[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S493-S499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 2573. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require a
program of mental health care and rehabilitation for veterans for
service-related post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety
disorder, or a related substance use disorder, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on
legislation I am introducing today that will hopefully chart a new
course for veterans with mental illness--the Veterans Mental Health
Treatment First Act.
As the title suggests, the bill proposes to advance a commonsense
concept: Providing medical treatment for mental illness as a first
priority will lead to a better quality of life for tens of thousands of
veterans. It is a simple concept with which few would disagree.
[[Page S494]]
The problem is that the Government agency tasked with advancing that
concept--the Department of Veterans Affairs--lacks the proper focus to
actually deliver. Notice I didn't say VA lacked the tools to deliver.
It has the tools--a world-class health care system, evidence-based
therapies emphasizing recovery and rehabilitation, first-line
medications, and the support of a dedicated group of clinical
professionals. The problem is that, as an agency, VA doesn't coordinate
the use of all of its resources--medical treatment, vocational
rehabilitation, and disability compensation--to ensure what is
universally agreed as the desired outcome of those with disabilities:
wellness and a return to a productive life.
Let me take a few minutes to lay out some of the facts for my
colleagues. These facts have helped me get a better grasp of what the
problem is, and they have truly informed my belief that a new approach
to solving the problem is, in fact, necessary.
Fact No. 1: There has been a steep increase in the number of veterans
receiving disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder.
In a 2005 report, the VA inspector general issued the following
findings:
During fiscal years 1999 through 2004, the number and
percentage of PTSD cases increased significantly. While the
total number of all veterans receiving disability
compensation grew by only 12.2 percent, the number of PTSD
cases grew by 79.5 percent, from 120,265 cases in fiscal year
1999 to 215,871 cases in fiscal year 2004.
Sadly, the trend has not decelerated. Through September of 2007,
299,672--almost 300,000--veterans with PTSD were on the compensation
rolls, a 39-percent increase since the VA inspector general's findings.
Now, many might argue that it is only natural that we would see an
increase in PTSD compensation given that we have been in a war on
terror since the year 2001. However, today there are just under 30,000
veterans of the global war on terror on the disability compensation
rolls for PTSD. Thus, the increase in PTSD rate represents a broad
cross-section of the veterans community.
No matter how far removed they are from military service, veterans
are filing claims and being granted service-connected compensation for
PTSD, and these staggering increases are occurring despite a decline--a
decline--in the overall veteran population.
Fact No. 2: Veterans with PTSD-related compensation appear never to
get better, only to get worse.
I just provided the sobering statistics about a 120-percent increase
in PTSD disability rolls since 1999. Here is what the VA inspector
general found in its 2005 review of veterans who have been added to the
disability rolls:
Based on our review of PTSD claim files, we observed that
the rating evaluation level typically increased over time,
indicating the veteran's PTSD condition had worsened.
Generally, once a PTSD rating was assigned, it was increased
over time until the veteran was paid at the 100 percent rate.
This fact is even more disturbing than the first. It suggests a trend
toward not only increasing sickness over time but also permanent
sickness. It also suggests a certain sense of inevitability among those
with lower disability ratings that the natural progression is for them
to slip into total 100 percent. Then, as time wears on, total and
permanent disability is, in fact, established.
Mr. President, words have meanings. My greatest worry is that the
message carried by an undesirable rating may lessen a veteran's resolve
to seek treatment and to actually get better. They may feel themselves
as beyond recovery, caught in the quicksand of permanent disability. If
our current system encourages this kind of mindset, then we must change
it.
Fact 3: There is evidence that PTSD is treatable and that VA has the
tools to do it.
This may seem paradoxical, but it is true. The same agency that
possesses disability claims showing veterans sliding toward increasing
and permanent sickness is, in fact, the same agency that is recognized
as having the tools necessary to successfully treat PTSD.
On the question of whether PTSD is treatable, here is what the
Institute of Medicine found in their 2007 report:
The committee finds that the evidence is sufficient to
conclude the efficacy of exposure therapies in the treatment
of PTSD.
The Institute of Medicine also recommended additional research
regarding the efficacy of other forms of PTSD treatment, but at a
minimum, it concluded that the evidence suggests that at least one form
of treatment worked.
What specific assets does the VA have to help veterans with PTSD?
Well, let me list those assets, and let me also remind my colleagues
that the VA health care system has been widely lauded by independent
experts as one of the top health care providers in the United States.
The VA has 215 readjustment counseling centers, or Vet Centers, which
offer readjustment counseling for PTSD for afflicted veterans. The VA
has PTSD clinic teams or specialists at each of its 153 medical centers
across the country. The VA has 8 specialized PTSD inpatient units, 10
PTSD residential rehabilitation programs, 9 PTSD domiciliary programs,
7 women's trauma recovery programs, 10 day hospital outpatient
programs, 10 substance use PTSD outpatient programs, and 22 women's
stress treatment outpatient programs. These programs offer a full
spectrum of therapies, including exposure therapies and medications to
treat our veterans for PTSD. In total, VA is planning to spend more
than $3 billion on health care services this year--roughly one-tenth of
its total medical care budget.
So how do we explain this paradox? Why does a look at the
compensation rolls show us that veterans with mental illness are
getting progressively worse even though the VA health system is
recognized as having the tools to make them better?
That question leads me to my fourth and final fact: There is a poor
linkage between the arm of VA that treats PTSD--the Veterans Health
Administration--and the arm of the VA that awards disability
compensation--the Veterans Benefits Administration.
One of VA's strategic objectives is to restore the capabilities of
disabled veterans to the greatest extent possible. Most would agree
with that objective, and most would conclude that restoring capability
involves a focus on treatment and rehabilitation and not a rush to, in
fact, award disability compensation.
The problem is that the VA is inconsistent in how it measures whether
it is achieving its objective. On the health care side, VA measures
whether it is obtaining this objective by measuring meaningful outcome
data regarding wellness and disease prevention. On the disability
benefits side, it measures it by how fast and accurate a disability
claim can in fact be decided.
There is a serious disconnect here. One side emphasizes health and
wellness, the other emphasizes a rush to award compensation confirming
the existence of illness. There is no requirement that these two sides
work together. Thus, disability compensation can be awarded and
increased over the years without a veteran ever receiving medical
treatment.
To me, there is something backward about how this works. The Veterans
Disability Benefits Commission honed in on this point in its 2007
report. There is little interaction between the Veterans Health
Administration, which examines veterans for evaluation of severity of
symptoms, and treats veterans with PTSD, and the Veterans Benefits
Administration, which assesses disability ratings and may or may not
require periodic reexamination.
A further disconnect seen by the Veterans Disability Benefits
Commission, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing
last week at which the chairman of the Disability Commission, GEN James
Terry Scott, testified. I asked General Scott specifically to expand on
the Commission's findings and, more importantly, their recommendations.
General Scott told me it was not his intent to offend anyone, but that
we have been paying people with PTSD to go away; not to treat them, to
go away. He went on to say that disability compensation has precluded,
in the judgment of the Commission, any effort to make veterans with
PTSD better, the No. 1 objective, I believe, of our system.
General Scott then made the following statement that represents the
heart of the Commission's findings on the link between PTSD
compensation and treatment:
[[Page S495]]
It is our judgment that one of the principal goals of the
VA and of the Commission, was that we want to make people
better so they can return to the fullest extent possible,
into ordinary lives without treatment. I do not see how we
are fulfilling our obligation.
These facts lead me, and I hope they will lead my colleagues as well,
to the inescapable conclusion that the current approach to helping our
veterans diagnosed with PTSD simply is not working. It is abundantly
clear that we need to try something new. Again to quote the Veterans
Disability Benefits Commission report:
The Commission believes that PTSD is treatable, that it
frequently reoccurs and remits, and that veterans with PTSD
would be better served by a new approach to their care.
The Veterans Disability Benefits Commission says:
Veterans with PTSD would be better served by a new approach
to their care.
I believe the legislation I am introducing today is, in fact, that
new approach. Before I describe the legislation and how it works, let
me describe how the present system is working or, as the evidence
suggests, not working.
Let's say a young marine who is 2 years removed from his service in
Iraq comes to the VA because he is suffering from PTSD-related
flashbacks and cannot hold down a steady job. As a consequence, he is
having trouble paying his bills. We all would.
That veteran needs help immediately. First and foremost, he needs
mental health treatment before his condition worsens, but he also needs
short-term financial help during his treatment period. If we cannot
address that, we cannot be assured that the correct amount of
rehabilitation takes place.
Under the current system, the veteran might first be counseled to
file a disability claim with the Veterans Benefits Administration. And
who could blame him. It is the source of money. He sees that as the
quickest route to solving his immediate financial crisis.
Although medical care would be made available at that time, the
veteran cannot simply afford to put his life on hold to get well. We
can all associate with this. After a 6-month wait, the average time it
now takes to process a disability claim--average; some are sooner, more
are later, but the average is 6 months--the veteran might be rated
service connected due to disability. But by that time, a critical
window of opportunity for wellness would have come and gone. The
veteran's experience with the VA will have been one that emphasizes his
sickness and the level of his disability rather than wellness through
an aggressive treatment program.
What would my legislation do? It would establish a program to refocus
the existing system to one that emphasizes and incentivizes wellness.
It would say to a veteran eligible for VA health care who suffers
from service-related PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder, or related
substance use disorder, that our focus is to make certain you are given
the best efforts to get healthy and to feel better.
It would do this by providing--get this--a wellness stipend, a
wellness stipend for up to 1 year to any veteran diagnosed with these
conditions so long as the VA diagnosing physician judges the conditions
to be plausibly related to military service.
All the veteran would have to do is to agree faithfully to attend the
prescribed treatment regime, in other words, go get the services that
are already provided, and hold off on filing disability for those
illnesses until you have completed your rehab schedule. So if the rehab
schedule the doctor prescribes is 6 months, we want you to hold off
filing the disability claim for 6 months so we can give you the
financial help you need to get through it, we can focus you into
treatment, and at the end of the time you and the system can assess
where you are.
That is it. And we will do that for up to a year. Here is how it
works for the marine whom I spoke about earlier. Upon diagnosis and
treatment with the conditions of the program, an immediate $2,000
wellness stipend is made to him. All of a sudden the immediate
financial crisis could be over; no lengthy claims process, no 6-month
delay in getting needed financial help.
With this immediate financial infusion, our marine can focus on
getting well and not worrying about how he pays the next month's rent.
More importantly, every 90 days that he participates, every 90 days
that they can say ``he came to rehab,'' it translates into an
additional $1,500 of a wellness stipend, a reward for continued
participation. Finally, at the end of the treatment program, in this
case the end of a year, a final $3,000 wellness stipend would go to the
marine. Thus, in the total of a 1-year treatment program, we would pay
the maximum wellness stipend of $11,000.
Think about this. We are actually taking the most difficult piece,
which is the financial obligation, and we are setting that aside so we
can focus on what I believe is our obligation: to make sure that we
provide the best course of rehab, of prevention, of wellness.
I recognize treatment programs will vary depending on the medical
needs of the veteran. My legislation gives the VA complete discretion
to develop a recovery plan of an appropriate type and duration. Hence,
if our marine only needs a 4-month program, he would receive $2,000 of
wellness stipend up front, $1,500 after 90 days, and $3,000 at the end
of the program, for a total of $6,500.
Hopefully, at the conclusion of the treatment of our marine, he will
then be healthy, or at least healthy enough to reenter society and move
on to a productive life. If the opposite is true and the marine did not
get well, his option to file a disability claim is still available in
total. We have not deprived any veteran of their right to file
disability claims.
What we have asked is: Set it aside, let's focus on treatment, let's
make sure you are not financially strapped, and at the end of intense
treatment, focus on that treatment, let's get back together, and if you
are still in a situation where you are disabled, then we file the
disability claim.
I know some might think this is a nonconcept, paying people to come
in for what is basically free health care. But I think it is time for
all of us to recognize what the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission
and the Dole-Shalala commission have already recognized: treatment,
rehabilitation, and recovery need to be the primary focus of our VA
health and benefits system. And, more importantly, they need to be the
focus of our mental health services.
Let me quote the Disability Commission on this very point.
The Commission believes that a new, holistic approach to
PTSD should be considered. This approach should couple PTSD
treatment, compensation, and vocational assessment.
The Disability Benefits Commission felt so strongly about focusing on
treatment for those with mental illness, particularly PTSD, that it
recommended that we condition the receipt of compensation on the
receipt of treatment.
I am not proposing that we condition it as the Commission has
proposed to Congress, but I want my colleagues to understand, you
cannot have multiple commissions look at this issue and say: It is
broken. It does not focus on the wellness our veterans need. It needs
to be changed.
Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala's commission recommended providing
transition payments for injured service personnel while they receive
treatment and rehabilitation services, and they recommended an
incentive bonus payment designed to reward participants in a rehab
program for achieving certain milestones, that if they actually
accomplished a milestone that was set, we give them a financial
incentive.
Why? Because today's veteran, in many cases, has expectations that
are unlike any generation before. Because of their age, because of the
types of injuries they are exposed to, what their expectations are with
an artificial limb--I lose no mobility, I am just as productive, I can
play golf, I can run, I can play basketball, I can even pass a physical
to stay in the Army. That is the reality. If we lose them up here, we
have done them an injustice relative to their expectations for life. I
think both commissions focused on an innovative approach to wellness,
and the Disability Commission approach goes farther than mine in that
it is a negative incentive as opposed to a positive one, but the
underlying concepts are the same. The current system is not working.
Let's try something new.
[[Page S496]]
I want to make a few points clear. First, under my legislation, no
veteran would have to give up his or her right to receive disability
compensation. Veterans can file a claim whenever they want. If they
decide when they are presented this option right at the beginning that
they want to file a disability claim and roll the dice on rehab, they
can do that. If they get a month into rehab and they decide: I do not
think this is working, they can file a disability claim. They will not
get a financial stipend at the end of 90 days. They can drop out. They
can continue to access VA benefits. They can continue to stay in rehab.
But they may feel compelled to go ahead and file a disability claim.
They can do that. The financial stipend ends, but we still continue the
treatment, we just do not have an incentive for them to attend.
The wellness stipend, as I said, will be paid only if the veteran
agrees to stay faithful to the program and holds off on filing the
claims during that treatment period of up to 1 year.
Second, none of the nearly 300,000 veterans already in receipt of
PTSD-related compensation and the thousands of others in receipt of
compensation for depression and anxiety disorder would have to give up
their compensation in order to participate in the treatment first
program. For them, my legislation would pay a wellness stipend that is
one-third the amount I mentioned earlier, so long as they agreed not to
file a claim to increase their disability rating during this treatment
period.
Let me draw a distinction. For somebody who has already filed a
disability claim, regardless of how old they are, and annually goes to
be rerated, if they delay that rerating, if they go into an intense
rehabilitation program, if, in fact, one has been identified by a
medical professional within the Veterans' Administration for them to
enter into, if they agree not to be rerated until the completion of
that program, we will actually include them in the cash stipend, but it
will be one-third the amount of somebody who enters the system for the
first time. So whether you are a veteran who has never filed a claim
before, a veteran with a claim pending, a veteran already in receipt of
compensation, the treatment first program would be available to all.
Finally, my legislation contains no requirement that disability
compensation be reevaluated at the end of the treatment period. If
treatment works--and the Institute of Medicine says it does--then
veterans will have better lives because of it. That is the only goal of
this legislation. I think we can all look at it, with what we know
about the health care system, we can probably find a rationale to say,
if we invest now in these veterans, we might save money on the back end
for taxpayers in actual health care services that might be provided to
somebody who drops out of the workforce who doesn't regard their health
as important because they have now become locked into a monthly
disability check for their livelihood.
But for the ones who could end up there that we have now gotten into
rehab successfully and increased or changed the quality of their life,
the likelihood is the back end health care cost is minimal, if any.
In conclusion, the status quo is not working. We need a new and bold
approach. My legislation represents a direct challenge to all of us to
think outside the box, to think about things that work elsewhere, but
we haven't tried. Doing so sometimes requires taking steps that are a
little unknown and a little bit unique. I am sure not only Members of
the Senate but the veterans service organizations and, I am sure, the
veterans themselves will look at this and say: Where is the cash?
There is no cash. For once, we have a piece of legislation that is
focused on how to make people better. We are willing to put our money
where our mouth is because it is that important to a 19-year-old who
comes back from Iraq who can truly be made well with the right type of
rehab and who may, because of financial decisions in his own life, not
choose to fully exhaust the rehabilitation needed to overcome that
mental health challenge. This at least would give the American people
the assurance that we have done everything possible for that 19-year-
old to get the services he or she would need to lead a productive and
fruitful life.
I ask my colleagues for their support. It is time to put the
treatment of our veterans with mental health illnesses first.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Menendez, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Levin, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2577. A bill to establish background check procedures for gun
shows; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Show
Background Check Act of 2008. I am proud to be joined by lead cosponsor
Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, as well as Senators Feinstein,
Kennedy, Menendez, Kerry, Schumer, Whitehouse, Inouye, Levin, and
Boxer.
It was almost 9 years ago, on May 20, 1999, that I stood in this
chamber and urged my colleagues to close the gun show loophole once and
for all.
Barely 1 month earlier, two teenagers had shot and killed 12 students
and one teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. None
of us will ever forget the horror we felt as we watched students run in
fear from a shooting rampage that took the lives of 13 innocent people.
Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never
should have had those guns. Some of the guns were purchased from
unlicensed dealers at gun shows.
Although the Federal Brady Law requires licensed firearms dealers to
conduct background checks before selling guns, a loophole in Federal
law allows unlicensed dealers--who make up 20 to 50 percent of all
dealers at gun shows--to sell guns without conducting background
checks.
Because the Columbine killers' guns were bought from unlicensed
dealers, they were sold without a single background check being done. A
friend who bought them guns said she never would have done it if she
had to go through a background check.
In the wake of that terrible tragedy, the Senate responded. We passed
my legislation to close the gun show loophole, with Vice President Al
Gore casting the tiebreaking vote.
Unfortunately, the gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference,
and 9 years later, the gun show loophole is still open. Nine years
after the horror of Columbine, easy access to guns is still the law of
the land, and gun violence still plagues our schools, our streets, and
our communities.
Last April, we witnessed the worst school shooting tragedy in our
Nation's history. Thirty-two students and professors were killed, and
15 more were wounded at Virginia Tech.
We know now that the Virginia Tech shooter never should have been
permitted to buy the two weapons he used that day. He should have been
on a prohibited list because of his history of treatment for serious
mental illness. In response, we are working to make sure that States
include these mental health records in the FBI's background check
database.
However, even if the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped from
buying a gun at a gun shop, he still could have walked down the street
to a gun show to buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer. All the mental
health records in the world will not stop mentally ill people or other
prohibited purchasers from buying guns unless all gun dealers--
including unlicensed dealers at gun shows--have to consult those
records before selling a gun.
That is why the Virginia Tech Review Panel recommended closing the
gun show loophole to prevent prohibited purchasers from buying guns.
That is why the survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre and families of
the victims are fighting to close the gun show loophole.
Today, I ask my colleagues to finish the job we started almost 9
years ago. We must close the loophole that allows convicted felons,
fugitives and domestic abusers to buy guns without going through a
background check.
The Lautenberg-Reed bill would close the gun show loophole by
requiring background checks for all gun sales at gun shows.
Specifically, our bill would require background checks by licensed
firearms dealers for all gun transactions at gun shows; define a gun
show as an event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for
sale; require gun show promoters to register
[[Page S497]]
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, and
ensure that sellers understand their legal obligations; require
licensed gun dealers to keep records of guns sold at gun shows to make
it easier to trace guns that are later used in crime.
This bill is a common-sense public safety measure. It has been
endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Now, let me be very clear: Our bill would not hurt law-abiding gun
owners. It would simply require a background check to stop unlicensed
sellers from selling guns to people who are not allowed to own one.
Approximately 92 percent of background checks are completed within
minutes, and 95 percent are completed within 2 hours.
Those few minutes are worth it. From the enactment of the Brady Act
in 1993 through 2005, nearly 70 million background checks have been
performed, denying guns to 1.36 million prohibited purchasers.
I am proud to say that more than 150,000 of those guns have been
denied to convicted domestic abusers as a result of a law I wrote in
1996.
We can only imagine how many lives have been saved by preventing
felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers from getting those guns. Now we
have the opportunity to save even more lives by requiring that every
gun sold at the thousands of gun shows held across the U.S. each year
goes through a background check.
It has been almost 9 years since the Columbine tragedy. We should not
wait another day to close the gun show loophole.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues
in support of the Gun Show Background Check Act to reduce gun violence.
Closing this dangerous loophole in current Federal gun laws will make
gun show transactions safer for all our people.
Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible gun control laws. They
want effective background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows or
anywhere else. Yet, year after year, the ``gun show loophole'' allows
firearms to be purchased with no questions asked, and legislation is
urgently needed to close this flagrant loophole in our current gun
laws.
Under today's laws, licensed gun dealers must be approved, must
register with the Federal Government, and must conduct background
checks on gun buyers who come to their stores. But in most States,
almost anyone can be an unlicensed private seller of guns. Timothy
McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was one such private seller at gun
shows. These private sellers have no obligation to conduct criminal
background checks on buyers or keep any records at all about the sale.
It is no surprise that felons and other prohibited gun buyers go to gun
shows to buy guns in order to evade background checks. That is
unacceptable. Closing the gun show loophole and requiring background
checks for purchasers at gun shows is vital for public safety.
The Gun Show Background Check Act defines gun shows as any event at
which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale and
requires gun show promoters to register with the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It requires the promoters to
maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and these vendors must
acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. It
also requires that all firearm sales at gun shows go through a Federal
Firearms Licensee. Private vendors and nonlicensed persons will be
required to complete the sale of weapons using such a licensee, who
will be responsible for conducting a background check on the purchaser
and maintaining a record of the transaction. Finally, the bill improves
the tracing of firearms by requiring these licensees to submit
information about firearms sold at gun shows to the ATF's National
Tracing Center.
Approximately 50 percent of all gun sales in the U.S. today are
``private'' sales made by individuals at thousands of gun shows. No
proof of identification and no criminal background check are required.
Even after the horrific events of September 11, suspected terrorists
and felons can easily purchase any quantity of firearms, including
military style assault weapons, without an ID or background check at
gun shows in 32 States. Federal law permits gun owners to sell rifles,
shotguns, and even assault weapons to children, without their parent's
knowledge or permission.
It is not enough to leave this issue any longer to State action. As
John Rosenthal, founder of the nonprofit organization, Stop Handgun
Violence, has pointed out, Massachusetts has enacted some of the most
effective laws to prevent gun violence in the country, but
Massachusetts is surrounded by States, which have no such laws and
allow individuals to buy and sell guns easily. According to ATF data
for 2006, many of the gun crime weapons recovered in Massachusetts had
been obtained in other States with little or no regulation of firearms
sales.
Critics claim that mandating background checks at gun shows will not
reduce crime significantly and will be a step towards banning private
firearms sales between individuals. Some even make the preposterous
claim that there is no gun show loophole, and that gun control
advocates are trying to address a non-existing problem. Evidence
clearly proves, however, that gun shows are an important source of the
guns used in crime in the U.S. During the late 1990s, cases involving
gun shows and flea markets accounted for 30 percent of all trafficked
guns in the U.S. That is no surprise, since there are over 4,000 gun
shows in the U.S. every year, and no Federal laws to regulate them.
Statistics also show that States such as Massachusetts, where strict
gun control legislation has been enacted, have significantly lower
firearm fatality rates than States with lax gun laws.
In another appalling move, the Bush administration successfully
pushed legislation requiring the FBI to destroy records of approved gun
purchases within 24 hours of a completed background check. That action
prevents law enforcement from identifying whether a person under
investigation for another crime, including terrorism, has purchased a
firearm. In addition, if federally licensed gun dealers fail to report
stolen or missing guns, they face only misdemeanor charges, despite the
fact that thousands of guns are stolen from gun stores every year. The
rifle used by the DC sniper was ``lost'' by a gun store--the same store
that ``lost'' 238 guns in 3 years.
We can't ensure public safety unless we stop kowtowing to the gun
lobby. We can't accept a system that allows criminals and terrorists to
buy guns at gun shows without detection. The gun show loophole should
have been closed long ago. I urge my colleagues to enact this vital
legislation to do that. I commend Senator Lautenberg and Senator Reed
for introducing this bill, and I look forward to its enactment into law
as soon as possible. Too many lives are on the line for us to delay any
longer.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 2579. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint
coins in recognition and celebration of the establishment of the United
States Army in 1775, to honor the American soldier of both today and
yesterday, in wartime and in peace, and to commemorate the traditions,
history, and heritage of the United States Army and its role in
American society, from the colonial period to today; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, since its founding in 1775, the U.S. Army
has served this country well for over 230 years and has played a
decisive role in protecting and defending freedom throughout the
history of the U.S., from the Colonial period to today, in wartime and
in peace; and has consistently answered the call to serve the American
people at home and abroad since the Revolutionary War. The sacrifice of
the American soldier, of all ranks, since the earliest days of the
Republic, has been immense and is deserving of the unique recognition
bestowed by commemorative coinage.
Today I rise to introduce the U.S. Army Commemorative Coin Act, and
am joined by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma in support of the bill,
as well as the U.S. Army, the National Museum of the U.S. Army, and the
Army Historical Foundation.
The U.S. Army Commemorative Coin Act authorizes the Secretary of the
[[Page S498]]
Treasury to mint 100,000 five dollar gold coins, 500,000 one dollar
silver coins, and 750,000 half-dollar copper-nickel clad coins.
These coins will be the first U.S. coins to honor the Army as an
institution in its entirety. Coin designs will be emblematic of the
traditions, history and heritage of the U.S. Army, and its role in
American society, from the Colonial period to today. Design motifs will
specifically honor the American soldier, both today and yesterday, in
wartime and in peace; and commemorate the traditions and heritage of
the U.S. Army.
A surcharge will be applied to each coin, in the amount of $35 for
each $5 gold coin, $10 for each silver dollar coin, and $5 for each
half-dollar clad coin. Proceeds from the sales of these coins will be
directed to the Army Historical Foundation specifically to be used to
help finance construction of the National Museum of the U.S. Army at
Fort Belvoir, VA.
The Army, the Nation's oldest and largest military service, is the
only service that currently lacks a comprehensive, national museum
celebrating, preserving and displaying its heritage and honoring its
veterans. The Army also lacks a national memorial to serve as its
national landmark here in America's capital city. The museum will
eventually fill both roles.
One of the ways that the museum already honors Army veterans is
through its ``Registry of the American Soldier.'' The Registry
potentially could contain millions of names and service histories, and
can already be viewed online. It is open to all who have worn the
Army's uniform, and I myself recently became the first Member of the
U.S. Senate to be listed. This registry will eventually be permanently
displayed at the museum after its public opening, due in 2014.
In 2000, the Secretary of the Army designated the Army Historical
Foundation as its primary partner in building the National Museum of
the U.S. Army, and today the Foundation is actively engaged in
executing a major, $200 million, capital campaign to support the
Museum.
These commemorative coins will do more than just honor the Army and
our Army veterans. They will also help ensure that the extraordinary
accomplishment and sacrifice of our soldiers will live on as a legacy
for future generations. This bill authorizes surcharges that may
generate over $12.2 million for the Army museum. I want to assure my
colleagues that this bill will not place any burden on the American
taxpayer. The profits generated by the sales of these coins will cover
all costs incurred by the Department of the Treasury.
Personally, I will never forget the pride I felt in wearing my
uniform during the Second World War, and I know that I share this pride
of service with millions of fellow veterans from all walks of life
across this great country.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which
will honor the U.S. Army while helping to open an outstanding, world-
class National Museum of the U.S. Army just across the river from this
building.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2579
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States Army
Commemorative Coin Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the United States Army, founded in 1775, has served
this country well for over 230 years;
(2) the United States Army has played a decisive role in
protecting and defending freedom throughout the history of
the United States, from the Colonial period to today, in
wartime and in peace, and has consistently answered the call
to serve the American people at home and abroad since the
Revolutionary War;
(3) the sacrifice of the American soldier, of all ranks,
since the earliest days of the Republic has been immense and
is deserving of the unique recognition bestowed by
commemorative coinage;
(4) the Army, the Nation's oldest and largest military
service, is the only service branch that currently does not
have a comprehensive national museum celebrating, preserving,
and displaying its heritage and honoring its veterans;
(5) the National Museum of the United States Army will be--
(A) the Army's only service-wide, national museum honoring
all soldiers, of all ranks, in all branches since 1775; and
(B) located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, across the Potomac
River from the Nation's Capitol, a 10-minute drive from Mount
Vernon, the home of the Army's first Commander-in-Chief, and
astride the Civil War's decisive Washington-Richmond
corridor;
(6) the Army Historical Foundation (in this Act referred to
as the ``Foundation''), founded in 1983--
(A) is dedicated to preserving the history and heritage of
the American soldier; and
(B) seeks to educate future Americans to fully appreciate
the sacrifices that generations of American soldiers have
made to safeguard the freedoms of this Nation;
(7) the completion and opening to the public of the
National Museum of the United States Army will immeasurably
help in fulfilling that mission;
(8) the Foundation is a nongovernmental, member-based, and
publicly supported nonprofit organization that is dependent
on funds from members, donations, and grants for support;
(9) the Foundation uses such support to help create the
National Museum of the United States Army, refurbish
historical Army buildings, acquire and conserve Army
historical art and artifacts, support Army history
educational programs, for research, and publication of
historical materials on the American soldier, and to provide
support and counsel to private and governmental organizations
committed to the same goals as the Foundation;
(10) in 2000, the Secretary of the Army designated the
Foundation as its primary partner in the building of the
National Museum of the United States Army; and
(11) the Foundation is actively engaged in executing a
major capital campaign to support the National Museum of the
United States Army.
SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.
(a) Denominations.--In recognition and celebration of the
founding of the United States Army in 1775, and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
the Treasury (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue the following coins:
(1) $5 gold coins.--Not more than 100,000 $5 coins, which
shall--
(A) weigh 8.359 grams;
(B) have a diameter of 0.850 inches; and
(C) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
(2) $1 silver coins.--Not more than 500,000 $1 coins, which
shall--
(A) weigh 26.73 grams;
(B) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(C) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(3) Half dollar clad coins.--Not more than 750,000 half
dollar coins, which shall--
(A) weigh 11.34 grams;
(B) have a diameter of 1.205 inches; and
(C) be minted to the specifications for half dollar coins,
contained in section 5112(b) of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of sections 5134 and
5136 of title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under
this Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.
(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of the traditions, history, and
heritage of the United States Army, and its role in American
society from the Colonial period to today.
(2) Designations and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act, there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
(B) an inscription of the year ``2011''; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall--
(1) contain motifs that specifically honor the American
soldier of both today and yesterday, in wartime and in peace,
such designs to be consistent with the traditions and
heritage of the United States Army, the mission and goals of
the National Museum of the United States Army, and the
missions and goals of the Foundation;
(2) be selected by the Secretary, after consultation with
the Secretary of the Army, the Foundation, and the Commission
of Fine Arts; and
(3) be reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.
SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.
(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facilities.--For each of the 3 coins minted under
this Act, at least 1 facility of the United States Mint shall
be used to strike proof quality coins, while at least 1 other
such facility shall be used to strike the uncirculated
quality coins.
(c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins
minted under this Act only during the 1-year period beginning
on January 1, 2011.
[[Page S499]]
SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.
(a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be
sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coins;
(2) the surcharge provided in section 7(a) with respect to
such coins; and
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders
for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of
such coins.
(2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders
under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
SEC. 7. SURCHARGES.
(a) In General.--All sales of coins minted under this Act
shall include a surcharge as follows:
(1) A surcharge of $35 per coin for the $5 coin.
(2) A surcharge of $10 per coin for the $1 coin.
(3) A surcharge of $5 per coin for the half dollar coin.
(b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31,
United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary
from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be
promptly paid by the Secretary to the Foundation to help
finance the National Museum of the United States Army.
(c) Audits.--The Foundation shall be subject to the audit
requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of title 31, United States
Code, with regard to the amounts received by the Foundation
under subsection (b).
(d) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), no
surcharge may be included with respect to the issuance under
this Act of any coin during a calendar year if, as of the
time of such issuance, the issuance of such coin would result
in the number of commemorative coin programs issued during
such year to exceed the annual 2-commemorative coin program
issuance limitation under section 5112(m)(1) of title 31,
United States Code (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act). The Secretary of the Treasury may issue guidance
to carry out this subsection.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support for an
effort that I believe is long overdue. I am honored today to join
Senator Inouye as a co-sponsor of the U.S. Army Commemorative Coin Act
of 2008. As co-chair of the Senate Army Caucus and a former soldier, I
am proud to pay tribute to the U.S. Army, which has dutifully served
our Nation for over 230 years.
The Army is the only service branch that currently does not have a
comprehensive museum honoring its members and veterans. The
Commemorative Coin Act will help raise the revenue needed to build a
museum dedicated to the men and women who have for so long protected
the sovereignty and freedom of our country. The museum will serve to
commemorate the enormous sacrifice of our soldiers, and will be a
symbol of the Army's dedication to the fight for freedom.
Since the days of the Continental Army of the Revolution, to the
highly mobile and technological force of today, the U.S. Army has been
the bulwark against which tyranny and oppression have consistently
failed. It is time we permanently memorialize the sacrifice that the
U.S. Army has given to the cause of liberty around the world.
I urge the Congress to quickly grant its approval to the U.S. Army
Commemorative Coin Act of 2008.
______
By Mr. BYRD (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller)
S. 2581. A bill to designate as wilderness additional National Forest
System lands in the Monongahela National Forest in the State of West
Virginia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my friend
and colleague from West Virginia, Senator John D. Rockefeller, to
introduce legislation entitled the Wild Monongahela: A National Legacy
for West Virginia's Special Places. Our legislation would designate
additional wilderness areas in the Monongahela National Forest, located
in eastern West Virginia. A bipartisan companion measure was introduced
yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I have long supported efforts to provide permanent protections for
our most treasured lands. Along with Senator Kennedy and Senator
Inouye, I voted for the original Wilderness Act in 1964. We can proudly
say that the nine million acres of lands protected by the Wilderness
Act has now grown to over 106 million acres in 44 States.
One of the most important sectors for economic development in West
Virginia is environmental tourism. Our ``Wild and Wonderful'' slogan
aptly describes the beautiful vistas, flower covered valleys, free
flowing streams and rivers, and impressive sandstone formations, that
can be found in the Monongahela National Forest. Inclusion of these
sites in and nearby federally protected wilderness areas puts them ``on
the map'' for those seeking an adventure in nature. Attracting these
visitors is one of the keys to future economic growth in West Virginia.
Since the Forest Service released its new Forest Management plan for
the Monongahela National Forest in September 2006, I have heard from
many West Virginians wishing to express their strong opinions on
proposals that call for new wilderness areas. I was particularly
touched by a Christian youth group that visited my office. These young
people spoke in personal terms of how a hike in these wild areas
brought them closer to God.
Currently, the Monongahela National Forest has five protected
wilderness areas, including Otter Creek, Dolly Sods, Laurel Fork North
and South, and Cranberry. These areas comprise about 78,000 acres of
land, approximately eight percent of the Monongahela's 919,000 acres.
Our legislation would designate seven additional areas for wilderness
protection out of the 18 roadless areas evaluated by the Forest
Service. Three of these are expansions of existing wilderness areas.
These are the Cranberry expansion, Dolly Sods expansion, and the Otter
Creek expansion. We propose four new areas for wilderness protection--
Big Draft, Cheat Mountain, Roaring Plains West, and Spice Run. In all,
our legislation would protect an additional 47,000 acres of wilderness.
This would bring the total acreage of wilderness in the Monongahela
National Forest to approximately 125,000 acres, or just under 14
percent of the total forest.
Our legislation would add a significant amount of land to those areas
protected as wilderness. However, the vast majority of the Monongahela
National Forest will continue to be available for the multiple uses
envisioned when the National Forest System was first created. These
include timber harvesting operations, wildlife and fish management, and
recreation.
It is my hope that after much thought and reflection all West
Virginians will see this proposal as a straightforward effort to reach
a bipartisan compromise that has a true chance to become reality. The
result will be that future generations of West Virginians and all
Americans will be able to enjoy the benefits of God's creation.
I wish to thank my fellow members of the West Virginia delegation,
especially Chairman Rahall, for their hard work on this measure.
Senator Rockefeller and I look forward to working with Chairman
Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee to ensure that this measure is passed and signed
into law this year.
____________________