[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1187-1194]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 1188]]

lead to a better quality of life for tens of thousands of veterans. It 
is a simple concept with which few would disagree. 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

[[Page 1189]]

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:

       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

[[Page 1190]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1191]]

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 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.

[[Page 1192]]


                                 ______
                                 
      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 
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.

[[Page 1193]]

       (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.

     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

[[Page 1194]]

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.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Wild 
Monongahela: A National Legacy for West Virginia's Special Places Act. 
This important piece of legislation sets aside over 47,000 acres of 
wilderness in the Monongahela National Forest so that our children and 
grandchildren will have the opportunity to enjoy the forest in its 
pristine state.
  West Virginians have a proud tradition of mining and logging that 
provides needed resources for our entire country. I have no doubt that 
this tradition will continue for many decades to come. However, at the 
same time, new development is coming to West Virginia. This is needed 
development that provides jobs for West Virginians and helps support 
our economy. But with this increased development comes a responsibility 
to set some part of our natural environment aside for those who come 
after us.
  The Monongahela Forest encompasses nearly 920,000 acres of land in 
the heart of the Appalachian Mountain Range and contains some of the 
most ecological and geological unique reaches of our State. There are 
currently five wilderness areas in the Monongahela including the 
Cranberry Wilderness and Dolly Sods Wilderness. This bill will create 
four new wilderness areas and expand three of the existing areas. All 
of the land being designated as wilderness was already being treated as 
either recommended wilderness by the Forest Service or as backcountry 
recreation.
  I want to extend my thanks to Congressman Rahall for his leadership 
on this bill and congratulate him on drafting legislation that has 
received the support of West Virginia's entire bipartisan congressional 
delegation. Like all members of the congressional delegation, I have 
heard from hundreds of West Virginians how wilderness is important to 
them. I have heard how wilderness is a major draw for the outdoor 
tourism industry and will provide jobs. I have heard from West 
Virginians who want to make sure that they will be able to continue to 
fish pristine streams and hunt in the forests. They want to experience 
the excellent hiking and backpacking the hills of West Virginia have to 
offer, and make sure their grandchildren have that same opportunity. 
But the reason I heard more than any others from West Virginians was 
the need to protect some small part of God's creation as His stewards 
on this Earth.
  This legislation has received support from diverse groups and people 
across West Virginia including the West Virginia AFL-CIO, the Fayette 
County Commission, West Virginia Council of Churches, and both the 
Pocahontas and Greenbrier County Conventions and Visitor Bureaus, just 
to name a few. I know that there will be people who feel that this 
legislation is too big and goes too far. At the same time I recognize 
those West Virginians who are disappointed that areas of the 
Monongahela Forest special to them were not included. But I believe 
this legislation strikes a careful balance that will protect West 
Virginia's forests and serve our State's interests for generations to 
come.

                          ____________________