Lifetime Income Disclosure Act

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill important to public health and safety and the environment in the West. This legislation addresses an interpretation by the Department of the Interior, DOI, which restricts the ability of States to use certain funds under the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, Program authorized by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA, for non-coal mine reclamation.

The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 contained amendments to SMCRA reauthorizing collection of an AML fee on coal produced in the U.S. and making certain modifications to the AML program. Under this program, which is administered by DOI, funds are expended to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public health, safety, general welfare, and property, and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but under section 409 of SMCRA, funds have been available to address non- coal mine sites.

Pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion, M-37014, issued by the DOI's Solicitor on December 5, 2007, the Department has interpreted the amendments in a manner that limits the ability of western States to use certain funds under SMCRA to address significant problems relating to non-coal abandoned mines. This is in spite of the fact that these funds had previously been available for these purposes. In accordance with section 409 of SMCRA, western States such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, have prioritized the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on both coal and non-coal mine sites. While activities on non-coal sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of the funding provided for the overall AML program, the results in terms of public health and safety in these States is considerable, and there is significant work yet to be done. For example, New Mexico alone has over 15,000 remaining mine openings with a vast majority of these being non-coal. Uranium mine reclamation is a particular priority in New Mexico. All AML-related fatalities in New Mexico in the last few decades have been at non-coal mine sites.

The bill that I am introducing today would correct what I believe is an unfortunate interpretation of the 2006 Amendments by modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that the funding would be available for non-coal reclamation as it was prior to the passage of the amendments in 2006. Under the bill, which makes a conforming change to sections 409 and 411 of SMCRA, western, non-certified States

could continue to use their State share balances, including amounts comprising their so-called previously unappropriated State share balances, for non-coal reclamation.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, which has important implications for abandoned mine clean-up in the West.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lifetime Income Disclosure Act, to help Americans ensure they do not outlive their retirement savings. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Isakson, and the Chairman of the Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in introducing the Act. In sum, the Act would require private defined contribution retirement plans annually to show plan participants how their account balances translate into monthly income equivalents, based on age at retirement and other factors. The act is structured so as not to impose a material burden on employers.

As life expectancies rise, individuals have an increasing need for protection against the risk that they will outlive their savings. In fact, Boston College's National Retirement Risk Index recently found that half of American households are ``at risk'' of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement.

But trends in retirement plan coverage are only increasing this risk. Defined benefit pension plans--to which employers make regular fixed contributions--are becoming rare. Individuals who receive any form of workplace retirement account are increasingly offered the opportunity to contribute to defined contribution plans, like 401(k)s, to which the employer may or may not provide a matching contribution. At present, 401(k) plan statements typically provide a total account balance, but not a monthly income equivalent. Consequently, employees are not well- prepared to evaluate whether they are saving adequately to maintain cost of their current standard of living in retirement.

To address this challenge, the act would require that defined contribution plans subject to ERISA, such as 401(k) plans, include ``annuity equivalents'' on benefit statements provided to employees. An annuity equivalent is the monthly annuity payment that would be made if the employee's total account balance were used to buy a life annuity that commenced payments at the plan's normal retirement age, generally 65. The act requires the statement to show the monthly annuity payments under both a single life annuity and a qualified joint and survivor annuity--that is, an annuity with survivor benefits payable for life to the employee's spouse. The annuity equivalents would only be required to be provided once a year, even where quarterly statements are otherwise required.

In this regard, 401(k) benefit statements would become better coordinated with Social Security benefit statements, which only express benefits in the form of a life annuity. Knowing the amount of monthly income they can expect from Social Security and their define contribution plan will help employees determine whether they are on the path to a secure retirement. Additionally, including annuity equivalents on benefit statements will make employees more aware of the possibility upon retirement of receiving at least a portion of their benefit in the form of an annuity that protects them against outliving their savings.

As I have already discussed, this proposal addresses a critical public policy issue. But it is equally important that the proposal be structured not to impose any material burden or potential liability on employers that voluntarily maintain a plan. Thus, the act directs the Department of Labor to issue, within a year, assumptions that employers may use in converting a lump sum amount into an annuity equivalent. Accordingly, employers will be able to base their annuity equivalents entirely on clear mechanical assumptions prescribed by the DOL. Of course, to the extent that a participant's benefit is or may be invested in an annuity contract that guarantees a specified annuity benefit, the DOL shall, to the extent appropriate, permit such specified benefit to be treated as an annuity equivalent.

The DOL would further be directed to issue, within a year, a model disclosure that explains the assumptions used to determine the annuity equivalents and the fact that the annuity equivalents provided are only estimates. This model disclosure would include a clear explanation that actual annuity benefits may be materially different from such estimates.

The act also provides employers with a clear path to avoid liability: under the act, employers and service providers using the model disclosure and following the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules would not have any liability with regard to the provision of annuity equivalents. This exemption from liability would apply to any disclosure of an annuity equivalent that incorporates the explanation from the model disclosure and that is prepared in accordance with the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules. For example, subject to such conditions, the exemption would apply to annuity equivalents available on a Web site or provided quarterly.

Finally, the act would not go into effect until a year after the DOL has issued the guidance needed by employers to implement the new rules.

Our proposal is a small step, but one that can make a significant difference in beginning to tackle a key policy challenge. I am pleased that the act enjoys the support of many advocates for retirement security, including AARP, the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, and the Council of Independent 401(k) Recordkeepers. I look forward to working with Senators Isakson and Kohl to see these provisions enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Voinovich, the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009.

Since 2005, our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia has held a series of six oversight hearings on the serious shortfalls of the Federal Government's ability to effectively and efficiently issue security clearances to federal employees and contractors.

This issue was placed on the Government Accountability Office's, GAO, High-Risk List in 2005. Since then, through the strong oversight of our Subcommittee and hard work of those in the government dedicated to reforming and modernizing the security clearance process, the tremendous backlog of security clearance investigations has all but vanished, and clearance determinations are made much more quickly. While progress has been made, we must use this opportunity to continue to push for fundamental changes to the clearance process to ensure that we do not experience the same problems in the future.

In 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRTPA, P.L. 108-458, required 90 percent of clearances to be completed within an average of 60 days by December 2009. At the time, it took almost a year to complete a Top Secret clearance request. IRTPA also required that agencies recognize clearance determinations made by other agencies to ensure reciprocity of clearances. An Executive Order was issued to implement these requirements, designating the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, as the agency responsible for setting security clearance policy and calling on the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to conduct clearance investigations. Unfortunately, clearance timeliness continued to be unacceptably slow.

After continued pressure from our Subcommittee and other stakeholders, in 2008, OMB brought together the Department of Defense, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, and OPM to create a plan to overhaul and streamline the clearance process government-wide. At the recommendation of this reform team, a new executive order was issued creating a governance structure for overseeing and modernizing the federal government's security clearance and suitability processes. The members of the reform team were designated as the Suitability and Security Clearance Performance Accountability Council, PAC.

Since the creation of the PAC and the implementation of some reforms, including enhanced application processes, new clearance standards, and plans for electronic adjudication and reevaluation, timeliness of clearances has greatly improved. Already, agencies are generally meeting goals laid out by the IRTPA. However, this has required tremendous effort and a surge in investigation capacity over several years to address backlogs.

The bill that we are introducing today would address the lingering concerns over the clearance process and help sustain the momentum for reforming and modernizing the security clearance and suitability determination processes.

First, to ensure accountability in security clearance reform and modernization, it is necessary to produce more detailed timeliness reporting. Today, OMB only reports the average timeliness of the 90 fastest percent of clearances. At our Subcommittee hearings, the GAO has repeatedly called for expanded reporting. It is important that we look at the timeliness of the whole process. Our legislation would require more complete reporting on timeliness for all clearances, not just the 90 percent that we see today. For the first time, it would require OMB to break down the numbers based on types of clearances and employee groups, and to report on which agencies are complying with reciprocal recognition of clearances. While the current IRTPA reporting requirements end in 2011, our legislation would extend these requirements to ensure that we receive reports until GAO has concluded this is no longer a high-risk issue.

To ensure consistent leadership, our bill would codify the Performance Accountability Council, which has been the catalyst for much of the reform we have seen to date. It is critical that we codify the PAC as its future was in doubt during the presidential transition as the new administration reviewed previous executive orders.

GAO has also urged the creation of new metrics that would measure not only the timeliness of clearance determinations, but also the quality and completeness of investigations. These metrics should be defined through the creation of a comprehensive strategic plan for clearance modernization. In response to GAO's recommendations, the legislation would require the PAC to create a comprehensive strategic plan. This plan would outline reform goals, establish performance measures, create a more robust communications strategy, define clear roles and responsibilities for stakeholders, and examine funding needs in order to keep reforms on track.

Finally, this bill would require that the PAC undertake a more comprehensive information technology assessment than it has to date. Today, dozens of intertwined systems are used in the clearance process. These systems are a patchwork of outdated technology owned by different agencies. Rather than conducting an inventory of the current technology in use, as the PAC has already done, our bill would require a true needs assessment to define the most effective information technology approach.

Our Subcommittee, under both my leadership and that of Senator Voinovich, has worked in a bipartisan manner on this issue seamlessly for several years and our oversight has yielded positive results. It is vital, from both a human capital perspective and a national security perspective, that security clearances and suitability determinations be of the highest quality and made in a timely manner. We must work to make sure this issue is removed from the High-Risk List as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lifetime Income Disclosure Act, to help Americans ensure they do not outlive their retirement savings. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Isakson, and the Chairman of the Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in introducing the Act. In sum, the Act would require private defined contribution retirement plans annually to show plan participants how their account balances translate into monthly income equivalents, based on age at retirement and other factors. The act is structured so as not to impose a material burden on employers.

As life expectancies rise, individuals have an increasing need for protection against the risk that they will outlive their savings. In fact, Boston College's National Retirement Risk Index recently found that half of American households are ``at risk'' of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement.

But trends in retirement plan coverage are only increasing this risk. Defined benefit pension plans--to which employers make regular fixed contributions--are becoming rare. Individuals who receive any form of workplace retirement account are increasingly offered the opportunity to contribute to defined contribution plans, like 401(k)s, to which the employer may or may not provide a matching contribution. At present, 401(k) plan statements typically provide a total account balance, but not a monthly income equivalent. Consequently, employees are not well- prepared to evaluate whether they are saving adequately to maintain cost of their current standard of living in retirement.

To address this challenge, the act would require that defined contribution plans subject to ERISA, such as 401(k) plans, include ``annuity equivalents'' on benefit statements provided to employees. An annuity equivalent is the monthly annuity payment that would be made if the employee's total account balance were used to buy a life annuity that commenced payments at the plan's normal retirement age, generally 65. The act requires the statement to show the monthly annuity payments under both a single life annuity and a qualified joint and survivor annuity--that is, an annuity with survivor benefits payable for life to the employee's spouse. The annuity equivalents would only be required to be provided once a year, even where quarterly statements are otherwise required.

In this regard, 401(k) benefit statements would become better coordinated with Social Security benefit statements, which only express benefits in the form of a life annuity. Knowing the amount of monthly income they can expect from Social Security and their define contribution plan will help employees determine whether they are on the path to a secure retirement. Additionally, including annuity equivalents on benefit statements will make employees more aware of the possibility upon retirement of receiving at least a portion of their benefit in the form of an annuity that protects them against outliving their savings.

As I have already discussed, this proposal addresses a critical public policy issue. But it is equally important that the proposal be structured not to impose any material burden or potential liability on employers that voluntarily maintain a plan. Thus, the act directs the Department of Labor to issue, within a year, assumptions that employers may use in converting a lump sum amount into an annuity equivalent. Accordingly, employers will be able to base their annuity equivalents entirely on clear mechanical assumptions prescribed by the DOL. Of course, to the extent that a participant's benefit is or may be invested in an annuity contract that guarantees a specified annuity benefit, the DOL shall, to the extent appropriate, permit such specified benefit to be treated as an annuity equivalent.

The DOL would further be directed to issue, within a year, a model disclosure that explains the assumptions used to determine the annuity equivalents and the fact that the annuity equivalents provided are only estimates. This model disclosure would include a clear explanation that actual annuity benefits may be materially different from such estimates.

The act also provides employers with a clear path to avoid liability: under the act, employers and service providers using the model disclosure and following the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules would not have any liability with regard to the provision of annuity equivalents. This exemption from liability would apply to any disclosure of an annuity equivalent that incorporates the explanation from the model disclosure and that is prepared in accordance with the prescribed assumptions and DOL rules. For example, subject to such conditions, the exemption would apply to annuity equivalents available on a Web site or provided quarterly.

Finally, the act would not go into effect until a year after the DOL has issued the guidance needed by employers to implement the new rules.

Our proposal is a small step, but one that can make a significant difference in beginning to tackle a key policy challenge. I am pleased that the act enjoys the support of many advocates for retirement security, including AARP, the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, and the Council of Independent 401(k) Recordkeepers. I look forward to working with Senators Isakson and Kohl to see these provisions enacted into law.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Transitional Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, Act, and I am pleased to do so with the support of Senators Brown, Whitehouse, Akaka, Durbin, Klobuchar, and Begich. This bill is an important step in continuing the conversation about how we can help our States, businesses, and individuals as our economy recovers.

In my State of Rhode Island, the economic downturn has been particularly hard hitting on families and businesses. As a result, the State has seen a decline in tax revenue and an increased enrollment in safety net programs like Medicaid. Revenue from the sales tax is down over 7 percent, income tax receipts are down 2.3 percent, and corporate tax revenue is down nearly 10 percent. At the same time, unemployment rates have soared to new heights, topping 13 percent earlier this year. In the past 2 years, 40,000 Rhode Islanders have lost their employer- sponsored health insurance. Many of these individuals have come to rely on Medicaid for health coverage. This has caused great strain on the State's resources and its Medicaid program. In November, we learned that the estimated Medicaid caseload for the year will cost over $40 million more than what the State had initially estimated in its budget.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which I supported, provided States with additional Federal assistance through 2010. States have used these funds to help balance their budgets, minimize harmful cuts in public services, and, very importantly, to prevent tax increases in many cases. However, even with the funding from the Recovery Act, Rhode Island will close the current fiscal year $219.8 million in the red.

A total of 38 States have looked ahead to fiscal year 2011, and they have estimated $92 billion in combined deficits in the coming year. As the State fiscal year nears, and more States have had ample time to analyze their fiscal health it is expected that the total shortfall will likely equal $180 billion.

As Congress debates health reform and works to ensure that every American has access to health insurance in 2014, we must not forget about ensuring that Americans have access to health insurance between now and then, as the economy slowly recovers and as state budgets begin to heal. During this tough time we need to help individuals, businesses, and States, and I am particularly concerned with making sure our States have the resources to provide adequate health care.

Unless Congress acts on FMAP legislation, States will be forced to use their limited resources to cover an expanded Medicaid population beginning in January 2011. Since States are planning their fiscal year 2011 budgets, which will begin in July, many Governors are requesting Congress act now to provide States with additional Federal support.

The Transitional FMAP Act would extend the enhanced FMAP funding which we passed in the Recovery Act for two additional quarters. This extension accounts for the prolonged recession and ensures that the pressure of Medicaid needs do not overwhelm the States. The bill would also begin a slow decrease of enhanced FMAP funding from July 2011 through December 2013. This will help States as they recover and ensure that States do not experience a gap in assistance prior to health reform-related FMAP levels beginning in January 2014.

Mr. President, this additional funding is important for States, businesses, and individuals. I know that Chairman Baucus and Leader Reid are well aware of the importance of FMAP and have a history to working to aid our States. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues to provide States with necessary additional Federal Medicaid assistance.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and Chairman on the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, Senator Akaka, to ensure that security clearance reform efforts begun in recent years continue by cosponsoring the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009.

Since the 1990s, the Government's Accountability Office, GAO, has documented problems with the Department of Defense's, DoD, personnel security clearance program, and in 2005 added the program to its high- risk list. DoD's personnel security clearance program has remained on the 2007 and 2009 high risk lists.

In an effort to address this matter and improve the security clearance process, Congress set benchmarks for the time taken to issue clearances in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, IRTPA. IRTPA also required the President to select a single agency or office to oversee the security clearance process across the federal government and required uniform policies regarding the security clearance process, reciprocal recognition of security clearances among agencies, an evaluation of technology to expedite security clearance processes, and a plan to reduce the length of the security clearance process. While progress has been made to decrease the amount of time it takes to obtain a security clearance, more improvement is needed to fully reform the security clearance process, but reform efforts have been delayed this year by an interagency review of the security clearance reform initiatives undertaken over the past several years.

To ensure that the good work begun with passage of IRTPA in 2004, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Akaka's legislation that extends IRTPA's reporting requirements relating to security clearance reform efforts beyond their current 2011 expiration date and requires more details in those reports about the amount of time required by individual agencies to conduct both security clearance investigations and adjudications. To ensure that efforts begun over the past several years continue, the bill codifies portions of Executive Order 13467, which deals with reforming processes related to eligibility for access to classified information. The bill also calls for the development of the strategic plan GAO has been asking for since the DoD personnel security clearance program was put on its high risk list in 2005 and requires a more detailed information technology strategy relating to security clearance reform efforts.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the Senator from Hawaii for his work on this legislation to address such an important issue.