Spaceport Equality Act of 2007

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, Domenici, Feinstein, and Dole, to introduce the Spaceport Equality Act of 2007, a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry.

Last summer, Kazakhstan launched its first satellite, catapulting them into the space transportation industry. Also joining the race for space launch capacity are Singapore, Australia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates, with seven new commercial spaceports proposed between the four countries. With new entrants being added to the space transportation marketplace, is the U.S. falling behind in the race for access to space?

The U.S. once dominated the commercial satellilte-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent; however, that market share has since declined to below 50 percent. The U.S. satellite industry faces increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of sufficient domestic launch capability. An even smaller share of U.S. manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports.

This past year, only 2 of the 21 commercial launches worldwide were launched from locations in the United States, that is less than 10 percent of the market share. This comes at a loss of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.

These are just some of the many reasons why my colleagues and I are introducing the Spaceport Equality Act.

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

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

These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA and the Air Force, priority for launches at these facilities is given to government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a backseat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability.

This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors.

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

The Florida Space Authority, now known as ``Space Florida,'' was the first such entity, and was created as a subdivision of the Florida State Government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Space Florida focuses on expanding and strengthening my state's space industry through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and to provide innovative, forward- thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry.

The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, and efforts are currently underway in New Mexico and Oklahoma to establish spaceports for the new emerging space tourism industry. Still additional commercial spaceports have been considered in the following states: Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves, but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly affected by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from Government sponsored or subsidized competitors in various countries across Europe, and also in China, Japan, India, and Russia. And soon they will face new competitors in Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion in economic activity, more than $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs. The Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, recently issued a report on 2006 launch activities, in that report, it was noted that in 2006, U.S. launches generated approximately $140 million in revenues.

A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' and 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.''

The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies,

those influenced by space technology research and development.

Home roof insulation and air filtration, anti-lock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and Lasik surgery all owe their development to space-based research and technology. The list of space ``spin-off'' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. market share in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will positively influence other fields.

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

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

Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010.

If the U.S. continues as is, we will only be able to capture a 10- percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the U.S. could potentially pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the U.S. means a loss to our economy, and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism.

Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities that, as I mentioned earlier, receive priority over commercial projects.

Recently, the U.S. Air Force provided license to Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX, to utilize one of the decommissioned launch complexes at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for its commercial launch ventures.

The utilization of existing Federal resources by commercial ventures will open up opportunity for further commercial launches, but this alone will not afford America the resources it needs to remain competitive internationally. If the U.S. is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry.

On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in Spaceport infrastructure.

According to recent studies, increased spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015, this does not include the economic activity generated from increased tourism, secondary contracts, and spin-off technologies.

Other modes of transportation, highways, airports, and seaports, currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports? Perhaps this policy made sense in the past, when space did not have the enormous potential for commercial growth that it now does. Our ability to utilize space is more apparent than ever before; we need to acknowledge this emerging reality.

This Spaceport Equality Act of 2007 would provide spaceports with the same tax incentives granted to airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equality Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field, because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects.

Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector.

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

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

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

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, Domenici, Feinstein, and Dole, to introduce the Spaceport Equality Act of 2007, a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry.

Last summer, Kazakhstan launched its first satellite, catapulting them into the space transportation industry. Also joining the race for space launch capacity are Singapore, Australia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates, with seven new commercial spaceports proposed between the four countries. With new entrants being added to the space transportation marketplace, is the U.S. falling behind in the race for access to space?

The U.S. once dominated the commercial satellilte-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent; however, that market share has since declined to below 50 percent. The U.S. satellite industry faces increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of sufficient domestic launch capability. An even smaller share of U.S. manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports.

This past year, only 2 of the 21 commercial launches worldwide were launched from locations in the United States, that is less than 10 percent of the market share. This comes at a loss of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.

These are just some of the many reasons why my colleagues and I are introducing the Spaceport Equality Act.

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

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

These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA and the Air Force, priority for launches at these facilities is given to government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a backseat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability.

This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors.

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

The Florida Space Authority, now known as ``Space Florida,'' was the first such entity, and was created as a subdivision of the Florida State Government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Space Florida focuses on expanding and strengthening my state's space industry through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and to provide innovative, forward- thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry.

The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, and efforts are currently underway in New Mexico and Oklahoma to establish spaceports for the new emerging space tourism industry. Still additional commercial spaceports have been considered in the following states: Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves, but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly affected by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from Government sponsored or subsidized competitors in various countries across Europe, and also in China, Japan, India, and Russia. And soon they will face new competitors in Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion in economic activity, more than $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs. The Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, recently issued a report on 2006 launch activities, in that report, it was noted that in 2006, U.S. launches generated approximately $140 million in revenues.

A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' and 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.''

The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies,

those influenced by space technology research and development.

Home roof insulation and air filtration, anti-lock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and Lasik surgery all owe their development to space-based research and technology. The list of space ``spin-off'' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. market share in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will positively influence other fields.

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

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

Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010.

If the U.S. continues as is, we will only be able to capture a 10- percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the U.S. could potentially pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the U.S. means a loss to our economy, and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism.

Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities that, as I mentioned earlier, receive priority over commercial projects.

Recently, the U.S. Air Force provided license to Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX, to utilize one of the decommissioned launch complexes at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for its commercial launch ventures.

The utilization of existing Federal resources by commercial ventures will open up opportunity for further commercial launches, but this alone will not afford America the resources it needs to remain competitive internationally. If the U.S. is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry.

On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in Spaceport infrastructure.

According to recent studies, increased spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015, this does not include the economic activity generated from increased tourism, secondary contracts, and spin-off technologies.

Other modes of transportation, highways, airports, and seaports, currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports? Perhaps this policy made sense in the past, when space did not have the enormous potential for commercial growth that it now does. Our ability to utilize space is more apparent than ever before; we need to acknowledge this emerging reality.

This Spaceport Equality Act of 2007 would provide spaceports with the same tax incentives granted to airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equality Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field, because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects.

Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector.

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

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

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, IL, as the ``Dr. Francis Townsend Post Office Building.'' I am grateful to Senator Barack Obama, Mayor Robert Walter, Jr. and the Fairbury City Council for their support of this legislation.

This legislation honors Dr. Francis Townsend, the creator of the Townsend old-age revolving pension plan, and his hometown of Fairbury, IL, a town which will celebrate its sesquicentennial anniversary this June.

Dr. Francis E. Townsend, the son of a farmer, was born in January 1867. He became a physician and served in the Army Medical Corps during World War I. Following his retirement from medicine, Dr. Townsend developed an old-age pension plan for seniors during the Depression. The Townsend Plan created a Federal pension of $200 a month paid to every citizen age 60 and older, on the condition that the pensioner spend the entire sum within 30 days of receipt, in order to stimulate the economy.

Dr. Townsend advocated tirelessly around the country on behalf of his plan and encouraged 25 million Americans to sign petitions to the White House and to Congress demanding that the Federal Government institute a revolving old-age pension fund. It is likely that Townsend's efforts expedited passage of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Social Security Act, a major New Deal initiative. The Social Security Act included matching payments from the Federal Government, known as Old Age Assistance, and a national old-age annuity program. Though the initiative fell short of Dr. Townsend's vision, he continued to press for increased benefits to the elderly. Dr. Townsend's persistence helped to sustain the movement for increased elder benefits.

Dr. Francis Townsend, an innovator and social activist, was a pivotal figure in the antipoverty movement and became the leader of a social movement. I am pleased to introduce this legislation to permanently and publicly recognize Dr. Townsend by naming this post office in Fairbury in his honor. Given Dr. Townsend's dedication to his community and his commitment towards the improvement of society, the renaming of this post office would be a most appropriate way for us to express our appreciation to Dr. Townsend and to celebrate his contributions to our Nation's pension programs.

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

Mr. President, over 25 years ago, a member of the Select Panel for the Promotion of Child Health said in a statement to Congress, ``Children are one-third of our population and all of our future.'' We must protect the health and welfare of our nation's children if we are to secure the future of our country. This year we have a tremendous opportunity to ensure that security. With the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, we can improve the health and health care of our Nation's future, for the over 70 million children in America and, in particular, the 9 million children who have no health coverage.

Since the creation of SCHIP 10 years ago, more than 6.2 million children have been covered by this vital program, including over 290,000 children in Illinois. As the first State to provide coverage for all children, Illinois has been a leader in the movement to change the course of health care in this country. Since 1993, SCHIP, its relationship to Medicaid, and the flexibility that this administration has permitted the programs to have, have made it possible for Illinois to provide health care to the more than 313,000 children who did not have access to it before.

Nearly 1 million Illinois families have at least one uninsured family member, and the face of the uninsured is changing. The uninsured are not only the mother and daughter living in downtown Chicago. The uninsured includes the family who runs a small business in the suburbs, the family farm in central Illinois, and the single father working at a factory downstate.

The majority of kids without health care coverage come from working families, families like Mr. and Mrs. Buss and their three young sons. Lisa Buss and her husband own a small home inspection company. They paid over $9,000 last year alone on regular medical care, without any catastrophic events or emergencies. That's a lot of money for a family living in the suburbs of Chicago. There is also the Hickey family of Godfrey, Illinois. After an

unfortunate accident, their son broke a couple of bones in his hand. Without insurance, they were hesitant to see the specialist at the suggestion of the emergency room physicians, but for the health of their son, they did so. For a 5 minute visit, they paid close to $1,000. Mr. Hickey works in the construction trade and work had been slow. Susan is a teacher for the Alton School District. They were given no financial assistance except to be offered a payment plan. Now, the Hickeys have to find a way to pay for their house payment and their utilities, rising gas prices, and this medical treatment.

The unnecessary burden and anxiety caused by health care is an unfortunate reality for too many, and children often bear the brunt of this hardship. Kids should not have to wait until their fever is 103 degrees to see a doctor. Kids should be able to obtain glasses when they are straining to see the chalkboard. Kids should be able to obtain antibiotics when that ``cold'' just won't go away. Our parents should not have to worry about whether they can afford to take their son to a bone specialist.

As is often the case, States are leading the way with children's health coverage initiatives. In 2005, my State of Illinois was the first State to ensure health care coverage for all children. Since then, many States have taken on the challenge of expanding health care coverage. The State of the States 2007 report by AcademyHealth indicates that more than a dozen States have enacted innovative policies to expand coverage. These range from comprehensive health care reform in States such as Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine; to public- private partnerships in States such as Arkansas, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah; to initiatives to cover all children in Illinois and Pennsylvania.

Democratic and Republican governors alike are exploring ways to reach the uninsured, proving that children's health and health care coverage are American issues, not partisan issues. One important way to insure more children is through a strong reauthorization of SCHIP.

Today, with the introduction of the Healthy Kids Act, I propose SCHIP reauthorization legislation that builds on the progress made in these States. First, the bill provides States with more funding to enroll children who are eligible but not enrolled in SCHIP. These kids account for more than half of all uninsured children.

Second, the Healthy Kids Act will eliminate obvious barriers to coverage and simplify enrollment procedures. For example, seven States have reported declines in Medicaid enrollments because of new citizenship requirements. Approximately 65 percent of internists report serving patients with Limited English Proficiency; for children living in these families, making language assistance services available is a critical precursor to quality care. My bill proposes options for States to reach the neediest children through SCHIP by reducing some of these barriers. For example, the bill provides for funds for language assistance services.

Third, the bill also supports the establishment of medical homes, a network of providers for children that helps prevent them from falling through the cracks. The bill puts forth an effort to create pediatric quality and performance measures. The Healthy Kids Act also establishes a disease prevention and treatment demonstration project for ethnic and racial minority children, using research that specifically examines disparities in minority children enrolled in Medicaid/SCHIP. We can reduce health disparities and improve health outcomes for this population.

Finally, the bill creates a commission to study children's health coverage. The Commission on Children's Health Coverage will develop policy recommendations and track the program's overall performance. Feedback and analysis of SCHIP's performance is critical to improving the program in the future.

SCHIP has been an unparalleled success and a model for health insurance coverage that both Democrats and Republicans can be proud of. Ensuring health care coverage for children in need is a priority for both sides of the aisle. The reauthorization of SCHIP is a rare opportunity for the Federal Government to expand its support for policies in States like Illinois and others. Let's take a step forward and work to provide basic health insurance for all children. Healthy children grow into healthy adults, in turn, these individuals are happier and spend less money on health care in the long run. The SCHIP program is critical for our Nation's health and economic future.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Bridging the Gap for Wounded Warriors Act to provide comprehensive solutions to problems that have arisen from military bureaucracy's failure to meet the medical needs of this generation's wounded warriors as they transition from the Armed Services to civilian life.

This is a moment of profound challenge for our country, for our military, and for our men and women in uniform. And while there are often strong disagreements here in Washington, I hope we can unite around our common values and patriotism when it comes to how we treat our servicemembers and veterans.

If you serve your country your country should serve you. That is the promise our country must keep to the men and women who enlist, who fight, and who return home often bearing the visible and invisible scars of sacrifice. Sadly, too often in the past several years, that promise has been broken: whether it's a lack of up-armored vehicles on the ground in Iraq or a lack of appropriate care in outpatient facilities at Walter Reed.

Last year, I authored and passed into law the Heroes at Home initiative to assist returning servicemembers experiencing the complex, diffuse, and life-altering symptoms of traumatic brain injury and other mental health difficulties.

This past March, I followed up with the introduction of the Heroes at Home Act of 2007, S. 1065, the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, S. 1064, and the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007, S. 1063, to serve our servicemembers and send a message: you will be treated as heroes before deployment, during deployment, and upon returning home. You didn't offer excuses and do not deserve to be offered excuses by your country.

Finally, Senator Evan Bayh and I introduced the Traumatic Brain Injury Access to Options Act, S. 1113, in order to provide a temporary and immediate solution to the discrepancy in health care services and benefits encountered by TBI patients.

However, a broader and permanent solution is needed to assist all members and former members of the Armed Services who have incurred any type of combat-related injury. The mistreatment of servicemembers at Walter Reed and testimony from recent hearings in both the Senate Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees have revealed major gaps affecting servicemembers, including discrepancies in benefits for active duty and medically retired servicemembers; difficulties in obtaining needed care for wounded servicemembers transitioning from the Armed Services to civilian life; and disparities between the DoD and VA disability rating systems.

Although the military, more often than not, offers quality health care services, wounded servicemembers often encounter barriers to receiving the optimal health benefit. The two major barriers are: (1) a confusing array of benefits; and (2) discrepancies between benefits for those on active duty versus those who are medically retired.

Recent events at Walter Reed have highlighted the longstanding need to overhaul the DoD and VA disability rating systems, which are unnecessarily complex and result in delays in payment that hinder efforts of wounded servicemembers to support themselves and their families. On March 6, 2007, the Chief of Staff of the Army General Peter Schoomaker and then-Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that soldiers appearing before the Physical Evaluation Board were ``short- changed'' and had not received appropriate disability benefits. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the enactment of the Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program at least 45 percent of claims have been denied. In March 2006 the Comptroller General issued GAO Report 06-362: Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members--the Department of Defense did not heed the recommendations provided in this report and as a result injured and wounded warriors continue to languish in an inefficient and adversarial disability system. We must stop short-changing our wounded warriors.

Finally, a blanket overlap of benefits and disability rating reform are necessary but not sufficient for addressing the needs of those who are wounded. In order to support an all-volunteer force and meet the needs of this generation's wounded warriors, it is critical to achieve efficient DoD and VA collaboration and coordination of assistance to members of the Armed Forces in their transition from Active Duty to civilian life. Thus, the duties of the existent VA Office of Seamless Transition must be terminated and transferred to a new organizational structure that will achieve the long-sought goals of seamless transition between the DoD and VA and improved coordination between these agencies.

That's why I am introducing the Bridging the Gap for Wounded Warriors Act today, to ensure a continuum of care for severely injured servicemembers and fix the problems that stymie the transition process. I am grateful to have developed this proposal with the Wounded Warrior Project, the National Military Family Association, and the Military Officers Association of America.

We should provide our wounded warriors with the best care options available. This legislation would establish a 2 year blanket overlap of active duty and veterans health services and benefits for severely injured service members to facilitate their recovery and help resolve administrative problems like those found at Walter Reed. All costs of health care, for both active duty and medically retired servicemembers, will be paid for by the DoD. The provisions of this section shall take effect for those injured on or after October 7, 2001, but eligibility shall not include retroactive compensation for payments already made.

We should also create a joint DoD-VA Office of Transition for the coordination of assistance to members of the Armed Forces in their transition from service in the Armed Forces to civilian life. The Office of Transition would absorb the duties of the existent VA Office of Seamless Transition as well as the functions and responsibilities of applicable offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, OSD. Leadership of the Office of Transition would consist of a Director and Deputy Director, who would both have seats on the Joint Executive Committee, JEC. The Secretaries of DoD and VA would have oversight of the Office of Transition, although the office would also be required to submit mandatory annual reports and biannual briefings to Congress. The GAO would also submit a biennial report on the Office of Transition's activities, in order to ensure that the Office's progress is not being stymied by the DoD or VA.

Further, we should reform the current disability rating system to ensure that there is continuity of medical care and no disruption in compensation payments made to wounded service members. My legislation would change the roles of the agencies, so that DoD would no longer assign the actual disability rating but would still determine fitness for duty and document such a decision in writing, while VA would assign final ratings for all service-connected injuries. Further, the legislation would repeal the provision in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1982 that requires the delay in payment of VA benefits until the first day of the second month after they are entitled. This provision would eliminate the gap in payments and allow servicemembers to continue to support themselves and their families.

Finally, we should do what we can to ensure that both DoD and VA medical facilities have the appropriate trained professionals to deal with the range of injuries that our wounded servicemembers now incur, including

traumatic brain injury, burns, amputations, vision problems, spinal cord injuries, and broken and fractured bones. In order to move in that direction, my legislation would require the GAO to submit a preliminary assessment and final report on the extent to which medical facilities of the DoD and VA offer interdisciplinary medical treatment for wounded members of the Armed Forces.

Let us all join together in accepting our responsibility as a nation to those who serve and resolve to achieve efficient DoD and VA collaboration and coordination that is critical for supporting an all- volunteer force and meeting the needs of this generation's wounded warriors.

I ask unanimous consent letters of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain the action I am taking related to S. 1693, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act. Today, with great reluctance, I have asked Republican Leader McConnell to consult with us prior to any action regarding the consideration of this bill, which the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported on August 1, 2007.

The Wired for Health Care Quality Act would encourage the development of interoperable standards for health information technology, IT, offer incentives for providers to acquire qualified health IT systems to improve the quality and efficiency of health care, and facilitate the secure exchange of electronic health information. The bill also includes provisions to require all federal agencies to comply with standards and specifications adopted by the Federal Government for purposes determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, and to ensure quality measurement and reporting of provider performance under the Public Health Service Act.

I fully support fostering the adoption of health information technology to assist providers in making quality improvements in our health care system. In 2005, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Medicare Value Purchasing Act, S. 1356, in conjunction with Senators Enzi and Kennedy's legislation known as the Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act, S. 1355. Although the Medicare Value Purchasing Act did not pass in its entirety, provisions based on our bill have been enacted in other legislation.

Medicare is the single largest purchaser of health care in the Nation, so adopting quality payments in Medicare influences the level of quality in all of health care. We have seen time and time again how when Medicare leads, the other public and private purchasers follow. Medicare can drive quality improvement through payment incentives. The adoption of information technology is also desirable, both to facilitate the reporting of quality measures and to increase the efficiency and quality of our health care system. These two concepts should work together.

A number of legislative initiatives have been enacted in Medicare in recent years to promote the development and reporting of quality measures. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, MMA, included provisions that required the reporting of quality measures for inpatient hospitals. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 expanded the reporting of quality measures for inpatient hospital services and extended quality measures to home health settings.

Last year, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, TRHCA, extended quality measure reporting to hospital outpatient services and ambulatory service centers. TRHCA also authorized the 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, PQRI, a voluntary quality reporting system in Medicare for physicians and other eligible health care professionals. Beginning July 1, 2007, the new PQRI program provides Medicare incentive payments for the successful reporting of quality measures that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus organization. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has worked diligently with the

American Medical Association Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, the Ambulatory Quality Alliance, and the National Quality Forum in the development, adoption, endorsement, and selection of quality measures for this program.

Considerable time and effort have been devoted to the development and reporting of quality measures for various providers in Medicare under the Social Security Act. Many of these programs have now been up and running for some time. This is why I am greatly troubled that, as currently drafted, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act would require the development and reporting of quality measures under the Public Health Service Act.

It is hard to comprehend how the quality measurement system created by S. 1693 would interact with the various quality measurement programs that have already been enacted by Congress under the Social Security Act and implemented by CMS. Creating two different quality measurement systems would have the potential to create differing or even duplicative quality measurement systems which could drastically interfere with our common goal of improving the quality of health care in this country.

Under the bill, the Secretary also would establish Federal standards and implementation specifications for data collection. Within three years of their adoption, all Federal agencies would have to implement these standards according to the specifications. While this sounds appealing, I am concerned about the reality of implementing such standards--across the myriad programs at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, and all the other Federal agencies that may have health care data. It would be an enormous challenge. Agencies collect data for many different purposes, using many different data systems. Six years ago, when Secretary Thompson first arrived at the Department of Health and Human Services, the department had eight different computer systems. Presumably other agencies similarly have multiple systems. All will be expensive and difficult to retrofit to meet new federal standards.

The bill also would require the HHS Secretary to provide federal health data, including the Medicare claims databases, to at least three ``Quality Reporting Organizations'' that agreed to provide public reports based on the data.

The Quality Reporting Organizations would be required to release regular reports on quality performance that are provider- and supplier- specific. Any organization, including those with commercial interests, could request that the Quality Reporting Organizations compile specific reports based on the requester's methodology. So, for example, drug companies could request data on physician prescribing patterns to determine which physicians their salespeople should target.

In overseeing Medicare, Congress is working to bring more quality reporting into the program. As I mentioned before, just this past December Congress enacted the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which implemented a physician pay-for-reporting program in Medicare. The Finance Committee has been working for some time now to phase-in the use of quality measures with various providers. Eventually, I hope that Medicare can compensate providers appropriately for providing high-quality care.

I am, however, concerned about public disclosure of provider-specific information without appropriate safeguards. If not used properly, the data could be misinterpreted. For example, hospitals that specialize in very difficult cases might seem to provide lower quality of care than those treating less severe cases. This would set up the wrong incentives for hospitals and other health care providers.

I agree that it would be helpful to standardize data reporting throughout the federal government, and to use that data appropriately to assess the quality of care provided by clinicians, hospitals, and other health care organizations. At the same time, I have serious concerns about how this bill is structured with respect to the disclosure and use of the data from federal health entitlement programs which are within the sole jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.

I welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors of S. 1693, Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Clinton, and Hatch, along with members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on this matter. I had hoped we could work out an agreement on legislative language that was acceptable to both the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee before the bill was on the floor. I appreciate the efforts that my colleagues, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, have undertaken with us over the last month to resolve the concerns of the Finance Committee. However, I remain deeply troubled that, as currently drafted, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act could end up unintentionally delaying or frustrating the goal we all share of improving the quality of health care for all Americans.