[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7114-7119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2931. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
exempt complex rehabilitation products and assistive technology 
products from the Medicare competitive acquisition program; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to 
Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008. I am 
pleased to be joined by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. 
Today, we unite to ensure access to medical equipment for severely 
disabled Medicare beneficiaries who seek to lead independent and 
productive lives.
  In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, Congress directed the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to proceed with a durable 
medical equipment competitive bidding demonstration project. The 
purpose of this demonstration was to determine whether competitive 
bidding can be used to provide quality medical equipment at prices 
below current Medicare Part B reimbursement rates. The bidding will 
result in a new fee schedule for some selected DME services, replacing 
Medicare's current fee schedule. In other words, competitive bidding 
will change how Medicare covers medical equipment and also determine 
which suppliers may participate in providing such equipment to 
beneficiaries.

[[Page 7115]]

  It is critical to note that the Medicare competitive bidding program 
was designed to produce cost savings--both for Medicare and for 
beneficiaries in the form of lower copayments for medical equipment. 
The competitive process of submitting bids to supply particular 
services and products would reduce the price Medicare currently 
reimburses for these items.
  Although competitive bidding may reduce the cost of some health 
services, this system will likely prove unworkable in certain 
circumstances. For example, many rural areas across the country may not 
have the health care infrastructure to support a competitive 
acquisition program. Small suppliers who service individuals residing 
in areas of low population density may be outbid by larger, distant 
providers, leading to limited access to medical equipment for Medicare 
beneficiaries living in these locations.
  Another unique circumstance for which competitive bidding is 
inappropriate regards complex rehabilitation and assistive technology 
for individuals with significant and distinctive needs. Under the 
competitive acquisition program, thousands of individuals who require 
customized medical equipment may be forced to use ill-fitting products 
that will inevitably increase discomfort, further limit functional 
ability, and may even cause loss of function for these individuals who 
seek independence and mobility in their lives.
  Let me give an example of how the competitive bidding program will 
hamper the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access necessary 
rehabilitative and assistive technology. If a Medicare beneficiary has 
been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and uses a power wheelchair due 
to the loss of muscle tone in the body, a wheelchair that is tailored 
to the individual is imperative for several reasons. Power wheelchairs 
that are not adapted to the particular needs of the individual lead to 
more than mere discomfort, but also can further worsening health. For 
instance, individuals with muscular dystrophy may have wheelchairs that 
allow them to change positioning in order to breathe more comfortably. 
In addition, these wheelchairs may also be adapted to accommodate other 
necessary medical equipment, such as breathing ventilators. Yet with 
Medicare competitive bidding, the process will likely yield more 
uniform wheelchairs, leaving severely impaired beneficiaries with 
limited options to meet their needs.
  Our bill will remove complex rehabilitation and assistive technology 
products from the Medicare competitive bidding program. In a program 
intended to reduce costs through competition among suppliers providing 
medical products, it is simply untenable to include such sophisticated 
and personalized equipment. We all agree that we must address Medicare 
spending, but restricting access to necessary products for the 
beneficiaries that most require them is not the way to approach this 
issue--and may in fact increase costs.
  I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Stabenow and myself in 
supporting the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive 
Technology Act of 2008 to support Medicare beneficiaries in receiving 
the specialized medical equipment they so critically need.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing the Medicare Access to Complex 
Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act. This legislation will 
ensure Medicare beneficiaries who need complex rehabilitation and 
assistive technology will continue to receive the highest level of 
service and support necessary to maintain their independence. I am also 
pleased to be joined by my good friend, Senator Tim Johnson, in this 
effort.
  Competitive bidding, while well-intentioned, does not work well for 
items that must be customized for individuals with complex and 
specialized needs. Unlike some of the items being considered by CMS for 
competitive bidding, complex rehab technologies are not the sort of 
products that are easily interchangeable. For example, individuals with 
neuromuscular diseases--such as multiple sclerosis, ALS, cerebral 
palsy, or Parkinson's disease--or conditions such as spinal cord 
injuries may require specialized services because of the profound and 
sometimes progressive nature of these conditions. Patients' access to 
assistive technology products for their unique needs could be in 
jeopardy.
  I am pleased that our legislation has the support of numerous patient 
advocacy organizations. As co-chair of the Senate Parkinson's Caucus, I 
have seen firsthand how assistive technology can make a difference in 
helping a loved one achieve independence over a disease or disability. 
The legislation we are introducing today will ensure that the wonders 
of medical technology will continue to be available to the Medicare 
beneficiaries who need them the most.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2933. A bill to improve the employability of older Americans; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Conrad and Kohl, I 
introduce the Incentives for Older Workers Act of 2008.
  The United States is about to experience an unprecedented demographic 
shift with the aging of the baby boomer generation. According to the 
U.S. Census Bureau, in 1980, individuals age 50 and older represented 
26 percent of the population. By 2050, this is expected to rise to 37 
percent. In my home State of Oregon, residents age 65 and older are 
expected to comprise 25 percent of the State population by 2025. This 
will make Oregon the fourth oldest State in the country.
  The aging of our population will have a significant impact on many 
aspects of our society, including our labor market. A 2007 Conference 
Board study reports that current retirement trends could create a U.S. 
labor shortage of 4.8 million workers in 10 years. According to Dr. 
Preston Pulliams of Portland Community College, 53 percent of Oregon 
businesses report that it is extremely or very likely that their 
organization will face a shortage of qualified workers during the next 
5 years as a result of the retirement of baby boomers.
  The Incentives for Older Workers Act will help mitigate the effects 
of our aging workforce by providing incentives to older Americans to 
stay in the workforce longer, encouraging employers to recruit and 
retain older workers, and eliminating barriers to working longer. For 
example, the current Work Opportunity Tax Credit allows employers 
credits against wages for hiring individuals from one or more of nine 
targeted groups, such as recipients of public assistance and high risk 
youth. Our bill would extend that credit for employers that hire older 
workers.
  In addition, Social Security benefits are increased if retirement is 
delayed beyond full retirement age. Increases based on delaying 
retirement no longer apply when people reach age 70, even if they 
continue to delay taking benefits. Our bill would allow people to earn 
delayed retirement credits up until age 72, instead of age 70.
  To collect, organize and disseminate information on older worker 
issues, the bill also would create a National Resource Center on Aging 
and the Workforce within the U.S. Department of Labor. This center 
would act as a national information clearinghouse on workforce issues, 
challenges and solutions for older workers.
  The bipartisan Incentives for Older Workers Act will provide seniors 
with the flexibility and opportunity to continue working in retirement 
if they choose to. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
enact these important reforms. 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. 2933

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Incentives 
     for Older Workers Act''.

[[Page 7116]]

       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Prohibition of benefit reduction due to phased retirement.
Sec. 3. Allowance of delayed retirement social security credits until 
              age 72.
Sec. 4. Reduction in social security benefit offset resulting from 
              certain earnings.
Sec. 5. National Resource Center on Aging and the Workforce.
Sec. 6. Civil service retirement system computation for part-time 
              service.
Sec. 7. Workforce investment activities for older workers.
Sec. 8. Eligibility of older workers for the work opportunity credit.
Sec. 9. Normal retirement age.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF BENEFIT REDUCTION DUE TO PHASED 
                   RETIREMENT.

       (a) Prohibition of Benefit Reduction Due to Phased 
     Retirement.--
       (1) Amendment to the employee retirement income security 
     act of 1974.--Section 204(b)(1) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(b)(1)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I)(i) Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraphs, in 
     the case of a participant who----
       ``(I) begins a period of phased retirement, and
       ``(II) was employed on a substantially full-time basis 
     during the 12-month period preceding the period of phased 
     retirement,

     a defined benefit plan shall be treated as meeting the 
     requirements of this paragraph with respect to the 
     participant only if the participant's compensation or average 
     compensation taken into account under the plan with respect 
     to the years of service before the period of phased 
     retirement is not, for purposes of determining the accrued 
     benefit for such years of service, reduced due to such phased 
     retirement
       ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a period of 
     phased retirement is a period during which an employee is 
     employed on substantially less than a full-time basis or with 
     substantially reduced responsibilities, but only if the 
     period begins after the participant reaches age 50 or has 
     completed 30 years of service creditable under the plan.''.
       (2) Amendment to the internal revenue code of 1986.--
     Section 411(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to accrued benefits) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(I) Accrued benefit may not decrease on account of phased 
     retirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding the preceding 
     subparagraphs, in the case of a participant who--

       ``(I) begins a period of phased retirement, and
       ``(II) was employed on a substantially full-time basis 
     during the 12-month period preceding the period of phased 
     retirement,

     a defined benefit plan shall be treated as meeting the 
     requirements of this paragraph with respect to the 
     participant only if the participant's compensation or average 
     compensation taken into account under the plan with respect 
     to the years of service before the period of phased 
     retirement is not, for purposes of determining the accrued 
     benefit for such years of service, reduced due to such phased 
     retirement.
       ``(ii) Period of phased retirement.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, a period of phased retirement is a period 
     during which an employee is employed on substantially less 
     than a full-time basis or with substantially reduced 
     responsibilities, but only if the period begins after the 
     participant reaches age 50 or has completed 30 years of 
     service creditable under the plan.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to benefits payable after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 3. ALLOWANCE OF DELAYED RETIREMENT SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   CREDITS UNTIL AGE 72.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 202(w) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(w)) are each 
     amended by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``age 72''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. REDUCTION IN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT OFFSET RESULTING 
                   FROM CERTAIN EARNINGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 203(f)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(3)) is amended by striking ``in the 
     case of any individual'' and all that follows through ``in 
     the case of any other individual''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON AGING AND THE WORKFORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Labor shall award a 
     grant for the establishment and operation of a National 
     Resource Center on Aging and the Workforce to address issues 
     on age and the workforce and to collect, organize, and 
     disseminate information on older workers.
       (b) Activities.--The Center established under subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) serve as a national information clearinghouse on 
     workforce issues, challenges, and solutions planning for 
     older workers that would serve employers, local communities, 
     and State and local government organizations, as well as 
     other public and private agencies, including providing for 
     the cataloging, organization, and summarizing of existing 
     research, resources, and scholarship relating to older 
     workforce issues;
       (2) identify best or most-promising practices across the 
     United States that have enjoyed success in productively 
     engaging older Americans in the workforce;
       (3) create toolkits for employers, trade associations, 
     labor organizations, and non-profit employers that would 
     feature a series of issue papers outlining specific tasks and 
     activities for engaging older individuals in select 
     industries;
       (4) distribute information to government planners and 
     policymakers, employers, organizations representing and 
     serving older adults, and other appropriate entities through 
     the establishment of an interactive Internet website, the 
     publications of articles in periodicals, pamphlets, 
     brochures, and reports, as well as through national and 
     international conferences and events; and
       (5) provide targeted and ongoing technical assistance to 
     select units of government, private corporations, and 
     nonprofit organizations.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be available in each 
     fiscal year to carry out this section.

     SEC. 6. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM COMPUTATION FOR PART-
                   TIME SERVICE.

       Section 8339(p) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) In the administration of paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) subparagraph (A) of such paragraph shall apply to any 
     service performed before, on, or after April 7, 1986;
       ``(ii) subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall apply to 
     all service performed on a part-time or full-time basis on or 
     after April 7, 1986; and
       ``(iii) any service performed on a part-time basis before 
     April 7, 1986, shall be credited as service performed on a 
     full-time basis.
       ``(B) This paragraph shall be effective with respect to any 
     annuity entitlement to which is based on a separation from 
     service occurring on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 7. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES FOR OLDER WORKERS.

       (a) State Boards.--Section 111(b)(1)(C) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2821(b)(1)(C)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (viii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
       ``(vii) representatives of older individuals, who shall be 
     representatives from the State agency (as defined in section 
     102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002)) in 
     the State or recipients of grants under title V of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) in the State; and''.
       (b) Local Boards.--Section 117(b)(2)(A) of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 2832(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (v), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) representatives of older individuals, who shall be 
     representatives from an area agency on aging (as defined in 
     section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3002)) in the local area or recipients of grants under title 
     V of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) in the local area; 
     and''.
       (c) Reservation of Funds for Older Individuals.--Section 
     134 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2864) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(f) Reservation for Older Individuals From Funds 
     Allocated for Adults.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `allocated 
     funds' means the funds allocated to a local area under 
     paragraph (2)(A) or (3) of section 133(b).
       ``(2) Reservation.--The local area shall ensure that 5 
     percent of the allocated funds that are used to provide 
     services under subsection (d) or (e) are reserved for 
     services for older individuals.''.

     SEC. 8. ELIGIBILITY OF OLDER WORKERS FOR THE WORK OPPORTUNITY 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 51(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (H),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I) 
     and inserting ``, or'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) a qualified older worker.''.
       (b) Qualified Older Worker.--Section 51(d) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as 
     paragraphs (12), (13), and (14), respectively, and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following new 
     paragraph:

[[Page 7117]]

       ``(11) Qualified older worker.--The term `qualified older 
     worker' means any individual who is certified by the 
     designated local agency as being an individual who is age 55 
     or older and whose income is not more than 125 percent of the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget), excluding any income that is unemployment 
     compensation, a benefit received under title XVI of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a payment made 
     to or on behalf of veterans or former members of the Armed 
     Forces under the laws administered by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, or 25 percent of a benefit received under 
     title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made this section shall 
     apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act to individuals who begin work for the 
     employer after such date.

     SEC. 9. NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE.

       (a) Amendment to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Section 
     411of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Special Rule for Determining Normal Retirement Age 
     for Certain Existing Defined Benefit Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(8)(A), an 
     applicable plan shall not be treated as failing to meet any 
     requirement of this subchapter, or as failing to have a 
     uniform normal retirement age for purposes of this 
     subchapter, solely because the plan has adopted the normal 
     retirement age described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Applicable plan.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `applicable plan' means a 
     defined benefit plan that, on the date of the introduction of 
     the Incentives for Older Workers Act, has adopted a normal 
     retirement age which is the earlier of--
       ``(i) an age otherwise permitted under subsection 
     (a)(8)(A), or
       ``(ii) the age at which a participant completes the number 
     of years (not less than 30 years) of benefit accrual service 
     specified by the plan.

     A plan shall not fail to be treated as an applicable plan 
     solely because, as of such date, the normal retirement age 
     described in the preceding sentence only applied to certain 
     participants or to certain employers participating in the 
     plan.

       ``(B) Expanded application.--If, after the date described 
     in subparagraph (A), an applicable plan expands the 
     application of the normal retirement age described in 
     subparagraph (A) to additional participants or participating 
     employers, such plan shall also be treated as an applicable 
     plan with respect to such participants or participating 
     employers.''.
       (b) Amendments to Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974.--Section 204 of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 is amended by redesignating subsection 
     (k) as subsection (l) and by inserting after subsection (j) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Special Rule for Determining Normal Retirement Age 
     for Certain Existing Defined Benefit Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 3(24), an 
     applicable plan shall not be treated as failing to meet any 
     requirement of this title, or as failing to have a uniform 
     normal retirement age for purposes of this title, solely 
     because the plan has adopted the normal retirement age 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Applicable plan.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `applicable plan' means a 
     defined benefit plan that, on the date of the introduction of 
     the Incentives for Older Workers Act, has adopted a normal 
     retirement age which is the earlier of--
       ``(i) an age otherwise permitted under section 2(24), or
       ``(ii) the age at which a participant completes the number 
     of years (not less than 30 years) of benefit accrual service 
     specified by the plan.

     A plan shall not fail to be treated as an applicable plan 
     solely because, as of such date, the normal retirement age 
     described in the preceding sentence only applied to certain 
     participants or to certain employers participating in the 
     plan.
       ``(B) Expanded application.--If, after the date described 
     in subparagraph (A), an applicable plan expands the 
     application of the normal retirement age described in 
     subparagraph (A) to additional participants or participating 
     employers, such plan shall also be treated as an applicable 
     plan with respect to such participants or participating 
     employers.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to years beginning before, on, or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 2935. A bill to prevent the destruction of terrorist and criminal 
national instant criminal background check system records; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Preserving 
Records of Terrorist and Criminal Transactions, or PROTECT Act of 2008. 
I am proud to be joined by cosponsors Senators Feinstein, Levin, 
Lieberman, Menendez, Reed, Schumer, and Whitehouse.
  In 1994, we passed the Brady Law, which requires criminal background 
checks for all guns sold by licensed firearm dealers. In the 14 years 
since it was enacted, the Brady law has prevented more than 1.5 million 
felons and other dangerous individuals from buying guns. I am proud to 
say that more than 150,000 of those denials have been to convicted 
domestic abusers because of a law I wrote in 1996.
  Every time a Brady background check is conducted, the FBI's National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System--or NICS--creates an audit 
log. The audit log includes information about the purchaser, the 
weapon, and the seller.
  The information could be extremely valuable to the FBI. The agency 
could use it to help determine whether gun dealers are complying with 
the background check requirements, to help law enforcement fight crime 
by figuring out whether a criminal has been able to buy a gun, or even 
to help prevent terrorist attacks.
  Yet, despite this information's value in fighting crime and 
terrorism, the FBI destroys the background check data.
  In most cases, the audit log is destroyed within 24 hours after the 
sale is allowed to go through. That's because every year since 2004, a 
rider has been attached to appropriations bills mandating that the FBI 
destroy the background check record within 24 hours of allowing the gun 
sale to proceed. That means that the purchaser's name, social security 
number, and all other personally identifying information are purged 
from the system within 24 hours.
  Once this information is destroyed, the FBI can no longer run 
searches using a person's name. So if a local law enforcement agency 
were to call the FBI to see if a criminal on the loose had purchased 
any guns recently, the FBI would not be able to search its database 
using the suspect's name if the gun was purchased two months, two 
weeks, or even two days earlier.
  This destruction requirement hinders the FBI's ability to help the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives verify that gun 
dealers are conducting background checks properly. Before the 
destruction requirement, ATF could compare the NICS records to the 
paper records that gun dealers are required to keep on file to 
determine whether the dealers were submitting all the required 
information.
  The destruction requirement also prevents the FBI from determining 
whether a felon, fugitive, or other person who is prohibited from 
having a gun was able to purchase one in violation of the law, and to 
retrieve guns from people who are prohibited from having them. The FBI 
has only three days to conduct background checks, and sometimes 
receives information after already approving a sale that the purchaser 
was legally prohibited from having a firearm. But without the 
background check information at hand, the FBI has no way of retrieving 
guns from these dangerous people who never should have been allowed to 
purchase them in the first place.
  Prior to the 24-hour destruction requirement, the Government 
Accountability Office found that over a 6-month period the FBI used 
retained Brady background check records to initiate 235 actions to 
retrieve illegally possessed guns. According to GAO, 228--97 percent--
of those retrieval actions would not have been possible under a 24-hour 
destruction policy. Those are hundreds of guns in the hands of felons, 
fugitives and other dangerous people. We have the power to stop them, 
and we should use it.
  Up until now, I have been talking about dangerous people who are 
prohibited from having guns under current federal law, such as felons, 
fugitives, and convicted domestic abusers. But there is one category of 
very dangerous people who are allowed to purchase

[[Page 7118]]

firearms under current federal law-known and suspected terrorists. It 
is hard to believe, but nothing in our federal gun laws prevents known 
and suspected terrorists from purchasing guns.
  And we know that terrorists exploit this Terror Gap in our gun laws. 
In a 2005 report that Senator Biden and I requested, GAO found that 
during a four-month period in 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase 
attempts were made by known or suspected terrorists. In 35 of those 
cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because FBI field 
agents were unable to find any disqualifying information within the 
federally prescribed three-day background check period. I have 
introduced another bill--the Denying Firearms and Explosives to 
Dangerous Terrorists Act S. 1237--to close this Terror Gap, and I urge 
my colleagues to support that bill as well.
  Not only do our current laws allow terrorists to buy guns, but the 
FBI also destroys the background check records from terrorist gun 
purchases within 90 days. That means that a joint terrorism task force 
conducting a terror investigation over the course of months or even 
years cannot call the FBI to find out if the target of the 
investigation--someone who is on the terror watch list--purchased 
firearms last year.
  The PROTECT Act would address both of these record retention problems 
by preserving records that are critical to effective background checks, 
law enforcement, and terrorism prevention. Specifically, it would:
  (1) require the FBI to retain for 10 years all background check 
records involving a valid match to a terror watch list; and
  (2) require the FBI to retain for at least 180 days all other 
background check records.
  This is a common-sense public safety measure. At a time when 32 
people are murdered as a result of gun violence every day in the United 
States and we are fighting against terrorism, the last thing we should 
be doing is prematurely destroying a valuable anti-crime and anti-
terrorism tool that we have at our fingertips.
  At a Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee hearing last year, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller if 
he thought that background check records should be retained for more 
than 24 hours. He replied, ``[T]here is a substantial argument in my 
mind for retaining records for a substantial period of time.'' That's 
what this bill would do, and I hope my Senate colleagues will join me 
in passing it swiftly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, Mr. Chambliss, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Martinez, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Barrasso, 
        Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. 
        Inhofe):
  S. 2938. A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to 
improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces and 
veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for the Armed 
Forces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with 
Senator Lindsey Graham, the Ranking Member of the Personnel 
Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator 
Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, in 
introducing the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment 
Through Education Act. This legislation, which is designed to greatly 
enhance veterans' education benefits, is also cosponsored by Senators 
Chambliss, Lieberman, Cornyn, Alexander, Hutchison, Martinez, Stevens, 
Cochran, Collins, Barrasso, Domenici, Dole, Wicker, and Isakson.
  Mr. President, America has an obligation to provide unwavering 
support to America's veterans, servicemembers, and retirees. Men and 
women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits 
we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly 
as possible. And that is what our legislation is designed to 
accomplish.
  The Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through 
Education Act would increase education benefits for servicemembers, 
veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. It would help 
facilitate successful recruitment efforts and, importantly, encourage 
continued service in the military by granting a higher education 
payment for longer service. It also provides a transferability feature 
to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring 
education benefits to their children and spouses. In developing this 
legislation, the one theme we heard from almost every veterans' 
services organization is the need for such a transferability provision.
  As my colleagues know, our proposal is not the only measure that has 
been offered to increase GI education benefits, and I want to commend 
the efforts of Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner and others on their work to 
bring this important issue to the forefront in the Senate, by the 
introduction of S. 22. Each of us supports a revitalized GI program. 
While I don't think anyone disagrees with the overall intent of S. 22, 
I believe we can and should do more to promote recruitment and 
retention of servicemen and women and to ensure that veterans and their 
families receive the education benefits they deserve, and in a timely 
manner. But I remain very hopeful that we can all work together in a 
bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation 
that will be signed into law as soon as possible.
  Unlike S. 22, our legislation builds on the existing Montgomery GI 
Bill educational benefits to ensure rapid implementation. Unlike S. 22, 
our bill focuses on the entire spectrum of military members who make up 
the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, 
officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have 
completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of 
these individuals.
  The legislation would immediately increase education benefits for 
active duty personnel from $1100 to $1500 a month. To encourage careers 
in the military, the education benefits would increase to $2000 a month 
after 12 or more years of service. Further, it would allow a 
servicemember to transfer 50 percent of benefits to a spouse or child 
starting after 6 years of service, and after 12 years of service, 100 
percent may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children. This is a 
key pro-retention provision. In addition, our bill would provide $500 
annually for college books and supplies while our servicemembers are 
going to school.
  The bill also would increase from $880 to $1200 per month the 
education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty 
since September 11, 2001. Further, it would gradually increase benefits 
to $1600 per month for those members of the Guard and Reserves who 
serve in the Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue 
serving in the Selected Reserve.
  Servicemembers who enlist after they have already received post-
secondary education degrees should also be allowed to benefit under an 
improved GI Bill and be allowed to use their education benefits to 
repay Federal student loans. Under our bill, servicemembers could use 
up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to 
repay Federal student loans. And, it doubles from $317 to $634 the 
education benefits for other members of the Guard and Reserves.
  Our bill also recognizes the sacrifice of all who have served in the 
Global War on Terror, including members of the Guard and Reserve who 
are serving on active duty and deploying at historic rates by doubling 
the educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve and, 
again, making the educational benefits transferable to family members.
  Finally, I do think it is important that the Administration's views 
on this important issue are taken into account. That is why earlier 
this month, Senator Levin and I wrote to the Department of Defense 
seeking views on proposals to modernize the GI Bill.

[[Page 7119]]

  Again, it is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's 
education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress 
enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign. Such 
legislation should address the entire spectrum of the All Volunteer 
Force. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to 
the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in 
the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. 
Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their 
families, deserves no less.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2008.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: you earlier asked for my views on S. 
     22. Since your request, two other bills have been introduced 
     (H.R. 5684 and, in the Senate, the Enhancement of 
     Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education 
     Act of 2008). I welcome the opportunity to outline the 
     criteria the Department has established to evaluate specific 
     proposals, with the ultimate objective of strengthening the 
     All-Volunteer Force, as well as properly recognizing our 
     veterans' service.
       Our first objective is to strengthen the All-Volunteer 
     force. Accordingly, it is essential to permit transferability 
     of unused education benefits from service members to family. 
     This is the highest priority set by the Service Chiefs and 
     the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the 
     strong interest from the field and fleet. Transferability 
     supports military families, thereby enhancing retention. 
     Second, any enhancement of the education benefit, whether 
     used in service or after retirement, must serve to enhance 
     recruiting and not undercut retention.
       Third, significant benefit increases need to be focused on 
     those willing to commit to longer periods of service--hence 
     the Department's interest in at least six years of service to 
     be eligible for transferability. Re-enlistments (and longer 
     service) are critical to the success of the All-Volunteer 
     Force. Fourth, the program should provide participants with 
     benefits tailored to their unique situation, thereby 
     broadening the population from which we retain and recruit. 
     This includes those whose past educational achievements have 
     resulted in education debt through student loans, and those 
     seeking advanced degrees and who may have earned 
     undergraduate degrees with Department of Defense support.
       As you may well appreciate, a key issue is the 
     determination of the benefit level for the basic GI bill 
     program. The Department estimates that serious retention 
     issues could arise if the benefit were expanded beyond the 
     level sufficient to offset average monthly costs for a public 
     four-year institution (tuition, room, board, and fees). These 
     costs are presently estimated at about $1,500 according to 
     the National Center for Education Statistics. This would 
     still entail a substantial increase to the present benefit 
     value of $1,100.
       An important corollary to the GI Bill is the recognition 
     that today, remaining in the military is entirely consistent 
     with the attainment of education goals. Unlike the past, our 
     nation now encourages the fulfillment of college aspirations 
     while serving, thus dealing with readjustment through up 
     front programs, rather than only after discharge. DoD invests 
     about $700 million annually to offer funded, education 
     tuition assistance for our servicemen and women while 
     serving. More than 400,000 members of the armed forces took 
     advantage of such tuition assistance last year.
       In conclusion, for all these reasons, the Department does 
     not support S. 22. This legislation does not meet, and, in 
     some respects, is in direct variance to the Department's 
     above-stated objectives and supporting criteria.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward 
     to working closely with the Congress to strengthen the All-
     Volunteer force through a balanced program of recruiting, 
     retention and education benefits, and to recognize the 
     service of our veterans.

           Sincerely,
     Robert M. Gates

                          ____________________