Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Savings Accounts Improvement and Expansion Act of 2006. This bill will make it easier for businesses to provide the option of an HSA to their employees and for Americans to elect these plans.

In short, this bill will make it more likely that Americans will have an HSA plan available when they are making their health care choices. This would be a good development for the individual consumer and the for nation's health care system as a whole.

There is one thing on which we can all agree: our current health care system is broken. Health care expenses are far outpacing inflation. These escalating costs are pricing more and more Americans and small businesses out of the health insurance market. Unless we act, our health care costs are on pace to bankrupt the Federal Treasury.

We need to do something.

The American people want us to do something.

Some favor an option that would give the Federal Government more control of the health care system. In my opinion, that doesn't really fix the problem, it only makes the problem worse--leading to higher costs, higher taxes, and decreased quality and availability.

I believe the answer lies in bringing down costs by helping Americans to take control of their health care.

Recognizing that a federally controlled universal system is a nonstarter, the House of Representatives has aggressively pursued the expansion and development of Health Savings Accounts. In particular, Congressmen Eric Cantor and Bill Shuster have taken laudable steps toward making these plans more readily available for American workers.

Congressman Bill Thomas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is demonstrating his and the House's commitment to these plans by holding a hearing tomorrow to discuss the development of health savings accounts.

I am also proud to see that several of our Senate colleagues have introduced legislation that would expand consumer driven health care. Senators Santorum, Allen, DeMint, Ensign, and Coburn have introduced legislation to fuel the growth of health savings accounts.

My bill complements these plans by encouraging employers to offer HSA accounts and by making it easier for workers to use them.

Since Congress established HSAs in 2004, American workers have turned to them as an affordable health care alternative. Already, more than three million people have enrolled in HSAs. Without any changes to the law, it is estimated that by 2008 there will be six million HSA owners with almost $5 billion in assets.

HSAs are popular. And they are popular because they work.

HSAs are a different type of health insurance. They are more like car insurance than traditional health insurance: You pay for the dents and dings yourself, and your insurance only kicks in for major events. This makes sense. Think of how expensive your car insurance would be if every scratch on every bumper had to be paid for by insurance companies with no owner contribution.

Yet critics allege that promoting this type of insurance unfairly burdens older Americans and the chronically ill--those with the most health care needs. I would note that the premise of this argument is off the mark. For many Americans and businesses, the cost of health insurance premiums are rising so astronomically that the choice is not between traditional first-dollar coverage or an HSA plan, but between an HSA plan and no insurance at all.

As the Galen Institute--a research institute that has done excellent work reviewing the development of consumer-driven health care--has shown, HSAs are not only for the young and the healthy, but also for all health consumers along the age and income spectrum. In a survey by eHealthInsurance--an on-line health insurance broker representing more than 140 major health insurance companies--40 percent of HSA-eligible plan

purchasers made less than $50,000. Forty-five percent of purchasers are over age 40 and 19 percent are 50 or older.

Some argue that the healthy will migrate from traditional plans, leaving only the chronically ill in full coverage plans and driving up costs by shrinking the insurance pool. This argument ignores a critical fact. Younger workers aged 25-34 are currently the largest segment of the uninsured, in large part because insurance coverage is so expensive. They represent 23 percent of the total uninsured population. By bringing them into HSA plans, they will only bring premium costs down further for the chronically ill who establish an HSA.

According to America's health insurance plans, AHIP, 37 percent of those purchasing plans were previously uninsured. Twenty-seven percent of policies sold in the small group market were sold to employers who did not previously offer coverage. According to Assurant Health, the leading health insurer for individuals and small groups, 40 percent of those purchasing HSAs were previously uninsured.

Finally, it seems that American workers, and the chronically ill, are responding to the incentives provided by these consumer-driven plans. McKinsey & Company conducted an extensive survey of these plans. They held focus groups, performed one-on-one interviews, and produced an in- depth study of more than 2,500 Americans regarding their health insurance arrangements. They concluded that these plans have a lot of potential. In fact, some of their conclusions were remarkable. Fifty percent were more likely to ask about costs and three times more likely to choose a less extensive and expensive treatment option. HSA owners are also more likely to visit an urgent care center for treatment rather than a hospital emergency room.

In addition, HSA consumers were more likely to be attentive to their health. Twenty-five percent were more likely to engage in healthy behavior and 30 percent were more likely to get an annual physical. These educated consumers understand that prevention will save them money in the long run. They were more likely to identify treatment options and they were 20 percent more likely to comply with treatment for chronic conditions.

It is no surprise that people are enjoying their HSA plans. According to a survey by eHealthInsurance, premiums for HSA-eligible insurance actually dropped between the introduction of these plans in 2004 and the first half of 2005. Nearly two-thirds of HSA purchasers paid $100 a month or less for their plans. And these plans are comprehensive. Most cover 100 percent of the costs of hospitalization, lab tests, emergency room visits, prescription drugs and doctors' visits after the deductible is met.

The continued expansion of HSAs will have a twofold effect. For those with insurance, the high deductible encourages more responsible, and less wasteful, health care decisions. For those without insurance, the wider availability and lower premiums makes it more affordable for individuals to purchase these plans in the nongroup market and for companies to provide insurance for their employees. The bottom line is that the expansion of these plans will create downward pressure on escalating health care costs.

My proposal aims to make HSAs more attractive to employees, more attractive to employers, and more attractive to older workers. And the bill provides innovative ways for younger workers to contribute seed money to fund an account for their family.

For employees, the primary benefits are increased contribution limits, and the ability to pay their health insurance premiums from the HSA--with pre-tax dollars. Presently, the portion of premiums paid out- of-pocket is paid with after-tax dollars. This feature will make HSAs affordable for more low and moderate income individuals.

For employers, the bill provides incentives to move into low-cost premium arrangements. The health care costs of self-employed individuals and small employers who purchase plans in the non-group market should go down for those who avail themselves of these improved HSAs.

For older Americans, this bill will permit contributions to an HSA as long as they continue to work. Today, more and more Americans are working past the age of 65. This is a trend we should encourage, because the labor force of the future will need more of these experienced workers. Senior citizens contribute a great deal to the workplace and our economy. I know that they are in Utah. Yet I hear from many of our older workers that because they are eligible for Medicare, they are ineligible for HSAs. Expanding contributions to a population that generally has more medical expenses makes sense.

The cornerstone of my bill is a provision that allows HSAs to be funded with tax-free transfers of balances from other health or retirement plans. Participation in certain employer-sponsored health plans makes it impossible for employees to contribute to an HSA. For example, health reimbursement arrangements--HRAs--are plans that allow employers to reimburse substantiated employee medical expenses up to a maximum amount. Under current law, participation in an HRA disqualifies an individual from contributing to an HSA and remaining balances are subject to forfeiture.

I believe that employers that have adopted HRAs would be more likely to offer HSAs if they are allowed a one-time opportunity to transfer individual HRA balances into HSAs. Allowing a one-time conversion opportunity would be very valuable for employees because the balances currently in HRAs would become employee-owned. Not only will this encourage responsible spending on health care, but it will also help to make health insurance more portable, a goal that discourages job lock and creates more freedom and opportunity for American workers.

The bill provides for a tax-free transfer of IRA funds, originally allocated for retirement, to an HSA, with the money reallocated for health care expenses. This will be particularly helpful for those in need of initial seed money to open an HSA and for those who anticipate high medical expenses for which they are currently unable to tap IRA funds without penalty.

My proposal will make it easier for veterans to participate in an HSA. According to Treasury Department guidance, a veteran may not contribute to an HSA if he or she has actually received medical benefits from the VA at any time during the previous 3 months. This bill would allow a veteran who receives VA medical benefits for a service-connected disability to be eligible for an HSA.

I am pleased to tell my colleagues that the changes proposed by the Health Savings Accounts Improvement and Expansion Act of 2006 have been endorsed by a broad cross-section of major health care organizations. I am proud that the National Association of Health Underwriters, the American Benefits Council, the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Assurant Health, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Business Group on Health, the Business Roundtable, and the Financial Services Roundtable have all endorsed my attempt to expand the availability of Health Savings Accounts. These groups know how important HSAs are in giving employees and employers the flexibility to meet their health care needs.

Mr. President, I expect the popularity of HSAs will one day elevate the acronym to the level of IRAs, where no further clarification is required. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to accelerate that process by enacting this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will eliminate the current limit on the amount individuals can place into a trust to provide for funeral expenses. Given the rising costs of funeral expenses, this change would have a positive impact on the lives of older Americans and on their families. In addition, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would have a slight, but positive, impact on the Federal Treasury.

Current law limits a funeral trust to $8,500, but this is generally no longer sufficient to cover a family's funeral expenses. In Utah, the average cost of a full funeral and burial is $12,685. I am sure that in many other States it is even higher. Because of this contribution limit, even those who preplan their own funerals too often leave their heirs with substantial expenses. Even those who attempt to cover the entire expense may not have enough to cover all costs after administrative fees and taxes are deducted.

This proposal would make qualified funeral trusts more effective. The principal reason individuals set up qualified funeral trust plans is to lift a financial burden from their children.

I recall the case of one constituent who wrote to me about this 3 years ago. He was suffering from Parkinson's disease began preplanning his own funeral so these decisions and this burden would be lifted from his children. Because of the ``QFT Cap'' which at the time was $7,800, this Utahn was not able to preplan completely the funeral services he desired. It became necessary to have one of his sons complete this preplanning for him by opening up his own trust that would help to cover all expenses. It seems silly to make families go to these extra steps when they are attempting to make responsible decisions, well in advance of need, for themselves and their families.

For older Americans, the primary benefits of this legislation are the ability to have all the money they have saved in the trust to be applied to final expenses, instead of taxes, and the incentive to increase the amount of their contribution. Sixty percent of prefunded funerals were funded by trusts and elimination of the cap should raise this percentage. For funeral directors, this change would eliminate the burden and expense of issuing information documents to report income earned from the trust.

I think we can all agree that we should make it easier for those who are willing to provide for these necessary expenses in advance. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to enact this important measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge quick support for this important legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am joined today by my colleagues Senators Snowe, Akaka, and Talent to introduce the Veterans Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2006.

This legislation is the product of lengthy bipartisan discussions about how we might be able to restore and revitalize the mission of The Veterans Corporation. Established in 1999 through Public Law 106-50, The National Veterans Business Development Corporation, commonly known as The Veterans Corporation, TVC, is charged with the task of assisting the men and women who have served this country in the military by helping them create and expand their own businesses. There are over 5 million veteran entrepreneurs across the country--over 550,000 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alone--and approximately 200,000 veterans are expected to retire in 2006. Additionally, 2004 data from the Small Business Administration, SBA, shows that approximately 22 percent of veterans in the U.S. household

population purchased or started a new business, or were considering doing so. This legislation ensures that necessary steps are taken to continue fostering entrepreneurship and business ownership among a veterans population that can clearly benefit from such assistance nationwide.

My distinguished colleagues and I feel that TVC is an organization worth reinvigorating. In fiscal year 2005, TVC reached out to over 18,000 current and potential veteran entrepreneurs, and opened three Veteran Business Resource Centers in Boston, MA; Flint, MI; and San Diego, CA, in addition to the flagship location in St. Louis, MO. In my home State of Massachusetts, TVC has close to 100 business owners and over 400 registered members.

Yet, in recent years, TVC has come under criticism for its overall performance. Many within the veterans community, and indeed some of my colleagues in Congress, do not believe TVC has produced results that warrant the millions of dollars in funding the organization has received. I understand this sentiment, and share in the desire to ensure taxpayer dollars are well-spent. This was among my primary concerns as we approached reauthorizing TVC. However, my colleagues and I came to the conclusion that by reauthorizing the organization, Congress could ensure greater oversight and accountability on the part of TVC and its use of Federal dollars--ultimately resulting in better service for our veterans. This is exactly what the Veterans Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2006 aims to do.

This legislation builds on the preexisting TVC program in order to expand its reach nationwide, so that more veterans can have the tools they need to realize their entrepreneurial aspirations. Through a series of provisions that target the weaknesses of TVC and develop sound policies to strengthen them and clarify the organization's mission within the veterans community it serves, this bill makes several key improvements to the corporation.

In its inception, we envisioned that TVC would establish centers across the country to help assist veteran entrepreneurs with their small business needs. Unfortunately, the organization has shifted its primary focus toward the development of online programs in recent years. Although it is a good thing that TVC has four centers across the country, clearly more needs to be done to build upon these and develop a substantial number of new centers and networking opportunities for veterans nationwide. That is why this bill clarifies the role TVC should have in local communities. In rewriting the purpose of TVC in this capacity, our legislation explicitly states that the organization should be actively working to form more centers in order to build and create a national network linking veterans to the information, counseling, and assistance they need in starting and maintaining their businesses.

A recurring frustration that echoes from many veterans nationwide is that they are often unable to gain access to the Federal contracting and procurement realm. It is downright shameful that so many servicemen and women feel as though a government they fought so hard to protect all but abandons them--continuing to award myriad contracts to big businesses. By law, the Federal Government has a 3-percent contracting goal for service-disabled veterans. However, in 2004 only 0.38 percent of government contracts were awarded to service-disabled veterans. Patterns such as this are all too common--replaying themselves year in and year out. Clearly, more ought to be done to help those veterans who are looking to gain access to Federal contracts. Given this, our legislation directs TVC to assist veterans, particularly service- disabled veterans, with Federal contracting opportunities.

We received numerous complaints from veterans about the way the administration has chosen to interpret the current law such that it severely limits Congress's role in appointing board members. In this, TVC had experienced significant staffing changes on its Board of Directors since 1999. Our legislation ensures that the President works with the chair and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and/or the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and their House counterparts, to appoint nine members of the board with 4-year terms. Additionally, our legislation dictates that in this nomination process, the President and Congress consult with veterans groups nationwide. Furthermore, the Veterans Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2006 stipulates that no more than five of the nine board members be from the same political party and that all have business experience, knowledge of veterans issues, as well as the wherewithal to raise private funds for TVC. I firmly believe that this provision will ensure that TVC has top-notch board members, who can offer the best service to those who have already served our country.

This legislation authorizes $2 million in Federal funds annually from fiscal years 2007 through 2009. Additionally, because TVC was originally to become a self-sustaining entity, our bill requires that for all Federal dollars received, the organization match those dollar amounts with private funds. Since its authorization expired in 2004, TVC's original matching requirement vanished, and the organization instead received Federal funding without any private fundraising requirement. We felt that this matching requirement needed to be reinstated to better enable TVC to become fully self-sustaining. Thus, our legislation forces TVC to function in a way similar to the SBA's Women's Business Centers and Small Business Development Centers. The leveraging of Federal dollars enables TVC to expand its donor base so that it can achieve the goal of self-sustainability. Additionally, it has come to our attention through conversations with the veterans community, that servicemen and women are being charged high fees for using TVC services. That was never the intention when this program was conceptualized, and it is wrong for TVC to earn its private funds on the backs of veterans. We fix that in this bill by limiting the amount of non-Federal funds that TVC can raise in the form of fees to veterans to no more than 33 percent of the organization's total revenue.

In addition to the matching-fund requirement within our bill, it also requires that TVC develop a comprehensive plan for privatization within 6 months of the enactment of the Veterans Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2006. To ensure that TVC is in full compliance with the provisions in our bill, and that its self-sustaining plan demonstrates a certain degree of feasibility, we have asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the organization no later than one year after date of enactment.

Finally, this bill extends the SBA's Veterans Advisory Committee, which the administration planned on terminating as of this year. Originally established through Public Law 106-50, this committee was to advise and counsel the SBA Administrator and the agency's Associate Administrator for Veterans' Business Development on the entrepreneurial needs and concerns of veteran small business owners and to monitor public and private plans that have the potential to impact veteran entrepreneurs from obtaining capital, credit, and to access markets. Additionally, it was to roll into TVC by September 30, 2004. However, when this date came around, it was clear that TVC was in no position to take on more responsibilities. Thus, Congress reauthorized the Veterans Advisory Committee and postponed the transfer date until this year. As the deadline closes in, we thought it best to reauthorize Veterans Advisory Committee and again postpone the transfer.

America's veterans and service-disabled veteran communities deserve a resource to assist them in bringing their entrepreneurial ideas into fruition. Nationwide, more and more veterans are turning to small businesses as a means of carving out their piece of the American dream, despite the many barriers they face upon reentering civilian life. The strengthening and revitalization of TVC that this legislation proposes, is one way that Congress can help in this effort and ensure greater effectiveness and accountability within the organization in the years ahead.

I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bipartisan Veterans Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2006--because in helping TVC succeed, we are ultimately helping veterans succeed and prosper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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