Veterans Privacy Protection Act of 2006

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the five bills on suspending duties be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill which can be the catalyst for saving the lives or improving the health of millions of families in impoverished nations.

In far too many nations, thousands of children die needlessly each month.

The concept of my bill--called the Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006--is easy to summarize.

It allows U.S. companies to make low-cost generic versions of patented medicines for export to impoverished nations that face public health crises but cannot produce those life-saving medicines for themselves.

This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need.

That WTO agreement was labeled by U.S. Ambassador Portman as ``a landmark achievement that we hope will help developing countries devastated by HIV and AIDS and other public health crises.''

Apart from the pressing need for this step in humanitarian terms, passage of this bill could go a long way in improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world's population.

On December 6, 2005, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it ``welcomes'' efforts to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.''

I am concerned, however, that the administration has taken no steps whatsoever to begin to implement that agreement. No implementing legislation has been provided to the Hill. I was informed just today that the administration has ``no present plans'' to propose legislation to implement that international agreement. I am disappointed with that answer but am pleased that the administration expressed a willingness to work with me on this important effort. I will forward my bill to them later today.

Indeed, the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to adopt laws that implement that agreement.

The World Bank recently issued a guide and model documents on how

best to implement that international agreement. My bill follows their model.

Like a generation ago, infectious and parasitic diseases remain the major killers of children in the developing world. Many of these diseases--measles, malaria, river blindness--we can prevent or cure. But those countries still lack the public health systems and the vital medicines.

Every hour, more than 500 African mothers lose a child, mostly from diseases caused by contaminated water.

In some sub-Saharan countries, HIV infection rates range as high as a third of the adult population, and for this reason 35 percent of African children are at higher risk of death than they were a decade ago.

Despite these grim statistics, there is a brighter side.

We are far more aware today of how much our own health depends on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or some as yet unknown infectious disease, we are all at risk, and only an airplane flight away, from wherever the outbreak may occur.

Because of this new awareness, global health is finally recognized as an issue of national security. It may seem obvious today, but even ten years ago it was not.

Health threats that once concerned only medical personnel, now receive the attention of the highest levels of governments. We are supporting policies and programs to help the poorest countries conduct better surveillance and respond more quickly to protect their own people, and to prevent the spread of disease.

There is a great deal more we need to do. Today, 15 percent of the world's people consume 91 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. The high price of many life-saving medicines--medicines that we take for granted in this country--is beyond reach for billions of the world's most vulnerable populations.

President Franklin Roosevelt said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.''

Imagine if you, or a loved one, were dying and you knew the medicine to cure the disease exists and costs only a few dollars, but you have no way to get it or to pay for it. That is a reality for millions of people today.

Reports by UNICEF, UNAIDS, and Doctors without Borders clearly show that the high price of many life-saving medicines is a significant barrier to their availability in many very low income areas of the world. Indeed, the 4th Global Report of UNAIDS notes the extremely low rate of treatment for HIV/AIDS in those areas by pointing out that of the 5 to 6 million urgently in need of antiretroviral medicines, only some 400,000 were receiving them.

With respect to AIDS, a recent book by Philip Hilts called ``Prescription for Survival'' notes the importance of offering affordable medicines to populations of impoverished nations:

``It was said that the price of the drugs was killing tens of thousands . . .''

Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders.

Those patent holders would receive compensation in the form of a royalty payment under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations.

Use of a compulsory license occurs when Congress determines that there is an important need which should be addressed.

For example, most Americans do not realize that their network television programs received by satellite or by cable are provided under a compulsory license. The program owners receive a royalty for their programs under a formula.

This way American families can watch network TV programming over satellite or cable just like it is made available over-the-air. This same compulsory license approach, except with respect to patented medicines, is employed in this bill.

The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its benefits on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents.

Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name'' companies, since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations.

In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This will mean that the bill should not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of those medicines by the brand-name companies in developed nations.

Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines.

There have been significant voluntary efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and non-profits who have donated life-saving medicines and have donated time, personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases in other nations. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts.

Some funding mechanisms have been started including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and President Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. Nonetheless, much remains to be done.

If this bill is enacted it would complement the above efforts and implement the WTO agreements and make low-cost life-saving pharmaceutical products, and other medicines, available to hundreds of thousands of persons without other access to those products.

To provide a little history, I am very pleased that all the member nations of the World Trade Organization, WTO, agreed to this approach to assist people suffering from life-threatening diseases in least- developed or developing nations. Under this international agreement, nations such as the United States with pharmaceutical industries would be allowed to make and sell generic medicines to nations in need even if the patent owners of those medicines refused to authorize such manufacture and sale.

As I said earlier, on December 6, 2005, the United States announced that it ``welcomes'' the WTO amendment to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.'' The amendment will go in effect, for those nations which adopt it, once \2/3\ of the member nations adopt it. The current waiver approach, allowing nations to implement it now, will remain in place until the permanent amendment is adopted. This permits the U.S. to move forward with this effort this year. Indeed, Canada has already passed implementing legislation.

Participation by any nation which wants to export such generic products is voluntary. In order to participate, each country must pass legislation to implement the WTO agreement. The United States needs to act as soon as possible.

This is a moral issue. I am working with a number of religious groups, humanitarian organizations, international assistance groups, and generic drug companies on this effort. I have also received input from some pharmaceutical brand-name companies and hope a few will step forward and be leaders in this effort. I will also reach out across the aisle to try to form a bipartisan coalition.

Two recent World Health Organization annual reports, the World Health Reports for 2003 and 2004, demonstrate the enormous scope of the need for supplying these medicines to needy countries. The ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006'' that I am introducing today would allow the U.S. generic industry to respond to these urgent international needs and could save millions of lives in impoverished nations.

Canada, Norway and the Netherlands have already enacted such legislation or rule changes. However, aspects of the Canadian law have been an impediment to the willingness of generic companies to participate. For example,

that law allows Canadian generic companies to provide such medicines for at most only 4 years. The Canadian version permits dilatory and needless litigation, omits important medicines from a complex list of covered drugs, and creates unnecessary bureaucratic hoops.

I have received input from generic companies and my bill addresses all of those concerns. For example, it would provide that a participating generic manufacturer could provide such medicines for up to 14 years which makes it much more likely that U.S. generic companies would make the investments needed to make low-cost medicines for export to impoverished areas.

Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders. Those patent holders would receive compensation, a royalty payment, under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations.

The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its provisions on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents. Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name patent holders since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations. There may be de minimis losses of profits for brand-name patent holders but certainly the humanitarian and self- interest benefits provided by the bill would massively outweigh those concerns.

In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This should mean that the bill will not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of the patented medicines in developed nations. Re-exporting of these generic products is prohibited unless it is part of a regional trade alliance among impoverished nations as permitted under the WTO agreements.

Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines and will hopefully help enhance America's image in the world.

For those only interested in self-interest rather than humanitarian aid, note that because of the globalization of travel our Nation is at risk from failure to contain diseases in other nations. America has a strong self-interest in combating diseases in foreign nations. A surprising number of new diseases have emerged in recent years. Some of these new diseases are variations of existing diseases. The volume of people and cargo going to and from distant nations is astounding. According to ``Rx for Survival'' by Philip Hilts, if you count only travel between nations with a heavy burden of disease and those with less disease, more than a million people a week are making the trip.

The more viruses and bacteria mutant inside animals and people, and the more people and goods travel throughout the world, the more residents living in the United States are at risk of being harmed by dangerous diseases.

The National Intelligence Estimate of January 2000, published by the CIA and the National Intelligence Council noted that: ``New and emerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health threat, and will complicate U.S. and global security over the next 20 years. These diseases will endanger U.S. citizens at home and abroad, threaten United States armed forces deployed overseas and exacerbate social and political instability in key countries and regions.''

I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort. Here is my section-by-section summary of the bill.

Section 1: Sets forth the name of the Act as the ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006.''

Section 2: States that the purpose of the Act is to promote public health under World Trade Organization agreements by permitting the export of generic versions of life-saving patented pharmaceutical products and other medicines including diagnostic tools and vaccines needed to prevent or treat potentially life threatening diseases to residents of impoverished countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity to make the medicines. The findings set forth determinations by the World Health Organization concerning the millions of low-income persons without regular access to medicines in lesser- developed or developing nations.

Section 3: This section requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue a compulsory license (permission to make and sell a patented product under this new Act) to permit generic companies to make and export medicines under the terms of WTO international agreements under several conditions.

The recipient country must be a least-developed nation, as defined by the United Nations, or a developing nation without the ability to manufacture the medicine in question.

The recipient country, called an ``eligible country'' in the bill, must notify the WTO of its interest in participating in this program.

Efforts must have been made by the generic company to buy the right to make and sell the medicine under normal business arrangements with the patent holders.

The medical product exported under this Act must be for life- threatening public health problems and can only be used in least- developed or developing nations, and is not for re-export except in identified circumstances relating to regional trade alliances.

Special labeling and packaging must be used to make clear that the product is sold under the authority of the WTO agreement only for use as allowed under agreement and this bill.

The permission to make and sell the product, the license, can not exceed 7 years, except that the license may be extended once.

The holder of the compulsory license shall pay a royalty to the patent holder, as determined by the Director of the PTO within a limited range of possible rates set forth in the bill, taking into account such factors as humanitarian needs, the economic value to the importing nation, and the need for low-cost pharmaceutical products by persons in the importing nation.

The maximum royalty for any shipment shall not exceed 4 percent times the commercial value of the pharmaceutical products to be exported under this Act under that supply agreement.

An alternative royalty payment approach, modeled after the approach enacted into law by Canada, would also be permitted with the same 4 percent maximum. In addition, the Director may accept combined applications from multiple eligible countries. Note that in emergency situations the Director may waive provisions of the bill in a manner consistent with the WTO agreements.

Section 4: This section makes clear that compulsory licenses issued under this Act shall not be considered an infringement of a patent.

Section 5: This section creates a diverse advisory board of academic, patent, trade, medical, international aid, and industry experts to advise the Director, and to report to the Congress, on ways to improve implementation of the bill to achieve its purposes. Mandatory funding for the board is provided out of the general fund of the U.S. at $1.5 million in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, with modestly declining amounts provided in subsequent years through 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My bill would also provide that each agency inspector general will periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potential fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with inspectors general using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help in strengthening and maintaining a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. In addition, my bill requires penalties so that employees who abuse Government charge cards cannot get away scotfree. In cases of serious misuse or fraud, the bill provides that employees must be dismissed and suspected cases of fraud will also be referred to the appropriate U.S. attorney for prosecution under Federal antifraud laws. Hopefully this will send a clear message that such activity will not be tolerated so as to act as a deterrent for others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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