[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8530-8536]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 3010. A bill to reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor Preservation 
Program; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to 
continue the restoration and preservation of the unique cultural 
resources along the famous Route 66. Passage of the Route 66 Corridor 
Preservation Reauthorization Act would carry on the wonderful work of 
the Park Service's Route 66 program over the past decade. As in the 
past, I am joined in this effort by my colleague from New Mexico, 
Senator Bingaman.
  In 1990, I introduced the Route 66 Study Act, which directed the 
National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, 
commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I later 
introduced legislation authorizing the National Park Service to join 
with Federal, State and private efforts to preserve various aspects of 
historic Route 66, the Nation's most important thoroughfare for east-
west migration during the 20th century.
  The Route 66 program is a collective effort by private property 
owners; non-profit organizations; and local, State, Federal, and tribal 
governments to identify and address preservation needs along the 
historic route. The program offers grants for the restoration of 
significant properties dating all the way back to the mid 1920s.
  The bill authorizes funding over 10 years and supports grassroots 
efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. Designated in 
1926, the 2,200-mile stretch from Chicago to Santa Monica, California, 
the Mother Road, as it was called, rolled through eight American 
states, and in New Mexico, it passed through the communities of 
Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. New Mexico added 
to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their 
first experience of our colorful culture and rich heritage. Route 66 
allowed travelers to see firsthand previously remote areas and 
experience the traditions and natural beauty of the Southwest and West.
  The bill authorizes the National Park Service to support State, local 
and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing 
technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and 
making grants. Since 1990, the Park Service has acted as a 
clearinghouse for communication among Federal, State, local, private 
and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of 
America's Main Street. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New 
Mexico, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives, 
and I hope Congress will act promptly in passing this important 
legislation.
  I thank my colleagues for considering the Route 66 Corridor 
Preservation Reauthorization Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3010

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Route 66 Corridor 
     Preservation Program Reauthorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PROGRAM.

       Section 4 of Public Law 106-45 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 113 
     Stat. 226) is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting 
     ``2019''.

[[Page 8531]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Shelby, 
        Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 3012. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2012; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill today to 
reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act for 3 years, 
through 2012. This legislation has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in 
Congress since it was enacted in 1998, and I thank Senators Specter, 
Mikulski, Shelby and Hatch for joining me in today's introduction. I am 
also glad to be joined by Congressmen Visclosky who will introduce this 
bill in the House of Representatives today as well.
  Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of 
Justice has distributed $234 million to State and local jurisdictions. 
Those grants have resulted in the purchase of an estimated 818,000 
vests. Since its enactment, over 11,900 State and local jurisdictions 
have participated in this program. Congress can be proud of the fact 
that this legislation has directly provided life-saving equipment to so 
many law enforcement officers. I know that when State and local 
jurisdictions receive the matching grants through this program, their 
budgets can go farther in fighting crime in their communities.
  Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the 
importance of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. We heard from a 
law enforcement officer who was shot in the chest at pointblank range 
during an auto theft investigation. He lived to tell the committee and 
others his story, thanks to the bulletproof vest he was wearing. In my 
home state of Vermont, the program has allowed the Vermont police to 
purchase over 350 sets of armor in the last 10 years. The program has 
had a tremendous impact on the ability of States and localities to give 
our law enforcement officers the protection they deserve while serving 
the needs of our communities.
  As a Nation, we ask much of our law enforcement officers. Men and 
women who serve face constant and unknown risks, and too often make the 
ultimate sacrifice. During this week in Washington, law enforcement 
officers from around the country will remember those officers who died 
in the line of duty while protecting their fellow citizens. 
Unfortunately, an ongoing trend of rising violent crime in the U.S. 
underscores the continuing need of this program that has had such a 
positive impact on the safety of law enforcement officers. 
Reauthorizing and funding this program is the right thing to do, and it 
is something I hope all Senators will support. Every additional officer 
who is able to put on a vest today as a result of this grant program 
means that one more officer may survive a violent attack. Protecting 
the men and women who protect all Americans should be a priority for 
Congress and we have a chance to advance that priority with the 
continuation of this important program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3012

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
     Grant Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

       Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(23)) is 
     amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2012''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, and Ms. 
        Murkowski):
  S. 3013. A bill to provide for retirement equity for Federal 
employees in nonforeign areas outside the 48 contiguous States and the 
District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I join with my good friends Senators 
Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, and Lisa Murkowski to introduce legislation 
to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, and 
the U.S. territories. For years, Federal employees in my home state of 
Hawaii and in other non-foreign areas have been disadvantaged when it 
comes to their retirement due to a lack of locality pay. Federal 
workers in those areas may receive a nonforeign cost of living 
allowance, COLA, based on the differences in the cost of living between 
those areas and the District off Columbia, but this amount does not 
count for retirement purposes. Furthermore, while locality rates 
generally increase, nonforeign COLAs have been gradually declining. 
This lack of retirement equity has resulted, in several lawsuits 
against the Federal Government and hinders efforts to recruit and 
retain Federal workers in those areas.
  On August 17, 2000, the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands 
approved the settlement of Caraballo v. United States, which was a 
class-action lawsuit in which employees in the nonforeign areas 
contested the methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management to 
determine COLA rates. However, on January 30, 2008, Judge Phillip M. 
Pro in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu ruled against the Federal 
employees in Matsuo v. the Office of Personnel Management, which held 
that excluding Alaska and Hawaii from locality pay did not violate the 
equal protection clause and substantive due process under the Fifth 
Amendment. Judge Pro acknowledged the disparity in his ruling saying 
that Congress ``discharged its legislative responsibilities 
imperfectly'' and recommended that Congress ``correct the incongruity 
made so evident by this case.''
  While this issue has been discussed for years, a solution seemed out 
of reach given the lack of support for various proposed solutions. Last 
year, the Administration announced a legislative proposal to phase-out 
non-foreign COLA and phase-in locality pay. In May 2007 the 
Administration's draft bill was submitted. The draft bill would freeze 
nonforeign COLA rates at their current rates at their current rates and 
OPM would no longer conduct COLA surveys. Over the 7 years following 
the enactment of the proposal, locality pay would be phased in for 
General Schedule, GS, employees while nonforeign COLA is phased out. 
According to OPM, preliminary data indicates that the locality pay rate 
for Hawaii would be 20 percent. At the end of the 7 year period, if the 
locality pay rate is less than the amount of nonforeign COLA for a 
particular area, employees would continue to receive the difference in 
nonforeign COLA and locality pay until the locality rate reaches the 
COLA amount. Only at that time would employees no longer receive non-
foreign COLA. However, the proposal did not address the impact such a 
change would have on postal employees, employees who receive special 
rates, members of the Senior Executive Service, and others who are in 
agency specific personnel systems or those who do not receive locality 
pay, such as employees under the National Security Personnel System at 
the Department of Defense.
  Knowing of the growing interest in this proposal, I sent staff from 
my Federal Workforce Subcommittee to Hawaii last July to meet with 
employees and hear their questions and concerns about the 
Administration's proposal. Based on the questions and comments I have 
received, I submitted questions to OPM and other Federal agencies to 
obtain additional information. I also posted information on the 
Administration's proposal on my website, a link to a calculator created 
by OPM for Federal employees to determine exactly how their pay and 
retirement will be impacted by the proposal, and the agencies' response 
to my questions. Since then, I have received numerous letters and phone 
calls from constituents and Federal employees in the nonforeign areas 
about this issue. While there are still divergent views on this 
proposal, the vast majority of employees who I have heard from are 
supportive of a change to locality pay.

[[Page 8532]]

  The legislation I introduce today is a collective effort of Senators 
Stevens, Inouye, Murkowski, and myself to find an equitable solution to 
a difficult and divided issue. The Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity 
Assurance Act is not to be seen as the last word, only the latest step 
forward toward determining the best way to ensure retirement equity for 
Federal workers in the nonforeign areas. Our bill seeks to provide 
answers to the questions raised by the administration's proposal and to 
cover all employees. Most importantly, our bill seeks to protect 
employee's take home pay. During this current economic climate, we must 
be careful to do no harm.
  Over the Memorial Day recess my subcommittee plans to hold a series 
of meetings in Hawaii on the Administration's proposal and this bill to 
hear remaining questions and concerns. I also plan to hold a hearing on 
these proposals in Honolulu on May 29, 2008. I continue to encourage 
employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and in the territories to write us with 
their questions and concerns on these proposals. My ultimate goal 
remains to ensure that Federal workers in the nonforeign areas are not 
disadvantaged when it comes to their pay and retirement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3013

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Non-Foreign Area Retirement 
     Equity Assurance Act of 2008 or the Non-Foreign AREA Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LOCALITY PAY.

       (a) Locality-Based Comparability Payments.--Section 
     5304(f)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) each General Schedule position in the United States, 
     as defined under section 5921(4), and its territories and 
     possessions, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be 
     included within a pay locality; and''.
       (b) Allowances Based on Living Costs and Conditions of 
     Environment.--Section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding after the last sentence 
     ``Notwithstanding any preceding provision of this subsection, 
     the cost-of-living allowance rate based on paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection shall be the cost-of-living allowance rate in 
     effect on December 31, 2008, except as adjusted under 
     subsection (c).'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) This section shall apply only to areas that are 
     designated as cost-of-living allowance areas as in effect on 
     December 31, 2008.
       ``(c)(1) The cost-of-living allowance rate payable under 
     this section shall be adjusted on the first day of the first 
     applicable pay period beginning on or after--
       ``(A) January 1, 2009; and
       ``(B) on January 1 of each calendar year in which a 
     locality-based comparability adjustment takes effect under 
     section 4(2) and (3) of the Non-Foreign Area Retirement 
     Equity Assurance Act of 2008.
       ``(2)(A) In this paragraph, the term `applicable locality-
     based comparability pay percentage' means, with respect to 
     calendar year 2009 and each calendar year thereafter, the 
     applicable percentage under section 4(1), (2), or (3) of Non-
     Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2008.
       ``(B) Each adjusted cost-of-living allowance rate under 
     paragraph (1) shall be computed by--
       ``(i) subtracting 65 percent of the applicable locality-
     based comparability pay percentage from the cost-of-living 
     allowance percentage rate in effect on December 31, 2008; and
       ``(ii) dividing the resulting percentage determined under 
     clause (i) by the sum of--
       ``(I) one; and
       ``(II) the applicable locality-based comparability payment 
     percentage expressed as a numeral.
       ``(3) No allowance rate computed under paragraph (2) may be 
     less than zero.
       ``(4) Each allowance rate computed under paragraph (2) 
     shall be paid as a percentage of basic pay (including any 
     applicable locality-based comparability payment under section 
     5304 or similar provision of law and any applicable special 
     rate of pay under section 5305 or similar provision of 
     law).''.

     SEC. 3. ADJUSTMENT OF SPECIAL RATES.

       (a) In General.--Each special rate of pay established under 
     section 5305 of title 5, United States Code, and payable in 
     an area designated as a cost-of-living allowance area under 
     section 5941(a) of that title, shall be adjusted, on the 
     dates prescribed by section 4 of this Act, in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management under section 9 of this Act.
       (b) Department of Veterans Affairs.--Each special rate of 
     pay established under section 7455 of title 38, United States 
     Code, and payable in a location designated as a cost-of-
     living allowance area under section 5941(a)(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be adjusted in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     that are consistent with the regulations issued by the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Temporary Adjustment.--Regulations issued under 
     subsection (a) or (b) may provide that statutory limitations 
     on the amount of such special rates may be temporarily raised 
     to a higher level during the transition period described in 
     section 4 ending on the first day of the first pay period 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2011, at which time any 
     special rate of pay in excess of the applicable limitation 
     shall be converted to a retained rate under section 5363 of 
     title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 4. TRANSITION SCHEDULE FOR LOCALITY-BASED COMPARABILITY 
                   PAYMENTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or section 
     5304 or 5304a of title 5, United States Code, in implementing 
     the amendments made by this Act, for each nonforeign area 
     determined under section 5941(b) of that title, the 
     applicable rate for the locality-based comparability 
     adjustment that is used in the computation required under 
     section 5941(c) of that title shall be adjusted effective on 
     the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after 
     January 1--
       (1) in calendar year 2009, by using \1/3\ of the locality 
     pay percentage for the rest of United States locality pay 
     area;
       (2) in calendar year 2010, by using \2/3\ of the otherwise 
     applicable comparability payment approved by the President 
     for each nonforeign area; and
       (3) in calendar year 2011 and each subsequent year, by 
     using the full amount of the applicable comparability payment 
     approved by the President for each nonforeign area.

     SEC. 5. SAVINGS PROVISION.

       (a) In General.--The application of this Act to any 
     employee may not result in the amount of the decrease in the 
     amount of pay attributable to special rate pay and the cost-
     of-living allowance as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act exceeding the amount of the increase in the 
     locality-based comparability payments paid to that employee.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the application of this Act to any employee should not result 
     in a decrease in the take home pay of that employee.

     SEC. 6. APPLICATION TO OTHER ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered 
     employee'' means--
       (A) any employee who--
       (i) on--

       (I) the day before the date of enactment of this Act--

       (aa) was eligible to be paid a cost-of-living allowance 
     under 5941 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (bb) was not eligible to be paid locality-based 
     comparability payments under 5304 or 5304a of that title; or

       (II) or after the date of enactment of this Act becomes 
     eligible to be paid a cost-of-living allowance under 5941 of 
     title 5, United States Code; and

       (ii) except as provided under paragraph (2), is not covered 
     under--

       (I) section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, (as 
     amended by section 2 of this Act); and
       (II) section 4 of this Act; or

       (B) any employee who--
       (i) on the day before the date of enactment of this Act--

       (I) was eligible to be paid an allowance under section 
     1603(b) of title 10, United States Code;
       (II) was eligible to be paid an allowance under section 
     1005(b) of title 39, United States Code; or
       (III) was employed by the Transportation Security 
     Administration of the Department of Homeland Security and was 
     eligible to be paid an allowance based on section 5941 of 
     title 5, United States Code; or

       (ii) on or after the date of enactment of this Act--

       (I) becomes eligible to be paid an allowance under section 
     1603(b) of title 10, United States Code;
       (II) becomes eligible to be paid an allowance under section 
     1005(b) of title 39, United States Code; or
       (III) is employed by the Transportation Security 
     Administration of the Department of Homeland Security and 
     becomes eligible to be paid an allowance based on section 
     5941 of title 5, United States Code.

       (2) Application to covered employees.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of title 5, 
     United States Code, for purposes of this Act (including the 
     amendments made by this Act) any covered employee shall be 
     treated as an employee to whom section 5941 of title 5, 
     United States Code, (as amended by section 2 of this Act) and 
     section 4 of this Act apply.

[[Page 8533]]

       (B) Pay fixed by statute.--Pay to covered employees under 
     section 5304 or 5304a of title 5, United States Code, as a 
     result of the application of this Act shall be considered to 
     be fixed by statute.
       (C) Performance appraisal system.--With respect to a 
     covered employee who is subject to a performance appraisal 
     system no part of pay attributable to locality-based 
     comparability payments as a result of the application of this 
     Act including section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, 
     (as amended by section 2 of this Act) may be reduced on the 
     basis of the performance of that employee.
       (b) Postal Service Employees in Nonforeign Areas.--Section 
     1005(b) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``and the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity 
     Assurance Act of 2008'' after ``Section 5941 of title 5''.

     SEC. 7. ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL BASIC PAY FOR ANNUITY 
                   COMPUTATION BY EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Definition.--In this section the term ``covered 
     employee'' means any employee--
       (1) to whom section 4 applies;
       (2) who is separated from service by reason of retirement 
     under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5, United States Code, during 
     the period of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011; and
       (3) who files and election with the Office of Personnel 
     Management under subsection (b).
       (b) Election.--
       (1) In general.--An employee described under subsection 
     (a)(1) and (2) may file an election with the Office of 
     Personnel Management to be covered under this section.
       (2) Deadline.--An election under this subsection may be 
     filed not later than December 31, 2011.
       (c) Computation of Annuity.--For purposes of the 
     computation of an annuity of a covered employee any cost-of-
     living allowance under section 5941 of title 5, United States 
     Code, paid to that employee during the first applicable pay 
     period beginning on or after January 1, 2009 through the 
     first applicable pay period ending on or after December 31, 
     2011, shall be considered basic pay as defined under section 
     8331(3) or 8401(4) of that title.
       (d) Civil Service Retirement and Disability Retirement 
     Fund.--
       (1) Employee contributions.--A covered employee shall pay 
     into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Retirement 
     Fund--
       (A) an amount equal to the difference between--
       (i) employee contributions that would have been deducted 
     and withheld from pay under section 8334 or 8422 of title 5, 
     United States Code, during the period described under 
     subsection (c) of this section if that subsection had been in 
     effect during that period; and
       (ii) employee contributions that were actually deducted and 
     withheld from pay under section 8334 or 8422 of title 5, 
     United States Code, during that period; and
       (B) interest as prescribed under section 8334(e) of title 
     5, United States Code, based on the amount determined under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (2) Agency contributions.--
       (A) In general.--The employing agency of a covered employee 
     shall pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
     Retirement Fund an amount for applicable agency contributions 
     based on payments made under paragraph (1).
       (B) Source.--Amounts paid under this paragraph shall be 
     contributed from the appropriation or fund used to pay the 
     employee.
       (3) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management may 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

     SEC. 8. ELECTION OF COVERAGE BY EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, an employee may make an irrevocable election in 
     accordance with this section, if--
       (1) that employee is paid an allowance under section 5491 
     of title 5, United States Code, during a pay period in which 
     the date of the enactment of this Act occurs; or
       (2) that employee--
       (A) is a covered employee as defined under section 6(a)(1); 
     and
       (B) during a pay period in which the date of the enactment 
     of this Act occurs is paid an allowance--
       (i) under section 1603(b) of title 10, United States Code;
       (ii) under section 1005(b) of title 39, United States Code; 
     or
       (iii) based on section 5941 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Filing Election.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, an employee described under 
     subsection (a) may file an election with the Office of 
     Personnel Management to be treated for all purposes--
       (1) in accordance with the provisions of this Act 
     (including the amendments made by this Act); or
       (2) as if the provisions of this Act (including the 
     amendments made by this Act) had not been enacted, except 
     that the cost-of-living allowance rate paid to that employee 
     shall be the cost-of-living allowance rate in effect on 
     December 31, 2008 for that employee without any adjustment 
     after that date.
       (c) Failure to File.--Failure to make a timely election 
     under this section shall be treated in the same manner as an 
     election made under subsection (b)(1) on the last day 
     authorized under that subsection.
       (d) Notice.--To the greatest extent practicable, the Office 
     of Personnel Management shall provide timely notice of the 
     election which may be filed under this section to employees 
     described under subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall prescribe regulations to carry out this Act, 
     including--
       (1) rules for special rate employees described under 
     section 3;
       (2) rules for adjusting rates of basic pay for employees in 
     pay systems administered by the Office of Personnel 
     Management when such employees are not entitled to locality-
     based comparability payments under section 5304 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without regard to otherwise applicable 
     statutory pay limitations during the transition period 
     described in section 4 ending on the first day of the first 
     pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2011; and
       (3) rules governing establishment and adjustment of saved 
     or retained rates for any employee whose rate of pay exceeds 
     applicable pay limitations on the first day of the first pay 
     period beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
       (b) Other Pay Systems.--With the concurrence of the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the 
     administrator of a pay system not administered by the Office 
     of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations to carry 
     out this Act with respect to employees in such pay system, 
     consistent with the regulations issued by the Office under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), this 
     Act (including the amendments made by this Act) shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Locality Pay and Schedule.--The amendments made by 
     section 2 and the provisions of section 4 shall take effect 
     on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning 
     on or after January 1, 2009.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my friend from Hawaii in 
introducing the Non-foreign Area Retirement Equity Act. I thank Senator 
Akaka for his hard work on this important legislation that finally 
brings retirement equity to the thousands of Federal employees in 
Alaska and Hawaii.
  Alaska and Hawaii are the only States in which Federal employees do 
not receive locality pay. Instead, they receive what is called a 
nonforeign cost of living allowance, or COLA. COLA was put in place in 
1949, before Alaska and Hawaii were States. It is based on the cost of 
living in an area compared to the cost of living in Washington, DC. 
COLA was not available to employees in the lower 48 States.
  When locality pay was established to benefit Federal employees in the 
lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii were not included because they were already 
under the COLA system. Locality pay brings Federal salaries closer to 
private industry salaries in an area.
  The key difference between these two systems is how it affects a 
Federal employee's retirement. As you know, a Federal employee's 
retirement is based on their ``high 3'' years of service, usually the 
final 3 years of their base pay salary.
  COLA is nontaxable income that cannot exceed 25 percent of the base 
pay. It is currently being reduced in Alaska and Hawaii by 1 percent 
each year. Because COLA is not taxed, it is not considered as part of 
an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This means an employee 
in Alaska retires with a much lower ``high 3'' than an equivalent 
position in the lower 48.
  Locality pay is taxable income, but is also considered part of an 
employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This makes a big 
difference in the amount of retirement benefits an employee receives.
  Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. Our 
Federal employees need to know they can continue to afford living in 
the State they call home on the money they receive in their retirement 
benefits. Many Alaskan Federal employees nearing retirement relocate to 
the lower 48 in order to receive locality pay for their ``high 3.'' 
This puts my State at a disadvantage because we are losing highly 
skilled, seasoned employees.
  This is an inequitable and outdated system. It is time to bring 
retirement equity to all States. The bill Senator Akaka and I introduce 
today with Senators Inouye and Murkowski will do

[[Page 8534]]

just that. Simply put, this bill will convert Federal employees in our 
States from the COLA system to the locality pay system. This conversion 
will not only benefit the Federal employees in these States, it will 
also save the Government money.
  The COLA system requires that a survey be conducted every 3 years to 
determine an area's COLA. Our bill would eliminate these expensive and 
time consuming surveys. By changing to a locality pay system, employees 
will pay taxes on income they now receive tax free. Federal employees 
in Alaska and Hawaii have filed lawsuits to fight the inequity of the 
COLA system. With this change, the Government will not have to spend 
time and resources defending against this litigation.
  The Office of Personnel Management supports replacing COLA with 
locality pay for all of these reasons.
  This bill addresses several employee groups with unique 
circumstances, including postal employees. I am confident we can work 
closely with the U.S. Postal Service and the postal employee unions to 
ensure that postal employees in Alaska and Hawaii are protected.
  Senator Akaka and I hope that all groups affected by this change will 
contact us so that we can ensure this bill takes everyone's concerns 
into consideration. Senator Akaka will be holding a hearing on this 
issue in Hawaii this month. Feedback from that hearing will be vital to 
improving our bill.
  It is important we pass this bill before the end of this Congress to 
bring equality in retirement to all of our Federal employees. I urge 
Senators to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 3014. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen 
penalties for child pornography offenses, child sex trafficking 
offenses, and other sexual offenses committed against children; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss with my 
colleagues an issue that has hit home over the last few years for all 
Americans, and that issue is crimes against children. We have all heard 
stories of children, our most innocent population, being victimized and 
abused by predatory criminals. While it is true we have made great 
strides passing Federal legislation against criminal predators, more 
work needs to be done. That is why I am here today to introduce a bill 
that I entitled the Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against 
Children Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl and 
Senator Vitter who have cosponsored this bill with me.
  This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the 
vilest forms of abuse and will send a strong signal to criminals that 
we as a society will not tolerate such behavior and that their 
predatory actions have real significant consequences.
  I wish to take a moment to talk about the murder of a girl from my 
home State of Iowa, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24, 2005, Jetseta, a 
10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. 
Within 12 hours of her disappearance, Iowa law enforcement agents 
arrested a registered sex offender, Roger Bentley, for the crime. He 
had been previously convicted of committing lascivious acts with a 
minor.
  Regrettably, this criminal served just over a year in prison for his 
previous sex crime conviction. Two days after her disappearance, an 
AMBER Alert tip led officials to the location of her body. She was 
found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. The autopsy 
revealed she had been sexually assaulted and suffocated with a plastic 
bag.
  I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today 
had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It 
breaks everybody's heart to hear about cases such as this, but it is 
even more demoralizing when you know that it might have been prevented 
with adequate sentencing.
  Last week, I honored two extraordinary law enforcement officers who 
helped put away another one of Jetseta's abusers: James Bentley. 
Unbelievably, James Bentley is the brother of Roger Bentley who was 
responsible for the rape and murder of Jetseta. A year prior to her 
murder, James Bentley took nude photos of 9-year-old Jetseta and her 
13-month-old little sister Leonna.
  After the child abuse prosecution of James Bentley stalled in State 
court due to sixth amendment concerns, U.S. Postal Inspector Troy Raper 
and Cedar Rapids Police Department Investigator Charity Hansel followed 
up on child pornography allegations that eventually led to James 
Bentley's conviction on Federal child pornography charges.
  These investigators worked tirelessly to find nine previous victims 
of James Bentley. Only two of the nine victims testified, but their 
courage and their accounts of abuse by this man were very powerful. As 
a result, these testimonies influenced the district court's decision to 
use higher sentencing guidelines to put him away in Federal prison for 
100 years. I am truly thankful for the public service that Inspector 
Troy Raper and Investigator Charity Hansel have done for Iowa's kids.
  In doing our part, we in Congress have not sat idly by. Two years ago 
we passed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. This 
important legislation made great strides in protecting America's 
children against violent sexual predators. Among its many components, 
this act standardized the National Sex Offender Registry, eliminated 
the statute of limitations for sex crimes against children, provided 
grants for electronic devices used for monitoring sex offenders and, 
lastly, established more severe criminal punishment for certain crimes 
committed by sex offenders.
  As part of the Adam Walsh Act, we were able to include the Jetseta 
Gage Assured Punishment for Violent Crimes Against Children amendment. 
The amendment created mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for 
criminals who commit murder, kidnapping, or serious bodily harm against 
children.
  We are on the right path, but I still say this is not enough--not 
enough punishment for people who commit these despicable crimes. There 
is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this serious issue.
  This bill I am introducing today will help change this by protecting 
children in four ways. It will increase mandatory minimum sentences, 
boost penalties for certain crimes against children, control the use of 
passports by convicted sex offenders, and strengthen the process for 
removing criminal aliens who commit sex offenses.
  The first section of the bill increases the penalties for child 
pornography offenses and elevates the mandatory minimum punishment for 
criminals who commit exploitation crimes against children. I know some 
of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in 
the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in light 
of the Supreme Court's decision in the Booker case, something must be 
done to ensure that sexual predators receive the type of sentences 
appropriate for their crimes.
  In Booker, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are 
no longer mandatory, thus Federal judges have unfettered discretion in 
sentencing. I am very worried judges are not doing their job to protect 
children. As a matter of fact, Deputy Attorney General Laurence E. 
Rothenberg testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that 
since the Booker decision, Federal judges have significantly increased 
the number of downward departures for those convicted of possession of 
child pornography.
  To counter this trend, my bill establishes the following mandatory 
minimums for exploitation crimes against children: One, where a crime 
involves child pornography, the offender will receive 20 years to life; 
two, where the crime deals with sexual exploitation of a minor by a 
parent or guardian, the offender will receive no less than 3 years to 
life.

[[Page 8535]]

  The second section of the bill increases penalties for child sex 
trafficking and child prostitution. The penalties for these crimes need 
to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and 
the damage that they do to children.
  The third section of the bill will ensure harsh penalties for 
criminals convicted of child sex offenses resulting in death, repeated 
child sex crimes, and forcible rape of children. These crimes involve 
the most violent types of sex offenders, and justice for these crimes 
should be dealt out with the strongest available prison sentences.
  The final section of the bill has to do with not permitting these sex 
offenders to travel outside the country. If we know someone is a 
convicted child molester, we have the responsibility to not allow them 
travel to Asia or Europe or anywhere to exploit and harm other kids in 
other lands.
  The bill provides for the following: When the sex offender has been 
convicted of a sex offense, the issuance of passports shall be refused. 
Secondly, if a passport has already been issued, the use of a passport 
may be restricted if the passport was used in the furtherance of a sex 
offense. Lastly, any alien convicted of a sex offense shall be placed 
immediately in removal proceedings.
  The provisions of this bill are designed to protect our children by 
locking up violent sexual predators. I doubt that the Members of this 
body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any 
objection to ensuring that violators of crimes against children receive 
tougher penalties for their acts.
  It is unfortunate that it took the murder of girls such as Jetseta 
Gage for a law with severe penalties to be proposed, but I strongly 
believe a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the 
future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizens, 
including our most vulnerable populations, and we have an obligation as 
adults to protect our young people. We have a commitment as parents to 
protect our children and ensure that they are given the opportunity to 
grow up free from the dangers that violent sex offenders pose. I urge 
my colleagues to join me and Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter in 
strengthening our laws so that no child becomes a victim of a repeat 
offender.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Casey, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, and Mr. Sanders):
  S.J. Res. 32. A joint resolution limiting the issuance of a letter of 
offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of defense articles and 
defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; read the first time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss rising energy prices. I 
remind President Bush, as he leaves for his trip to the Middle East, 
his ally, Saudi Arabia, holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at 
home in the short term.
  I, along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator 
Casey of Pennsylvania, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Senator 
Sanders of Vermont plan to submit a Senate resolution that would block 
all four pending arms deals to Saudi Arabia, which together total $1.4 
billion, unless Saudi Arabia shows that our friendship is a two-way 
street and increases its oil production by 1 million barrels per day 
above the January 2008 output levels.
  Because these weapons have not yet been delivered to Saudi Arabia, 
Congress still has the power to block these four deals as leverage to 
get the world's larger oil producer to bring its production back to 
historical levels, an action that would have the single greatest impact 
of lowering gas prices in the short term.
  I am very proud that we today voted to prevent continued oil going 
into the SPR as Senator Dorgan, the sponsor and somebody who has pushed 
this issue a long time and done it well, has noted that will probably 
reduce prices about a nickel. There is more. It is a good first step, 
as he would be the first to say, but we can do more.
  If Saudi Arabia would increase production by 1 million barrels a day, 
the price of gasoline would go down 50 cents a gallon almost 
immediately. It is a short-term fix.
  As my colleagues across the aisle and the administration continue to 
side with big oil, we have no other choice because, right now, it is 
Big Oil and OPEC that are benefitting and American families are losing. 
It is unfortunate we are at this point. Eight years of poor stewardship 
over our Nation's energy policy has left us with alternatives. And my 
Republican colleagues have blocked every attempt at real energy reform 
that would help alleviate the rising energy prices in this country.
  In the 110th Congress alone, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have blocked four different attempts by Democrats to extend the 
alternative tax provisions, and not only for a year or two but many.
  On June 21 of last year, the extension of energy credits received 57 
votes; on December 7, it received 53 votes; on December 13, it received 
59 votes; and on February 6, 58 votes.
  Each time, Republicans put up roadblocks requiring 60 votes in order 
to pass the bill. Each time the overwhelming majority of Democrats 
voted for the bill, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted 
against.
  President Bush opposed the bills because each would have ended tax 
breaks for big oil, as if they needed more tax breaks given their 
record profitability.
  Meanwhile, Americans continue to spend more and more on gasoline, as 
prices at the pump have skyrocketed upward to record heights. Although 
our President was not aware that gasoline prices were predicted to top 
$4 a gallon this summer, American households already faced with rising 
fiscal burdens incurred as a result of the subprime foreclosure crisis 
and the financial credit crunch are being squeezed further by record-
high prices at the pump.
  In a sign that high prices will continue unabated, the Department of 
Energy recently forecasted that gasoline prices would average $3.66 per 
gallon across the U.S. this summer, 25 percent higher than last 
summer's average.
  So I, along with several of my colleagues, think it is time to get 
the President's attention and the attention of the leaders of Saudi 
Arabia. The resolution we have introduced today, which Senator Reid 
will rule to move on to the calendar this afternoon, requires Saudi 
Arabia to increase their oil production by 1 million barrels a day or 
jeopardize their $1.4 billion of pending arms deals with the United 
States.
  One of those deals includes the sale of JDAMs, Joint Direct Attack 
Munitions, which makes conventional bombs into smart bombs that can be 
aimed through the window of a house. The administration has warned us 
that Saudi Arabia needs to use these weapons in their fight against 
terrorism.
  But how are they going to use laser-guided bombs to fight terrorists 
in their midst? Saudi Arabia very much wants these smart bombs. So our 
resolution sends a strong signal to the administration and to Saudi 
Arabia that friendship with the United States is a two-way street. If 
the Saudis want to see their weapons, we need to see an increase in 
crude oil production within the next 30 days. As we all know, the 
principal cause underlying the rise in gasoline prices has been a spike 
in crude oil prices, now over $120 a barrel, a 100-percent increase 
over the crude price at this point last year. A significant portion of 
this price rise is due to supply decisions made by OPEC. The largest 
member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, controls one-fifth of the world's crude 
reserves and constitutes more than 10 percent of daily production of 
crude oil.
  In the past, Saudi Arabia has kept crude oil prices high by limiting 
supply, producing anywhere from 1 to 5 million barrels per day below 
capacity. Currently, they are producing 2 million barrels a day below 
capacity. Why? Why right now, when crude prices are at an historic 
high, are the Saudis continuing to cut back on production? Does it make 
any sense? It does if you are a member of OPEC. It does if you are 
ExxonMobil. But it doesn't if you

[[Page 8536]]

are almost everybody else. With crude oil at the highest price ever, 
Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC are making record profits, and 
Saudi Arabia is not alone. Last month big oil companies announced some 
of the best profits in recorded history. Exxon made almost $11 billion 
in profit last quarter. So we know OPEC has no incentive to increase 
their production right now, since that would decrease their profits. In 
fact, if Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million 
barrels per day, that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 
percent in the price of crude oil. Crude oil prices would fall by more 
than $25 a barrel from the current level of $126. In turn, that would 
lower the price of gasoline between 13 and 17 percent or by more than 
62 cents off the expected summer price, if the Saudis would simply 
produce the amount of oil they used to produce when they were far more 
responsible. Yet Saudi Arabia's oil minister said there was no need to 
increase supplies by even one barrel of oil.
  But even as they are saying no, no, no to the United States, they are 
saying yes, yes, yes to China. They are doubling oil production for 
China. This is galling. When the President goes to Saudi Arabia and 
acts as if the Saudi King and the Saudi leadership are our good 
friends, he ought to look the American family in the eye and say that 
and say Saudi Arabia is a loyal ally. To most Americans, a well-armed 
Saudi Arabia is far less important than a reasonable price for 
gasoline, heating oil, and all other products upon which oil is based.
  The Saudis have to understand this is a two-way street. The President 
has to understand that the one-way street relationship with Saudi 
Arabia has to end. We provide them weapons. Our troops provide them 
protection. Then they rake us over the coals when it comes to the price 
of oil. Just as Saudi Arabia feels a need to protect itself with high-
tech, laser-guided missiles, American consumers and our economy need 
protection from record high oil prices, exacerbated by OPEC's 
stranglehold on supply. The administration needs to use all of the 
leverage it has to influence the OPEC cartel to stop manipulating the 
world's oil supply to its member nations' own wealth advantage. It is 
time we stop treating a cartel that would be illegal in the United 
States with kid gloves. That is what our resolution does. It reminds 
the Saudis there are consequences for keeping oil prices high at a time 
when American families are hurting. It reminds Saudi Arabia that it 
can't take American support for granted. They can choose record oil 
profits or American weapons, but they can't have both.
  I would like any Member of this Chamber and President Bush to look 
the average American family in the eye and say: There is nothing we can 
do to get Saudi Arabia to be responsible.
  There are things we can do; we just refuse to do them. This 
resolution has us step to the plate. The resolution is not the final 
answer, of course, to the problem of rising gas prices. That is why I 
am a proud cosponsor of S. 2991, the Consumer First Energy Act of 2008 
that we Democrats will offer on the floor before Memorial Day. That 
bill addresses underlying causes that are driving up energy prices and 
forces big oil to reinvest some of their record-breaking profits into 
alternative and renewable sources of energy that are both good for the 
environment, the consumer, and break our dependence on foreign oil.
  Our bill will also attack the broader bill's speculation, punish 
price gouging, and put additional pressure on the OPEC cartel. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. I am hopeful we 
can move on this resolution as soon as possible so American consumers 
no longer have to carry the heavy burden of high energy prices all by 
themselves.

                          ____________________