape the country that our children grow up in. And so there needs to be more discussion about the kinds of immigration that will most benefit our economy and our country.

I am introducing the SKIL bill because I don't believe enough attention has been focused on legal immigrants, especially the highly skilled workers who contribute to our economy and comply with our laws. It is my hope that this legislation will allow U.S. companies to retain a highly educated workforce until we can channel more American students into the math, science, and engineer pipeline. The SKIL bill is yet another important piece of the U.S. competitiveness agenda, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation that will ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and will help enhance America's ability to compete in the global economy.

Each year, our Federal Government invests more than $55 billion on basic and applied research. That s roughly 40 percent of the current two-year budget for my home State of Texas.

The bulk of this money is spent by approximately 10 agencies, including: the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture. These agencies use the money to fund research which is usually conducted by outside researchers working for universities, healthcare systems, and other groups.

Most of the time, researchers will publish the results of their work in an academic journal. The NIH, for example, estimates that roughly 65,000 articles are published each year that report on research either partially or entirely funded by NIH.

Unfortunately, as it stands now, most Americans have little--to no-- timely access to this wealth of information, despite the fact that their tax dollars paid for the research. Some Federal agencies, with the NIH chief amongst them, have taken some very positive steps in the right direction to require that these articles reporting on government- funded research be freely available to the public in a timely manner.

In fact, today marks the one-year anniversary of the implementation of a ground breaking public access policy at NIH developed by Director Elias Zerhouni. I thank Dr. Zerhouni and his colleagues for their leadership on this important issue and for energizing this debate.

While Dr. Zerhouni and NIH have made strong progress, Sen. Lieberman and I believe more must be done, not only at NIH and in medical research, but throughout the Federal Government and the sciences in general.

That is why today we are introducing the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, legislation that will refine the work done by NIH and require that the Federal Government's leading underwriters of research adopt meaningful public access policies.

Our legislation is a simple, common sense approach that will advance the public's access to the research it funds. We hope this access will help accelerate science, innovation, and discovery.

Under our bill, all Federal departments and agencies that invest $100 million or more annually in research will be asked to develop a public access policy. Each policy will require that all articles that result from federal funding be deposited in a publicly accessible archive no later than six months after publication.

Our bill simply says to all researchers who seek government funding that we want the results of your work to be seen by the largest possible audience. It will ensure that U.S. taxpayers do not have to pay twice for the same research--once to conduct it, and a second time to read it.

This legislation is an opportunity for our government to better leverage our investment in research, and to ensure a greater return on that investment, which is all the more important given the current budget situation. By sharing this information quickly and broadly with all potential users, we can advance science, accelerate the pace of new discoveries and innovations, and improve the lives and welfare of people at home and abroad.

All Americans will be positively affected as a result of this bill: patients diagnosed with a disease or condition will be able to use the Internet to access the full text of articles containing the latest information on ent and prognosis; students at small institutions will have equal access to research articles they need to complete assignments and further their studies; researches will have their findings more broadly and more quickly disseminated, possibly sparking further discovery and innovation

The Internet has dramatically altered how the world gathers and shares information. The Internet gives the homemaker in Houston the ability to find volumes of information about a recent medical diagnosis given to a family member. It allows a young community college student in rural West Texas--a great distance from the nearest research library--to learn the latest in scientific discovery and hopefully spur him to continue his studies.

While a comprehensive competitiveness agenda is still in the works, ensuring greater access to scientific information is one way we can help bolster interest in these important fields and move this issue forward while at the same time helping accelerate the pace of discovery and innovation. Through this legislation, I hope to ensure that students, researchers, and every American has access to the published results

of federally funded research, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish medicare health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare medical savings accounts, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices.

My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions.

In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, for Medicaid, I introduced S.1754, a bill to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014 on September 22, 2005. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered.

I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits.

I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to expand access to life-saving implantable cardiac defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250-yard rule for critical access hospitals.

As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have cosponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States.

I also introduced S. 96, the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act, to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removes suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill frees American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities.

As a result of my sister's death from cancer and treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced S. 1956, the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act--ACCESS--on November 3, 2005. This bill would offer a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician.

On April 4, 2006, my resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' passed by unanimous consent. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 million people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol.

Additionally, I have consistently cosponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week: in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the Federal hospital mortgage insurance program.

As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and health care initiatives I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center.

As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law.

To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high-deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA.

In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage.

As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care.

Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA.

My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare.

Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on legislation that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, and I are introducing. This bill will provide veterans with the right to hire counsel to represent them in proceedings before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and will help ensure that all who represent veterans are held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct.

As President Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed nearly 150 years ago, this Nation has an obligation ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' In keeping with that charge, the Federal Government provides a wide array of benefits to veterans and their dependents, through an administrative system that is intended to be informal, claimant-friendly, and non-adversarial.

During recent years, however, veterans' organizations, VA, and others have observed that this system has become increasingly complex. Enhanced legal requirements and layers of procedural steps intended to protect the rights of veterans have increased both the complexity of the system and how long it takes to process a claim. At the same time, with the Nation at war and servicemembers deployed around the world, the disability claims filed by returning veterans have become more

complex. Many of these claims are based on disabilities caused by environmental exposures, traumatic brain injuries, psychological trauma, severe combat wounds, and other highly complex medical conditions, which by their nature may entail complex questions of causality or intricate factual or legal analyses.

Despite the increasing complexity of many cases, all 24 million living veterans are prohibited from hiring a lawyer to help them navigate the VA system. It is only after a veteran has spent months and even years exhausting the extensive VA administrative process that the veteran then may retain counsel--a process that often takes 3 or more years to complete. As the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee last year, ``[t]his is too late in the process for counsel to be truly effective'' because by that time the evidentiary record ``is effectively closed.'' On the other hand, NOVA testified that, if attorneys were retained at an earlier stage of the process, they could be helpful in obtaining and presenting necessary evidence and in ensuring that VA timely and accurately processes claims.

So, with the potential for lawyers to help veterans successfully navigate this increasingly complex system, why does the government prohibit veterans from retaining counsel? This restriction, which dates back to the Civil War, was born out of concern that unscrupulous attorneys would improperly take large portions of veterans' disability benefits as compensation for their services. And some will argue that this concern is equally warranted today.

Although I understand this longstanding desire to protect veterans' disability compensation, I would ask my colleagues to consider a simple question posited in a recent editorial: ``If American soldiers are mature and responsible enough to choose to risk their lives for their country, shouldn't they be considered competent to hire a lawyer?'' I believe the obvious answer to that question is ``yes.''

Particularly for veterans of to day's All-Volunteer Force--which has been described as the ``best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the history of the world''--this paternalistic restriction is simply outdated. These highly trained, highly skilled veterans have the ability--and should have the right--to decide whether or not to hire a lawyer.

This is a right that is not denied to individuals seeking other earned benefits from the government. In fact, if a veteran were to seek Social Security benefits for disabilities suffered during military service, the veteran would be permitted to hire an attorney--while the same veteran seeking benefits from VA for the same disabilities would be prohibited from hiring an attorney based on this remnant of an ancient policy.

The paternalistic restriction that prevents veterans from hiring counsel may have been advisable 150 years ago, but--as one veterans' organization recently testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee--there is now no logic to it ``except history.'' It has endured for far too long and it is now time to embrace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' admonition that it is ``revolting'' for a law to persist ``in blind imitation of the past.'' It is time to repeal this archaic law and to allow our Nation's veterans the option of hiring counsel.

Having said all that, I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that attorneys should be considered necessary in order to obtain VA benefits. Above all, we must ensure that the system continues to serve veterans in a claimant-friendly, non-adversarial manner--regardless of the presence of an attorney or any other representative--and we must strive to reduce the complexities of this vast system. I hope that veterans' organizations across the country will join me in pursuing those goals.

I also want to be clear that, although I believe veterans should have the option to hire attorneys, they should not be discouraged in any way from utilizing the free services now provided by many dedicated representatives of veterans' service organizations. Those representatives are an important and valuable resource that veterans and their families will undoubtedly continue to rely on for many generations to come. The availability of this resource, however, is no reason to restrict veterans' access to other options. If a veteran would rather hire an attorney, we should not stand in the way.

At the same time, however, we should ensure that anyone who represents a veteran is held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct and that any fee charged to a veteran is patently reasonable. To that end, this legislation will allow veterans the right to hire an attorney at any time and it will heighten the expectations on all individuals who represent veterans.

Specifically, this legislation will allow VA to ensure that all attorneys who practice before VA have adequate training or experience in this specialized area of law to competently represent veterans and that they conform to specified standards of ethical and professional conduct. It would also allow VA to ensure that all veterans' representatives are honest, professional, and law abiding; that they avoid further delaying or complicating the system by presenting frivolous claims or arguments; and that they conduct themselves with due regard for the non-adversarial nature of the system.

For veterans who opt to hire an attorney, this legislation would provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with authority to reduce any attorney fee if it is excessive or unreasonable and with authority to set restrictions on the amount of fees that could be charged in any case before VA. Finally, in order to avoid any drain on existing VA resources, VA would have authority to impose on attorneys a registration fee to defray any costs associated with allowing them to practice before VA.

In sum, this legislation will take measures to ensure that the interests of veterans will be protected, while allowing them to decide for themselves whether they want to hire a lawyer. I ask my colleagues to support this groundbreaking legislation.

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