WISE Act of 2007

Mr. President in February, a series of articles in the Washington Post highlighted shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors at the Walter Reed Army Hospital. These articles described deplorable living conditions for some service members in an outpatient status; a bungled, bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine whether a service member will be medically retired with health and other benefits for himself and for his family; and a clumsy handoff between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs as the military member transitions from one department to the other. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.

The Armed Services Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee held a rare joint hearing to identify the problems our wounded soldiers are facing. These committees continue to work together to address these issues, culminating in the bill we introduce today, the Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act. Our bill addresses the issues of substandard facilities, inconsistent disability ratings, lack of seamless transition from DOD to the VA, inadequacy of severance pay, care and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, and the sharing of medical records between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and housing for military outpatients. These standards will require compliance with Federal and other standards for hospital facilities and operations and will be uniform and consistent throughout the Department of Defense.

Another shortfall identified in the aftermath of the Washington Post articles is the inconsistency in disability ratings for the same and similar disabilities. In many instances, disability ratings assigned by the Veterans' Administration are higher than the disability ratings assigned by the military services for the same injuries. The military services are not even consistent among themselves in assigning disabilities. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act addresses the issue of disparate disability ratings in several ways.

First, it requires the military departments to use VA standards for rating disabilities, allowing the military to deviate from these standards only when the deviation will result in a higher disability rating for the service member. In our view, requiring all of the military departments and the VA to use the same standards should result in identical disability ratings for the same or similar disabilities.

Second, the act will change the statutory presumption used by the military departments for determining whether a disability is incurred incident to military service or existed prior to military service to mirror the statutory presumption used by the VA. Currently, the military rule is that a disability is presumed to be incident to service if a member has been in the military for 8 or more years. That leaves out a high percentage of our troops. Under the revised rule, a disability will be presumed to be incident to service when the member has 6 months or more of active military service and the disability was not noted at the time the member entered active duty, unless compelling evidence or medical judgement warrant a finding that the disability existed before the member entered active duty. This should avoid the situation where the military assigns a disability rating of zero percent on the basis that a disability existed prior to service and the VA later awards a higher disability rating and disability compensation by using the VA presumption to conclude that the very same disability is service connected.

Third, the act will require two pilot programs to test the viability of using the VA to assess disability ratings for the Department of Defense. One pilot program will require the Veterans' Administration to assign the disability ratings for the Department of Defense, based on all medical conditions that render the service member medically unfit for military service. The other pilot program will require the military department and the VA to jointly assign the disability rating, also based on all medical conditions that render the service member medically unfit for military service.

Fourth, the act will require the Secretary of Defense to establish a board to review and, where appropriate, correct disability determinations of 20 percent or less for those service members separated from service because they were medically unfit for duty after September 11, 2001. This will give our service members an opportunity to correct unwarranted low disability ratings and ensure that disability ratings are uniform and equitable.

The Institute of Medicine has just completed a study for the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, concluding that current VA standards are out of step with modern medical advances in conditions such as traumatic brain injury and modern concepts of disability. The Disability Commission is due to report to Congress on its findings and recommendations in October. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act will require the Department of Defense to use any updated standards as soon as the Veterans' Administration adopts them.

Our bill addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on the care and management of service members who will transition from DOD to the VA. This policy will address the care and management of service members in a medical hold or medical holdover status, the medical evaluation and disability evaluation of disabled service members, the return of disabled service members to active duty when appropriate, and the transition of disabled service members from receipt of care and services from the Department of Defense to receipt of care and services from the VA.

Another problem identified by the committees is the inadequacy of separation pay for junior service members. Those separated with a disability rating of 30 percent or higher are medically retired with health care and additional benefits for the service members and their families. Those separated with a disability rating of less than 30 percent are discharged and given a severance pay that is based on how long they were in the military. For example, a service member with 2 years of service will receive the equivalent of only 4 months basic pay as severance pay. This bill increases the minimum severance pay to 1 year's basic pay for those separated for disabilities incurred in a combat zone and 6 months' basic pay for all others. Furthermore, under current law, severance pay is deducted from any VA disability compensation these service members receive. Our bill changes that by eliminating the requirement that severance

pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone.

The signature injuries of the current conflicts are post-traumatic stress disorder, commonly referred to as PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, referred to as TBI. We still have a lot to do to adequately respond to these injuries. To address this, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of members with TBI or PTSD. The act also requires the Secretary of Defense to establish Centers of Excellence for PTSD and for TBI. These centers will conduct research, train health care professionals, and provide guidance throughout the Department of Defense in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of these injuries. Finally, the act requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to report to Congress with comprehensive plans to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, and otherwise respond to TBI and PTSD. These plans will address improvements of personnel protective equipment in addition to addressing the medical aspects of diagnosing and treating TBI and PTSD.

We are also addressing the problem that exists because medically retired service members, who are eligible for TRICARE as retirees, do not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that are available to members still on active duty. To address this shortfall, the act authorizes medically retired service members with disability ratings of 50 percent or higher to receive the active duty medical benefit for 3 years after the member leaves active duty.

We are also beginning to address the problem created when parents, siblings, and others who are not normally authorized to receive military health care leave their homes to serve as caregivers to military personnel with severe injuries while the members are undergoing extensive medical treatment. In many cases, these family members leave their jobs and lose their job-related health care. Even though these family members are in a military hospital, they are not authorized to receive medical care from the doctors at that facility when they need it. To address this, the act authorizes military and VA health care providers to provide urgent and emergency medical care and counseling to family members on invitational travel orders.

One of the significant shortfalls in the smooth transition from military health care to VA health care is the inability to share health records between the two Departments. Our bill will establish a Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Program Office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record.

The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act is a comprehensive bill that lays out a path for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in the care and management of our wounded warriors. They deserve the best care and support we can muster. The American people rightly insist on no less.

Mr. AKAKA Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I was delighted to work with Senator Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and others on this important legislation, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act of 2007. I really appreciated the willingness of the Armed Services Committee staff to work in close cooperation with the Veterans' Affairs Committee staff on its drafting. This legislation would improve the policies which govern the care and management of all servicemembers with a serious illness or injury that might render them unfit for duty in order to facilitate and enhance their care, rehabilitation, and physical evaluation, as well as improve their transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

This measure is a direct outcome of an unprecedented joint hearing held on April 12, 2007, by the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees during which we heard testimony on the transition of servicemembers from DoD to VA. This measure will go a long way toward addressing the problems that first gained public attention with the stories about Walter Reed Army Medical Center and will help achieve the goal of providing optimal care and a truly seamless transition for the nation's wounded warriors.

I view issues relating to those servicemembers who may be rendered unfit as a result of an illness or injury from two different perspectives, both as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the Armed Services Committee. As I said at the joint hearing, this is not solely a DoD or a VA problem. While DoD and VA are separate organizations, they both deal with the same servicemembers. A key element of this proposed legislation is the requirement that DoD and VA develop a comprehensive policy for transitioning those with serious illnesses or injuries from Active Duty military status to veteran status. As part of this effort, the two Departments will be required to conduct a comprehensive review of all regulations, policies, and procedures that impact these servicemembers and to identify best practices when developing joint policy. If we are going to fix the problems identified at Walter Reed, there must be uniform standards for the transition process that are understood by all parties and that are consistently applied by the military services.

I am delighted that the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act embraces the reforms to the DoD Disability Evaluation System contained in S. 1252, legislation I introduced on April 30, 2007. For the Disability Evaluation System to work fairly and consistently, there must be uniform use by the military services of VA's disability rating schedule. The services must take into account all conditions which render a servicemember unfit when making a disability rating, as well as develop a program for the uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board and Physical Evaluation Board personnel. It is also essential that DoD develop a system of accountability to ensure that the military services comply with disability rating regulations and policies.

I am pleased to note that on June 27 the Veterans' Affairs Committee will conduct a markup of legislation that will complement the efforts of the Armed Services Committee to make sure that VA appropriately addresses problems confronting seriously wounded and injured servicemembers once they become veterans.

I commend Chairman Levin and the staff of the Armed Services Committee for crafting this comprehensive legislation. It will go a long way toward providing DoD and VA with a roadmap for improving the transition processes and ensuring that seriously ill and injured servicemembers and veterans get the benefits and services they need and deserve, the benefits and services these courageous men and women have earned by their service.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this proposed legislation.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I am pleased to co-sponsor the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which would ensure that wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces receive the care and benefits that they deserve.

We were all surprised and deeply disappointed by the conditions at Walter Reed and the problems that our wounded warriors faced after their inpatient care was complete, living in substandard conditions at Building 18, being treated poorly, battling a Cold War-era disability evaluation process, and for some, simply falling through the cracks.

Since February of 2007, many encouraging changes have been initiated by the Department of Defense. First and foremost, Secretary Gates established and enforced a culture of accountability for the leadership failures that lead to the tragedy at Walter Reed. Medical facilities have now been inspected by all three military departments, and improvements are underway. Additional counselors and support has been provided to families. On April 25, 2007, a new Warrior Transition Brigade stood up at Walter Reed to manage all the needs of wounded and ill soldiers, both Active and Reserve. DOD has begun to exert greater management responsibility for the disability

evaluation systems of the military departments. We are on the right track to address the problems at Walter Reed and at other hospitals. We need to ensure that the effort is sustained. This legislation will ensure that these efforts continue.

The legislation requires that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs work together to develop new policy to better manage the care and transition of our wounded soldiers. This policy would address many of the concerns that have been raised by wounded soldiers and their families, conditions while in a medical hold status, the need to streamline and make more transparent the medical and physical evaluation board processes, policies that facilitate the return to duty for soldiers who are able, and a policy governing the smooth transition of separating service members from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs which focuses on the needs of patients.

This legislation would improve health care benefits to severely wounded soldiers by extending their health care benefits as if the member were on active duty for a period of up to 5 years. This approach ensures that our most severely wounded have as many health care options as possible, especially for treatment of traumatic brain injury and other long term serious conditions.

This legislation authorizes additional funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder and requires the establishment of two centers of excellence for the prevention, research and treatment on these consequences of war. This legislation would also require DOD to develop a comprehensive plan for research, prevention and treatment of traumatic brain injury, which is long overdue in addressing the so-called signature injury of this war.

The administration requested, and this bill would provide, additional authorities to the Department of Defense to hire health care professionals to care for our service members and their families. It would also require the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop an electronic health record that can easily be shared between the two departments.

With respect to disability determinations for wounded warriors who leave military service, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a special review board to independently review the findings and decisions of the Physical Evaluation Boards of the military departments since 2001, in cases in which the disability rates of 20 percent or less were awarded and members were not medically retired. We must act, in light of data showing that some members, particularly junior enlisted soldiers, may have unfairly been denied medical retirement. This legislation empowers the special board to correct military records and, if appropriate, restore to a wounded soldier a higher disability rating or retired status.

The bill would also end the requirement that disabled service members pay back severance pay if they obtain a higher disability rating from the VA, and increase the amount of severance pay that separating members receive.

To address the need for fundamental change in the way that the DOD and VA disability evaluation systems are structured, a belief shared by many of my colleagues, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to immediately implement pilot projects to test new improvements to the disability evaluation system. Such pilot programs will help expedite implementation of needed changes to the disability evaluation system.

This legislation would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish uniform standards for medical treatment facilities and medical residential housing facilities, and a DOD investment strategy to remedy all medical facility deficiencies. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of accelerated construction of state-of-the art facilities and consolidation of patient care services at the new National Medical Center at Bethesda. As a condition for the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that health care services would remain available in their totality until the new facility and staff are in place to effect a seamless transfer of care. The current facilities at Walter Reed have served the Nation well, but we can and must do better.

This legislation is a start on the journey to restore trust for America's wounded and her veterans, but it is not our final destination. It will take time to understand fully the complexities of the DOD and VA disability systems and to reconcile them in the best interests of our wounded veterans.

We must also look to the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve access to care for wounded veterans and improvements in its handling of veterans claims for disabilities. We must ensure that the VA maintains a robust medical infrastructure for quality health care, teaching and research, but one that also supports veterans beyond the limits of bricks and mortar in communities throughout the nation. I am developing legislation which would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish health care access standards for veterans with a service- connected disability throughout the VA health care delivery system, and, similar to DOD's TRICARE system, when services cannot be provided by the VA, authorize that care to be purchased from civilian providers. Civilian health care specialists are eager to do their part for America's veterans. Given the strain on the veterans health system, and the limits to our resources, we should give them that chance, and make certain that our Nation's veterans get the care that they need, when they need it.

There is no more important responsibility than to act on our moral obligation as a Nation to those who are willing to give their blood for its freedom. Let us continue to be guided by the words of President George Washington in 1789, who said, ``the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.''

I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Levin and me in a bipartisan effort to make a difference in the lives of our service members who have given so much in support of our Nation.

Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise today to introduce the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, or R-HoPE. This proposal is the result of months of work with my friend and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, who just passed away. In fact, Senator Thomas and I were getting ready to introduce this bill the week we lost him.

This particular legislation is the product of work that Senator Thomas and I have done over many years as cochair of the rural health caucus. So it is a poignant moment for me to come to the floor to introduce this bill. I am asking my colleagues that we name this bill the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, as we pay tribute to the service of our colleague, Senator Thomas.

I can think of no better champion of rural health than Senator Craig Thomas, and there is not a more appropriate way to honor his Senate career than by enacting this legislation that will carry his name.

As Senator Thomas and I continually argued in this Chamber, Medicare shortchanges many rural hospitals and providers. Before the Medicare Modernization Act, rural providers received one-half the payments that urban areas received--one-half to provide exactly the same treatment for exactly the same illness. That was unfair.

Senator Thomas and I teamed up at the time to make changes that were in the Medicare prescription drug bill that began to level the playing field, but those provisions are about to run out.

I would be the first to admit that health care can be more expensive in urban areas than rural areas, but it is not twice as much. When I ask the doctors and hospital administrators of my State if they get a rural discount when they buy technology for hospitals, they laugh, they chuckle, they say, no, they don't get any rural discount. We know now it actually costs more to recruit doctors to rural parts of the country than it does more urban settings, and we know while there is some cost differential, it is not a 100-percent cost differential.

The Medicare bill, the prescription drug bill recognized this disparity in reimbursement and took steps to close the gap. Even with the additional funding, many rural hospitals and providers continue to experience negative margins.

If we are to maintain access to health care in rural areas, we cannot allow providers to lose 3 percent on nearly every patient they see. But that is what is occurring in rural America today.

Congress needs to take steps to fairly reimburse rural providers for the care they provide. The Craig Thomas R-HoPE bill will build on the progress made in the medicare Prescription Drug Act and add new provisions that would protect access to rural health care.

First, the bill will fulfill the promise made to those living and traveling in rural areas that they don't have to travel far for hospital care. The bill would also provide more reflective reimbursement for the cost of labor in rural areas. I should say reimbursement that more fairly reflects the costs in rural areas since they are often competing with more urban areas in the global health care marketplace.

In addition, our proposal would provide the resources currently lacking in rural hospitals to repair crumbling buildings. It also includes two changes to the Critical Access Hospital Program and will put these facilities on a sounder financial footing.

Second, R-HoPE will promise that rural Americans can see a doctor when they are sick. As is the case with most rural States, much of North Dakota is designated as a health professional shortage area. Recruiting doctors is extremely difficult. Our bill would extend the provision in current law that provides incentive payments for doctors who practice in rural areas.

Third, our bill would guarantee that when there is an emergency, there is an ambulance there to respond. Many rural ambulance services are closing because of lower Medicare reimbursement, resulting in response times far above the national average. R-HOPE would protect rural ambulance services and those living and traveling in these parts of the country by providing a 5-percent bonus payment for 2008 and 2009.

Finally, our bill takes a number of steps to help protect the availability of other health care providers, such as rural health clinics, home health agencies, and mental health professionals. This bill achieves the goal Senator Thomas and I have had for a number of years, that rural America enjoy the same level of health care access and affordability more urban areas enjoy. Rural America is the heart of our country. We cannot turn our backs on these areas and their health care needs.

Before I close, I also want to recognize Senator Thomas's staff member, Erin Tuggle, who has worked tirelessly on this legislation on behalf of rural health care and served Senator Craig Thomas so very well. She played a key role in developing this legislation, along with my staff, and I thank her for her efforts.

It is my hope this legislation, which will carry Senator Craig Thomas's name, will help strengthen our rural health care system. I can't think of a better tribute to my friend and our colleague, Senator Craig Thomas.

At this point, I wish to indicate that Senator Roberts is my leading cosponsor, Senator Roberts of Kansas, and we are joined by Senator Harkin, Senator Salazar, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, Senator Thune, Senator Dorgan, Senator Collins, Senator Johnson, and Senator Enzi. I ask unanimous consent that they all appear as cosponsors of this legislation.

I should also indicate before I close that this bill has now been endorsed by the National Rural Health Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Ambulance Association, the American Telemedicine Association, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the North Dakota Hospital Association, and the Federation of American Hospitals, all of them joining together to send a message that this legislation is needed and it is needed now.

This is one way we can pay a tangible tribute to the service of Senator Craig Thomas. I think all of us who knew him and worked with him knew him as

a quintessential gentleman, and I hope very much that others of our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this legislation in this tribute to Senator Thomas.

Mr. President, today Senator Chambliss and I are introducing legislation that could have a far-reaching impact on the national security of the United States. As every American knows, one of the most important elements of our national security infrastructure is the collection of agencies that make up our national intelligence community. But when most Americans think about the CIA, the FBI, or the NSA, they tend to think of agencies that are focused on a small handful of James Bond-style issues, such as missile stockpiles, new weapons technologies, and coups in foreign lands. These issues are still important, but in the modem world it is essential to recognize that protecting national security is a lot more complicated than it was during the Cold War, and there are many other issues that require attention and action.

Thankfully, the men and women of the intelligence community already recognize this crucial fact, and are working hard to address the wide variety of threats and challenges that face America in the 21st century. Unfortunately, many policymakers still think of intelligence in 20th century terms, and as a result many of our national intelligence capabilities are underused and underappreciated.

The best example of this is unquestionably in the field of energy security. American dependence on foreign oil has made our Nation less safe. Oil revenues have provided income for dangerous rogue states, they have sparked bloody civil wars, and they have even provided funding for terrorism. In a sickening phenomenon that I call the terror tax, every time that Americans drive their cars down to the gas station and fill up at the pump, the reality is that a portion of that money is then turned over to foreign governments that ``backdoor'' it over to Islamist extremists, who use that money to perpetuate terrorism and hate. As the GAO has pointed out, while talking about the oil-rich nation of Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry,

although largely owned by the government, has fostered the

creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy

Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose

operations extend to many countries. U.S. government and

other expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the

global propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of

Western values, and support to terrorist activities.

Furthermore, by allowing our national energy security to depend on foreign oil, we are leaving the American economy vulnerable to external shocks and disruptions. Recent American history is full of examples of events overseas jolting U.S. energy supplies, and just a couple decades ago the oil cartel known as OPEC declared an embargo which sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin.

There are many other challenges out there that have the potential to affect U.S. national security and energy security. For example, it seems clear that the Middle East will remain in turmoil for years to come, and policmakers will have to consider the potential impact of events such as a terrorist attack on a major oil facility, or a change in government in an oil-producing state, or the further deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Outside of the Middle East there are other challenges to face, including the continued growth of major energy consuming countries like India and China, the policies of less- predictable governments such as Russia and Venezuela, and the emergence of new energy producers in unstable areas of the world.

As policymakers attempt to grapple with these challenges, it is vital for them to be informed by the best thinking available, and as I said, the men and women of our national intelligence agencies are already performing quality analysis on many topics relevant to national security. This expertise is spread throughout the intelligence community, and includes professionals at the National Intelligence Council, the CIA's Office of Transnational Issues, and the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Department of Energy.

Unfortunately, this expertise is rarely used to inform energy policy debates, primarily because these agencies generally use it to produce classified assessments. This means that I can discuss them in closed sessions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but not at hearings of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, even though I am a member of both committees. This legislation would address this problem by requiring the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the production of an unclassified report on the intelligence community's assessments of key energy issues that have implications for the national security of the United States. It will be up to the intelligence agencies to determine what information can safely be discussed in public, but I am confident that the Director will be able to provide Congress with a report that includes thoughtful, insightful discussion of these issues, without revealing any sensitive information or compromising any sources and methods.

This legislation is entitled the Weighing Intelligence for Smarter Energy Act, or the WISE Act for short. I think that my colleagues and the American public would agree that when it comes to protecting our national energy security, it certainly wouldn't hurt for Congress to be a little bit wiser.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Chambliss and I are introducing legislation that could have a far-reaching impact on the national security of the United States. As every American knows, one of the most important elements of our national security infrastructure is the collection of agencies that make up our national intelligence community. But when most Americans think about the CIA, the FBI, or the NSA, they tend to think of agencies that are focused on a small handful of James Bond-style issues, such as missile stockpiles, new weapons technologies, and coups in foreign lands. These issues are still important, but in the modem world it is essential to recognize that protecting national security is a lot more complicated than it was during the Cold War, and there are many other issues that require attention and action.

Thankfully, the men and women of the intelligence community already recognize this crucial fact, and are working hard to address the wide variety of threats and challenges that face America in the 21st century. Unfortunately, many policymakers still think of intelligence in 20th century terms, and as a result many of our national intelligence capabilities are underused and underappreciated.

The best example of this is unquestionably in the field of energy security. American dependence on foreign oil has made our Nation less safe. Oil revenues have provided income for dangerous rogue states, they have sparked bloody civil wars, and they have even provided funding for terrorism. In a sickening phenomenon that I call the terror tax, every time that Americans drive their cars down to the gas station and fill up at the pump, the reality is that a portion of that money is then turned over to foreign governments that ``backdoor'' it over to Islamist extremists, who use that money to perpetuate terrorism and hate. As the GAO has pointed out, while talking about the oil-rich nation of Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry,

although largely owned by the government, has fostered the

creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy

Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose

operations extend to many countries. U.S. government and

other expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the

global propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of

Western values, and support to terrorist activities.

Furthermore, by allowing our national energy security to depend on foreign oil, we are leaving the American economy vulnerable to external shocks and disruptions. Recent American history is full of examples of events overseas jolting U.S. energy supplies, and just a couple decades ago the oil cartel known as OPEC declared an embargo which sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin.

There are many other challenges out there that have the potential to affect U.S. national security and energy security. For example, it seems clear that the Middle East will remain in turmoil for years to come, and policmakers will have to consider the potential impact of events such as a terrorist attack on a major oil facility, or a change in government in an oil-producing state, or the further deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Outside of the Middle East there are other challenges to face, including the continued growth of major energy consuming countries like India and China, the policies of less- predictable governments such as Russia and Venezuela, and the emergence of new energy producers in unstable areas of the world.

As policymakers attempt to grapple with these challenges, it is vital for them to be informed by the best thinking available, and as I said, the men and women of our national intelligence agencies are already performing quality analysis on many topics relevant to national security. This expertise is spread throughout the intelligence community, and includes professionals at the National Intelligence Council, the CIA's Office of Transnational Issues, and the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Department of Energy.

Unfortunately, this expertise is rarely used to inform energy policy debates, primarily because these agencies generally use it to produce classified assessments. This means that I can discuss them in closed sessions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but not at hearings of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, even though I am a member of both committees. This legislation would address this problem by requiring the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the production of an unclassified report on the intelligence community's assessments of key energy issues that have implications for the national security of the United States. It will be up to the intelligence agencies to determine what information can safely be discussed in public, but I am confident that the Director will be able to provide Congress with a report that includes thoughtful, insightful discussion of these issues, without revealing any sensitive information or compromising any sources and methods.

This legislation is entitled the Weighing Intelligence for Smarter Energy Act, or the WISE Act for short. I think that my colleagues and the American public would agree that when it comes to protecting our national energy security, it certainly wouldn't hurt for Congress to be a little bit wiser.

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