[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 13, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4108-S4114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 3010. A bill to reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor Preservation
Program; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to
continue the restoration and preservation of the unique cultural
resources along the famous Route 66. Passage of the Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Reauthorization Act would carry on the wonderful work of
the Park Service's Route 66 program over the past decade. As in the
past, I am joined in this effort by my colleague from New Mexico,
Senator Bingaman.
In 1990, I introduced the Route 66 Study Act, which directed the
National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve,
commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I later
introduced legislation authorizing the National Park Service to join
with Federal, State and private efforts to preserve various aspects of
historic Route 66, the Nation's most important thoroughfare for east-
west migration during the 20th century.
The Route 66 program is a collective effort by private property
owners; non-profit organizations; and local, State, Federal, and tribal
governments to identify and address preservation needs along the
historic route. The program offers grants for the restoration of
significant properties dating all the way back to the mid 1920s.
The bill authorizes funding over 10 years and supports grassroots
efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. Designated in
1926, the 2,200-mile stretch from Chicago to Santa Monica, California,
the Mother Road, as it was called, rolled through eight American
states, and in New Mexico, it passed through the communities of
Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. New Mexico added
to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their
first experience of our colorful culture and rich heritage. Route 66
allowed travelers to see firsthand previously remote areas and
experience the traditions and natural beauty of the Southwest and West.
The bill authorizes the National Park Service to support State, local
and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing
technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and
making grants. Since 1990, the Park Service has acted as a
clearinghouse for communication among Federal, State, local, private
and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of
America's Main Street. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives,
and I hope Congress will act promptly in passing this important
legislation.
I thank my colleagues for considering the Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Reauthorization Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
S. 3010
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
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 ``Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Program Reauthorization Act''.
SEC. 2. ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PROGRAM.
Section 4 of Public Law 106-45 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 113
Stat. 226) is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting
``2019''.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Shelby,
Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Obama):
S. 3012. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof
Vest Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2012; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill today to
reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act for 3 years,
through 2012. This legislation has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in
Congress since it was enacted in 1998, and I thank Senators Specter,
Mikulski, Shelby and Hatch for joining me in today's introduction. I am
also glad to be joined by Congressmen Visclosky who will introduce this
bill in the House of Representatives today as well.
Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of
Justice has distributed $234 million to State and local jurisdictions.
Those grants have resulted in the purchase of an estimated 818,000
vests. Since its enactment, over 11,900 State and local jurisdictions
have participated in this program. Congress can be proud of the fact
that this legislation has directly provided life-saving equipment to so
many law enforcement officers. I know that when State and local
jurisdictions receive the matching grants through this program, their
budgets can go farther in fighting crime in their communities.
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the
importance of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. We heard from a
law enforcement officer who was shot in the
[[Page S4109]]
chest at pointblank range during an auto theft investigation. He lived
to tell the committee and others his story, thanks to the bulletproof
vest he was wearing. In my home state of Vermont, the program has
allowed the Vermont police to purchase over 350 sets of armor in the
last 10 years. The program has had a tremendous impact on the ability
of States and localities to give our law enforcement officers the
protection they deserve while serving the needs of our communities.
As a Nation, we ask much of our law enforcement officers. Men and
women who serve face constant and unknown risks, and too often make the
ultimate sacrifice. During this week in Washington, law enforcement
officers from around the country will remember those officers who died
in the line of duty while protecting their fellow citizens.
Unfortunately, an ongoing trend of rising violent crime in the U.S.
underscores the continuing need of this program that has had such a
positive impact on the safety of law enforcement officers.
Reauthorizing and funding this program is the right thing to do, and it
is something I hope all Senators will support. Every additional officer
who is able to put on a vest today as a result of this grant program
means that one more officer may survive a violent attack. Protecting
the men and women who protect all Americans should be a priority for
Congress and we have a chance to advance that priority with the
continuation of this important program.
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. 3012
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 ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.
Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(23)) is
amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2012''.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, and Ms.
Murkowski):
S. 3013. A bill to provide for retirement equity for Federal
employees in nonforeign areas outside the 48 contiguous States and the
District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I join with my good friends Senators
Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, and Lisa Murkowski to introduce legislation
to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, and
the U.S. territories. For years, Federal employees in my home state of
Hawaii and in other non-foreign areas have been disadvantaged when it
comes to their retirement due to a lack of locality pay. Federal
workers in those areas may receive a nonforeign cost of living
allowance, COLA, based on the differences in the cost of living between
those areas and the District off Columbia, but this amount does not
count for retirement purposes. Furthermore, while locality rates
generally increase, nonforeign COLAs have been gradually declining.
This lack of retirement equity has resulted, in several lawsuits
against the Federal Government and hinders efforts to recruit and
retain Federal workers in those areas.
On August 17, 2000, the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands
approved the settlement of Caraballo v. United States, which was a
class-action lawsuit in which employees in the nonforeign areas
contested the methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management to
determine COLA rates. However, on January 30, 2008, Judge Phillip M.
Pro in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu ruled against the Federal
employees in Matsuo v. the Office of Personnel Management, which held
that excluding Alaska and Hawaii from locality pay did not violate the
equal protection clause and substantive due process under the Fifth
Amendment. Judge Pro acknowledged the disparity in his ruling saying
that Congress ``discharged its legislative responsibilities
imperfectly'' and recommended that Congress ``correct the incongruity
made so evident by this case.''
While this issue has been discussed for years, a solution seemed out
of reach given the lack of support for various proposed solutions. Last
year, the Administration announced a legislative proposal to phase-out
non-foreign COLA and phase-in locality pay. In May 2007 the
Administration's draft bill was submitted. The draft bill would freeze
nonforeign COLA rates at their current rates at their current rates and
OPM would no longer conduct COLA surveys. Over the 7 years following
the enactment of the proposal, locality pay would be phased in for
General Schedule, GS, employees while nonforeign COLA is phased out.
According to OPM, preliminary data indicates that the locality pay rate
for Hawaii would be 20 percent. At the end of the 7 year period, if the
locality pay rate is less than the amount of nonforeign COLA for a
particular area, employees would continue to receive the difference in
nonforeign COLA and locality pay until the locality rate reaches the
COLA amount. Only at that time would employees no longer receive non-
foreign COLA. However, the proposal did not address the impact such a
change would have on postal employees, employees who receive special
rates, members of the Senior Executive Service, and others who are in
agency specific personnel systems or those who do not receive locality
pay, such as employees under the National Security Personnel System at
the Department of Defense.
Knowing of the growing interest in this proposal, I sent staff from
my Federal Workforce Subcommittee to Hawaii last July to meet with
employees and hear their questions and concerns about the
Administration's proposal. Based on the questions and comments I have
received, I submitted questions to OPM and other Federal agencies to
obtain additional information. I also posted information on the
Administration's proposal on my website, a link to a calculator created
by OPM for Federal employees to determine exactly how their pay and
retirement will be impacted by the proposal, and the agencies' response
to my questions. Since then, I have received numerous letters and phone
calls from constituents and Federal employees in the nonforeign areas
about this issue. While there are still divergent views on this
proposal, the vast majority of employees who I have heard from are
supportive of a change to locality pay.
The legislation I introduce today is a collective effort of Senators
Stevens, Inouye, Murkowski, and myself to find an equitable solution to
a difficult and divided issue. The Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity
Assurance Act is not to be seen as the last word, only the latest step
forward toward determining the best way to ensure retirement equity for
Federal workers in the nonforeign areas. Our bill seeks to provide
answers to the questions raised by the administration's proposal and to
cover all employees. Most importantly, our bill seeks to protect
employee's take home pay. During this current economic climate, we must
be careful to do no harm.
Over the Memorial Day recess my subcommittee plans to hold a series
of meetings in Hawaii on the Administration's proposal and this bill to
hear remaining questions and concerns. I also plan to hold a hearing on
these proposals in Honolulu on May 29, 2008. I continue to encourage
employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and in the territories to write us with
their questions and concerns on these proposals. My ultimate goal
remains to ensure that Federal workers in the nonforeign areas are not
disadvantaged when it comes to their pay and retirement.
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. 3013
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 ``Non-Foreign Area Retirement
Equity Assurance Act of 2008 or the Non-Foreign AREA Act of
2008''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LOCALITY PAY.
(a) Locality-Based Comparability Payments.--Section
5304(f)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(A) each General Schedule position in the United States,
as defined under section
[[Page S4110]]
5921(4), and its territories and possessions, including the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands shall be included within a pay
locality; and''.
(b) Allowances Based on Living Costs and Conditions of
Environment.--Section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding after the last sentence
``Notwithstanding any preceding provision of this subsection,
the cost-of-living allowance rate based on paragraph (1) of
this subsection shall be the cost-of-living allowance rate in
effect on December 31, 2008, except as adjusted under
subsection (c).'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) This section shall apply only to areas that are
designated as cost-of-living allowance areas as in effect on
December 31, 2008.
``(c)(1) The cost-of-living allowance rate payable under
this section shall be adjusted on the first day of the first
applicable pay period beginning on or after--
``(A) January 1, 2009; and
``(B) on January 1 of each calendar year in which a
locality-based comparability adjustment takes effect under
section 4(2) and (3) of the Non-Foreign Area Retirement
Equity Assurance Act of 2008.
``(2)(A) In this paragraph, the term `applicable locality-
based comparability pay percentage' means, with respect to
calendar year 2009 and each calendar year thereafter, the
applicable percentage under section 4(1), (2), or (3) of Non-
Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2008.
``(B) Each adjusted cost-of-living allowance rate under
paragraph (1) shall be computed by--
``(i) subtracting 65 percent of the applicable locality-
based comparability pay percentage from the cost-of-living
allowance percentage rate in effect on December 31, 2008; and
``(ii) dividing the resulting percentage determined under
clause (i) by the sum of--
``(I) one; and
``(II) the applicable locality-based comparability payment
percentage expressed as a numeral.
``(3) No allowance rate computed under paragraph (2) may be
less than zero.
``(4) Each allowance rate computed under paragraph (2)
shall be paid as a percentage of basic pay (including any
applicable locality-based comparability payment under section
5304 or similar provision of law and any applicable special
rate of pay under section 5305 or similar provision of
law).''.
SEC. 3. ADJUSTMENT OF SPECIAL RATES.
(a) In General.--Each special rate of pay established under
section 5305 of title 5, United States Code, and payable in
an area designated as a cost-of-living allowance area under
section 5941(a) of that title, shall be adjusted, on the
dates prescribed by section 4 of this Act, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management under section 9 of this Act.
(b) Department of Veterans Affairs.--Each special rate of
pay established under section 7455 of title 38, United States
Code, and payable in a location designated as a cost-of-
living allowance area under section 5941(a)(1) of title 5,
United States Code, shall be adjusted in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
that are consistent with the regulations issued by the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management under
subsection (a).
(c) Temporary Adjustment.--Regulations issued under
subsection (a) or (b) may provide that statutory limitations
on the amount of such special rates may be temporarily raised
to a higher level during the transition period described in
section 4 ending on the first day of the first pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 2011, at which time any
special rate of pay in excess of the applicable limitation
shall be converted to a retained rate under section 5363 of
title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 4. TRANSITION SCHEDULE FOR LOCALITY-BASED COMPARABILITY
PAYMENTS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or section
5304 or 5304a of title 5, United States Code, in implementing
the amendments made by this Act, for each nonforeign area
determined under section 5941(b) of that title, the
applicable rate for the locality-based comparability
adjustment that is used in the computation required under
section 5941(c) of that title shall be adjusted effective on
the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after
January 1--
(1) in calendar year 2009, by using \1/3\ of the locality
pay percentage for the rest of United States locality pay
area;
(2) in calendar year 2010, by using \2/3\ of the otherwise
applicable comparability payment approved by the President
for each nonforeign area; and
(3) in calendar year 2011 and each subsequent year, by
using the full amount of the applicable comparability payment
approved by the President for each nonforeign area.
SEC. 5. SAVINGS PROVISION.
(a) In General.--The application of this Act to any
employee may not result in the amount of the decrease in the
amount of pay attributable to special rate pay and the cost-
of-living allowance as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act exceeding the amount of the increase in the
locality-based comparability payments paid to that employee.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the application of this Act to any employee should not result
in a decrease in the take home pay of that employee.
SEC. 6. APPLICATION TO OTHER ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered
employee'' means--
(A) any employee who--
(i) on--
(I) the day before the date of enactment of this Act--
(aa) was eligible to be paid a cost-of-living allowance
under 5941 of title 5, United States Code; and
(bb) was not eligible to be paid locality-based
comparability payments under 5304 or 5304a of that title; or
(II) or after the date of enactment of this Act becomes
eligible to be paid a cost-of-living allowance under 5941 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(ii) except as provided under paragraph (2), is not covered
under--
(I) section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, (as
amended by section 2 of this Act); and
(II) section 4 of this Act; or
(B) any employee who--
(i) on the day before the date of enactment of this Act--
(I) was eligible to be paid an allowance under section
1603(b) of title 10, United States Code;
(II) was eligible to be paid an allowance under section
1005(b) of title 39, United States Code; or
(III) was employed by the Transportation Security
Administration of the Department of Homeland Security and was
eligible to be paid an allowance based on section 5941 of
title 5, United States Code; or
(ii) on or after the date of enactment of this Act--
(I) becomes eligible to be paid an allowance under section
1603(b) of title 10, United States Code;
(II) becomes eligible to be paid an allowance under section
1005(b) of title 39, United States Code; or
(III) is employed by the Transportation Security
Administration of the Department of Homeland Security and
becomes eligible to be paid an allowance based on section
5941 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Application to covered employees.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of title 5,
United States Code, for purposes of this Act (including the
amendments made by this Act) any covered employee shall be
treated as an employee to whom section 5941 of title 5,
United States Code, (as amended by section 2 of this Act) and
section 4 of this Act apply.
(B) Pay fixed by statute.--Pay to covered employees under
section 5304 or 5304a of title 5, United States Code, as a
result of the application of this Act shall be considered to
be fixed by statute.
(C) Performance appraisal system.--With respect to a
covered employee who is subject to a performance appraisal
system no part of pay attributable to locality-based
comparability payments as a result of the application of this
Act including section 5941 of title 5, United States Code,
(as amended by section 2 of this Act) may be reduced on the
basis of the performance of that employee.
(b) Postal Service Employees in Nonforeign Areas.--Section
1005(b) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``and the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity
Assurance Act of 2008'' after ``Section 5941 of title 5''.
SEC. 7. ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL BASIC PAY FOR ANNUITY
COMPUTATION BY EMPLOYEES.
(a) Definition.--In this section the term ``covered
employee'' means any employee--
(1) to whom section 4 applies;
(2) who is separated from service by reason of retirement
under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5, United States Code, during
the period of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011; and
(3) who files and election with the Office of Personnel
Management under subsection (b).
(b) Election.--
(1) In general.--An employee described under subsection
(a)(1) and (2) may file an election with the Office of
Personnel Management to be covered under this section.
(2) Deadline.--An election under this subsection may be
filed not later than December 31, 2011.
(c) Computation of Annuity.--For purposes of the
computation of an annuity of a covered employee any cost-of-
living allowance under section 5941 of title 5, United States
Code, paid to that employee during the first applicable pay
period beginning on or after January 1, 2009 through the
first applicable pay period ending on or after December 31,
2011, shall be considered basic pay as defined under section
8331(3) or 8401(4) of that title.
(d) Civil Service Retirement and Disability Retirement
Fund.--
(1) Employee contributions.--A covered employee shall pay
into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Retirement
Fund--
(A) an amount equal to the difference between--
(i) employee contributions that would have been deducted
and withheld from pay under section 8334 or 8422 of title 5,
United States Code, during the period described under
subsection (c) of this section if that subsection had been in
effect during that period; and
(ii) employee contributions that were actually deducted and
withheld from pay under
[[Page S4111]]
section 8334 or 8422 of title 5, United States Code, during
that period; and
(B) interest as prescribed under section 8334(e) of title
5, United States Code, based on the amount determined under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Agency contributions.--
(A) In general.--The employing agency of a covered employee
shall pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Retirement Fund an amount for applicable agency contributions
based on payments made under paragraph (1).
(B) Source.--Amounts paid under this paragraph shall be
contributed from the appropriation or fund used to pay the
employee.
(3) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management may
prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
SEC. 8. ELECTION OF COVERAGE BY EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, an employee may make an irrevocable election in
accordance with this section, if--
(1) that employee is paid an allowance under section 5491
of title 5, United States Code, during a pay period in which
the date of the enactment of this Act occurs; or
(2) that employee--
(A) is a covered employee as defined under section 6(a)(1);
and
(B) during a pay period in which the date of the enactment
of this Act occurs is paid an allowance--
(i) under section 1603(b) of title 10, United States Code;
(ii) under section 1005(b) of title 39, United States Code;
or
(iii) based on section 5941 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Filing Election.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, an employee described under
subsection (a) may file an election with the Office of
Personnel Management to be treated for all purposes--
(1) in accordance with the provisions of this Act
(including the amendments made by this Act); or
(2) as if the provisions of this Act (including the
amendments made by this Act) had not been enacted, except
that the cost-of-living allowance rate paid to that employee
shall be the cost-of-living allowance rate in effect on
December 31, 2008 for that employee without any adjustment
after that date.
(c) Failure to File.--Failure to make a timely election
under this section shall be treated in the same manner as an
election made under subsection (b)(1) on the last day
authorized under that subsection.
(d) Notice.--To the greatest extent practicable, the Office
of Personnel Management shall provide timely notice of the
election which may be filed under this section to employees
described under subsection (a).
SEC. 9. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management shall prescribe regulations to carry out this Act,
including--
(1) rules for special rate employees described under
section 3;
(2) rules for adjusting rates of basic pay for employees in
pay systems administered by the Office of Personnel
Management when such employees are not entitled to locality-
based comparability payments under section 5304 of title 5,
United States Code, without regard to otherwise applicable
statutory pay limitations during the transition period
described in section 4 ending on the first day of the first
pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2011; and
(3) rules governing establishment and adjustment of saved
or retained rates for any employee whose rate of pay exceeds
applicable pay limitations on the first day of the first pay
period beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
(b) Other Pay Systems.--With the concurrence of the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the
administrator of a pay system not administered by the Office
of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations to carry
out this Act with respect to employees in such pay system,
consistent with the regulations issued by the Office under
subsection (a).
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), this
Act (including the amendments made by this Act) shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Locality Pay and Schedule.--The amendments made by
section 2 and the provisions of section 4 shall take effect
on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning
on or after January 1, 2009.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my friend from Hawaii in
introducing the Non-foreign Area Retirement Equity Act. I thank Senator
Akaka for his hard work on this important legislation that finally
brings retirement equity to the thousands of Federal employees in
Alaska and Hawaii.
Alaska and Hawaii are the only States in which Federal employees do
not receive locality pay. Instead, they receive what is called a
nonforeign cost of living allowance, or COLA. COLA was put in place in
1949, before Alaska and Hawaii were States. It is based on the cost of
living in an area compared to the cost of living in Washington, DC.
COLA was not available to employees in the lower 48 States.
When locality pay was established to benefit Federal employees in the
lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii were not included because they were already
under the COLA system. Locality pay brings Federal salaries closer to
private industry salaries in an area.
The key difference between these two systems is how it affects a
Federal employee's retirement. As you know, a Federal employee's
retirement is based on their ``high 3'' years of service, usually the
final 3 years of their base pay salary.
COLA is nontaxable income that cannot exceed 25 percent of the base
pay. It is currently being reduced in Alaska and Hawaii by 1 percent
each year. Because COLA is not taxed, it is not considered as part of
an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This means an employee
in Alaska retires with a much lower ``high 3'' than an equivalent
position in the lower 48.
Locality pay is taxable income, but is also considered part of an
employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This makes a big
difference in the amount of retirement benefits an employee receives.
Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. Our
Federal employees need to know they can continue to afford living in
the State they call home on the money they receive in their retirement
benefits. Many Alaskan Federal employees nearing retirement relocate to
the lower 48 in order to receive locality pay for their ``high 3.''
This puts my State at a disadvantage because we are losing highly
skilled, seasoned employees.
This is an inequitable and outdated system. It is time to bring
retirement equity to all States. The bill Senator Akaka and I introduce
today with Senators Inouye and Murkowski will do just that. Simply put,
this bill will convert Federal employees in our States from the COLA
system to the locality pay system. This conversion will not only
benefit the Federal employees in these States, it will also save the
Government money.
The COLA system requires that a survey be conducted every 3 years to
determine an area's COLA. Our bill would eliminate these expensive and
time consuming surveys. By changing to a locality pay system, employees
will pay taxes on income they now receive tax free. Federal employees
in Alaska and Hawaii have filed lawsuits to fight the inequity of the
COLA system. With this change, the Government will not have to spend
time and resources defending against this litigation.
The Office of Personnel Management supports replacing COLA with
locality pay for all of these reasons.
This bill addresses several employee groups with unique
circumstances, including postal employees. I am confident we can work
closely with the U.S. Postal Service and the postal employee unions to
ensure that postal employees in Alaska and Hawaii are protected.
Senator Akaka and I hope that all groups affected by this change will
contact us so that we can ensure this bill takes everyone's concerns
into consideration. Senator Akaka will be holding a hearing on this
issue in Hawaii this month. Feedback from that hearing will be vital to
improving our bill.
It is important we pass this bill before the end of this Congress to
bring equality in retirement to all of our Federal employees. I urge
Senators to support this bill.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Vitter):
S. 3014. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen
penalties for child pornography offenses, child sex trafficking
offenses, and other sexual offenses committed against children; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss with my
colleagues an issue that has hit home over the last few years for all
Americans, and that issue is crimes against children. We have all heard
stories of children, our most innocent population, being victimized and
abused by predatory criminals. While it is true we have made great
strides passing Federal legislation against criminal predators, more
work needs to be done. That is why I am here today to introduce a bill
that I entitled the Prevention and
[[Page S4112]]
Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2008. I am pleased to be
joined by Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter who have cosponsored this bill
with me.
This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the
vilest forms of abuse and will send a strong signal to criminals that
we as a society will not tolerate such behavior and that their
predatory actions have real significant consequences.
I wish to take a moment to talk about the murder of a girl from my
home State of Iowa, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24, 2005, Jetseta, a
10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home.
Within 12 hours of her disappearance, Iowa law enforcement agents
arrested a registered sex offender, Roger Bentley, for the crime. He
had been previously convicted of committing lascivious acts with a
minor.
Regrettably, this criminal served just over a year in prison for his
previous sex crime conviction. Two days after her disappearance, an
AMBER Alert tip led officials to the location of her body. She was
found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. The autopsy
revealed she had been sexually assaulted and suffocated with a plastic
bag.
I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today
had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It
breaks everybody's heart to hear about cases such as this, but it is
even more demoralizing when you know that it might have been prevented
with adequate sentencing.
Last week, I honored two extraordinary law enforcement officers who
helped put away another one of Jetseta's abusers: James Bentley.
Unbelievably, James Bentley is the brother of Roger Bentley who was
responsible for the rape and murder of Jetseta. A year prior to her
murder, James Bentley took nude photos of 9-year-old Jetseta and her
13-month-old little sister Leonna.
After the child abuse prosecution of James Bentley stalled in State
court due to sixth amendment concerns, U.S. Postal Inspector Troy Raper
and Cedar Rapids Police Department Investigator Charity Hansel followed
up on child pornography allegations that eventually led to James
Bentley's conviction on Federal child pornography charges.
These investigators worked tirelessly to find nine previous victims
of James Bentley. Only two of the nine victims testified, but their
courage and their accounts of abuse by this man were very powerful. As
a result, these testimonies influenced the district court's decision to
use higher sentencing guidelines to put him away in Federal prison for
100 years. I am truly thankful for the public service that Inspector
Troy Raper and Investigator Charity Hansel have done for Iowa's kids.
In doing our part, we in Congress have not sat idly by. Two years ago
we passed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. This
important legislation made great strides in protecting America's
children against violent sexual predators. Among its many components,
this act standardized the National Sex Offender Registry, eliminated
the statute of limitations for sex crimes against children, provided
grants for electronic devices used for monitoring sex offenders and,
lastly, established more severe criminal punishment for certain crimes
committed by sex offenders.
As part of the Adam Walsh Act, we were able to include the Jetseta
Gage Assured Punishment for Violent Crimes Against Children amendment.
The amendment created mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for
criminals who commit murder, kidnapping, or serious bodily harm against
children.
We are on the right path, but I still say this is not enough--not
enough punishment for people who commit these despicable crimes. There
is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this serious issue.
This bill I am introducing today will help change this by protecting
children in four ways. It will increase mandatory minimum sentences,
boost penalties for certain crimes against children, control the use of
passports by convicted sex offenders, and strengthen the process for
removing criminal aliens who commit sex offenses.
The first section of the bill increases the penalties for child
pornography offenses and elevates the mandatory minimum punishment for
criminals who commit exploitation crimes against children. I know some
of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in
the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in light
of the Supreme Court's decision in the Booker case, something must be
done to ensure that sexual predators receive the type of sentences
appropriate for their crimes.
In Booker, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are
no longer mandatory, thus Federal judges have unfettered discretion in
sentencing. I am very worried judges are not doing their job to protect
children. As a matter of fact, Deputy Attorney General Laurence E.
Rothenberg testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that
since the Booker decision, Federal judges have significantly increased
the number of downward departures for those convicted of possession of
child pornography.
To counter this trend, my bill establishes the following mandatory
minimums for exploitation crimes against children: One, where a crime
involves child pornography, the offender will receive 20 years to life;
two, where the crime deals with sexual exploitation of a minor by a
parent or guardian, the offender will receive no less than 3 years to
life.
The second section of the bill increases penalties for child sex
trafficking and child prostitution. The penalties for these crimes need
to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and
the damage that they do to children.
The third section of the bill will ensure harsh penalties for
criminals convicted of child sex offenses resulting in death, repeated
child sex crimes, and forcible rape of children. These crimes involve
the most violent types of sex offenders, and justice for these crimes
should be dealt out with the strongest available prison sentences.
The final section of the bill has to do with not permitting these sex
offenders to travel outside the country. If we know someone is a
convicted child molester, we have the responsibility to not allow them
travel to Asia or Europe or anywhere to exploit and harm other kids in
other lands.
The bill provides for the following: When the sex offender has been
convicted of a sex offense, the issuance of passports shall be refused.
Secondly, if a passport has already been issued, the use of a passport
may be restricted if the passport was used in the furtherance of a sex
offense. Lastly, any alien convicted of a sex offense shall be placed
immediately in removal proceedings.
The provisions of this bill are designed to protect our children by
locking up violent sexual predators. I doubt that the Members of this
body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any
objection to ensuring that violators of crimes against children receive
tougher penalties for their acts.
It is unfortunate that it took the murder of girls such as Jetseta
Gage for a law with severe penalties to be proposed, but I strongly
believe a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the
future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizens,
including our most vulnerable populations, and we have an obligation as
adults to protect our young people. We have a commitment as parents to
protect our children and ensure that they are given the opportunity to
grow up free from the dangers that violent sex offenders pose. I urge
my colleagues to join me and Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter in
strengthening our laws so that no child becomes a victim of a repeat
offender.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Casey, Ms.
Klobuchar, and Mr. Sanders):
S.J. Res. 32. A joint resolution limiting the issuance of a letter of
offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of defense articles and
defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; read the first time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss rising energy prices. I
remind President Bush, as he leaves for his trip to the Middle East,
his ally, Saudi Arabia, holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at
home in the short term.
[[Page S4113]]
I, along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator
Casey of Pennsylvania, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Senator
Sanders of Vermont plan to submit a Senate resolution that would block
all four pending arms deals to Saudi Arabia, which together total $1.4
billion, unless Saudi Arabia shows that our friendship is a two-way
street and increases its oil production by 1 million barrels per day
above the January 2008 output levels.
Because these weapons have not yet been delivered to Saudi Arabia,
Congress still has the power to block these four deals as leverage to
get the world's larger oil producer to bring its production back to
historical levels, an action that would have the single greatest impact
of lowering gas prices in the short term.
I am very proud that we today voted to prevent continued oil going
into the SPR as Senator Dorgan, the sponsor and somebody who has pushed
this issue a long time and done it well, has noted that will probably
reduce prices about a nickel. There is more. It is a good first step,
as he would be the first to say, but we can do more.
If Saudi Arabia would increase production by 1 million barrels a day,
the price of gasoline would go down 50 cents a gallon almost
immediately. It is a short-term fix.
As my colleagues across the aisle and the administration continue to
side with big oil, we have no other choice because, right now, it is
Big Oil and OPEC that are benefitting and American families are losing.
It is unfortunate we are at this point. Eight years of poor stewardship
over our Nation's energy policy has left us with alternatives. And my
Republican colleagues have blocked every attempt at real energy reform
that would help alleviate the rising energy prices in this country.
In the 110th Congress alone, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have blocked four different attempts by Democrats to extend the
alternative tax provisions, and not only for a year or two but many.
On June 21 of last year, the extension of energy credits received 57
votes; on December 7, it received 53 votes; on December 13, it received
59 votes; and on February 6, 58 votes.
Each time, Republicans put up roadblocks requiring 60 votes in order
to pass the bill. Each time the overwhelming majority of Democrats
voted for the bill, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted
against.
President Bush opposed the bills because each would have ended tax
breaks for big oil, as if they needed more tax breaks given their
record profitability.
Meanwhile, Americans continue to spend more and more on gasoline, as
prices at the pump have skyrocketed upward to record heights. Although
our President was not aware that gasoline prices were predicted to top
$4 a gallon this summer, American households already faced with rising
fiscal burdens incurred as a result of the subprime foreclosure crisis
and the financial credit crunch are being squeezed further by record-
high prices at the pump.
In a sign that high prices will continue unabated, the Department of
Energy recently forecasted that gasoline prices would average $3.66 per
gallon across the U.S. this summer, 25 percent higher than last
summer's average.
So I, along with several of my colleagues, think it is time to get
the President's attention and the attention of the leaders of Saudi
Arabia. The resolution we have introduced today, which Senator Reid
will rule to move on to the calendar this afternoon, requires Saudi
Arabia to increase their oil production by 1 million barrels a day or
jeopardize their $1.4 billion of pending arms deals with the United
States.
One of those deals includes the sale of JDAMs, Joint Direct Attack
Munitions, which makes conventional bombs into smart bombs that can be
aimed through the window of a house. The administration has warned us
that Saudi Arabia needs to use these weapons in their fight against
terrorism.
But how are they going to use laser-guided bombs to fight terrorists
in their midst? Saudi Arabia very much wants these smart bombs. So our
resolution sends a strong signal to the administration and to Saudi
Arabia that friendship with the United States is a two-way street. If
the Saudis want to see their weapons, we need to see an increase in
crude oil production within the next 30 days. As we all know, the
principal cause underlying the rise in gasoline prices has been a spike
in crude oil prices, now over $120 a barrel, a 100-percent increase
over the crude price at this point last year. A significant portion of
this price rise is due to supply decisions made by OPEC. The largest
member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, controls one-fifth of the world's crude
reserves and constitutes more than 10 percent of daily production of
crude oil.
In the past, Saudi Arabia has kept crude oil prices high by limiting
supply, producing anywhere from 1 to 5 million barrels per day below
capacity. Currently, they are producing 2 million barrels a day below
capacity. Why? Why right now, when crude prices are at an historic
high, are the Saudis continuing to cut back on production? Does it make
any sense? It does if you are a member of OPEC. It does if you are
ExxonMobil. But it doesn't if you are almost everybody else. With crude
oil at the highest price ever, Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC
are making record profits, and Saudi Arabia is not alone. Last month
big oil companies announced some of the best profits in recorded
history. Exxon made almost $11 billion in profit last quarter. So we
know OPEC has no incentive to increase their production right now,
since that would decrease their profits. In fact, if Saudi Arabia were
to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day, that
translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the price of
crude oil. Crude oil prices would fall by more than $25 a barrel from
the current level of $126. In turn, that would lower the price of
gasoline between 13 and 17 percent or by more than 62 cents off the
expected summer price, if the Saudis would simply produce the amount of
oil they used to produce when they were far more responsible. Yet Saudi
Arabia's oil minister said there was no need to increase supplies by
even one barrel of oil.
But even as they are saying no, no, no to the United States, they are
saying yes, yes, yes to China. They are doubling oil production for
China. This is galling. When the President goes to Saudi Arabia and
acts as if the Saudi King and the Saudi leadership are our good
friends, he ought to look the American family in the eye and say that
and say Saudi Arabia is a loyal ally. To most Americans, a well-armed
Saudi Arabia is far less important than a reasonable price for
gasoline, heating oil, and all other products upon which oil is based.
The Saudis have to understand this is a two-way street. The President
has to understand that the one-way street relationship with Saudi
Arabia has to end. We provide them weapons. Our troops provide them
protection. Then they rake us over the coals when it comes to the price
of oil. Just as Saudi Arabia feels a need to protect itself with high-
tech, laser-guided missiles, American consumers and our economy need
protection from record high oil prices, exacerbated by OPEC's
stranglehold on supply. The administration needs to use all of the
leverage it has to influence the OPEC cartel to stop manipulating the
world's oil supply to its member nations' own wealth advantage. It is
time we stop treating a cartel that would be illegal in the United
States with kid gloves. That is what our resolution does. It reminds
the Saudis there are consequences for keeping oil prices high at a time
when American families are hurting. It reminds Saudi Arabia that it
can't take American support for granted. They can choose record oil
profits or American weapons, but they can't have both.
I would like any Member of this Chamber and President Bush to look
the average American family in the eye and say: There is nothing we can
do to get Saudi Arabia to be responsible.
There are things we can do; we just refuse to do them. This
resolution has us step to the plate. The resolution is not the final
answer, of course, to the problem of rising gas prices. That is why I
am a proud cosponsor of S. 2991, the Consumer First Energy Act of 2008
that we Democrats will offer on the floor before Memorial Day. That
bill addresses underlying causes that are
[[Page S4114]]
driving up energy prices and forces big oil to reinvest some of their
record-breaking profits into alternative and renewable sources of
energy that are both good for the environment, the consumer, and break
our dependence on foreign oil.
Our bill will also attack the broader bill's speculation, punish
price gouging, and put additional pressure on the OPEC cartel. I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. I am hopeful we
can move on this resolution as soon as possible so American consumers
no longer have to carry the heavy burden of high energy prices all by
themselves.
____________________