USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting on S. 3023, as amended, the proposed Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, as passed by the House of Representatives earlier this week. The bill, as it comes before the Senate, is a compromise agreement developed with our counterparts on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer of the House committee for their cooperation on this legislation. I also thank my good friend, the committee's ranking member, Senator Burr, for his cooperation as we have developed this bill.

This omnibus veterans' benefits bill will provide much needed support to our Nation's veterans. It contains provisions that are designed to enhance compensation, claims processing, housing, labor and education and insurance benefits for veterans. A full explanation of the Senate and House negotiated agreement can be found in the Joint Explanatory Statement, which I will ask appear in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I will highlight a few of the provisions that I have sponsored in the legislation that is before us today.

This legislation would result in improved notices being sent to veterans concerning their claims for VA benefits. Following a number of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, VA's notification letters to veterans about the status of their claims have become increasingly long, complex, and difficult to understand. These notification letters must be simplified, as veterans, VA, veterans' advocates, and outside review bodies have all recommended. The notices should focus on the specific type of claim presented. They should use plain and ordinary language rather than bureaucratic jargon. Veterans should not be subjected to confusing information as they seek benefits.

To further improve the VA compensation system, this legislation would end the prohibition on judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of matters concerning the VA rating schedule. VA issues regulations which are used to assign ratings to veterans for particular disabilities. Under current law, actions concerning the rating schedule are not subject to judicial review unless a constitutional challenge is presented. This legislation would amend the law to treat actions concerning the rating schedule in the same manner as all other actions concerning VA regulations.

I expect VA to comply with all laws passed by Congress in developing and revising the rating schedule. However, justice to our Nation's veterans requires that actions concerning the rating schedule be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as is available for the review of actions involving other regulations.

VA's Home Loan Guaranty Program may exempt homeowners from having to make a downpayment or secure private mortgage insurance, depending on the size of the loan and the amount of the VA guaranty.

Public Law 108-454 increased VA's maximum guaranty amount to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a single-family residence, as adjusted for the year involved.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Public Law 110-185, temporarily reset the maximum limits on home loans that the Federal Housing Administration may insure and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may purchase on the secondary market to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices but did so without reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA limits to nearly $730,000, in the highest cost areas, while leaving the then-VA limit of $417,000 in place. On July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was signed into law as Public Law 110-289. That law provided a temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount for VA loans originated from July 30, 2008 through December 31, 2008, to the same level as provided in the stimulus act.

The compromise agreement would extend the temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount until December 31, 2011. This would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to purchase more costly homes.

The compromise agreement would also increase the maximum guaranty limit for refinance loans and increase the percentage of an existing loan that VA will refinance under the VA home loan program.

Under current law, the maximum VA home loan guaranty limit for most loans in excess of $144,000 is equal to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single-family home. Public Law 110-289 set this value at approximately $182,437 through the end of 2008. This means lenders offering loans of up to $729,750 will receive up to a 25- percent guaranty, which is typically required to place the loan on the secondary market. Under current law, this does not include regular refinance loans.

Current law limits to $36,000 the guaranty that can be used for a regular refinance loan. This restriction means VA will not guarantee a regular refinance loan over $144,000, essentially precluding a veteran from using the VA program to refinance his or her existing FHA or conventional loan in excess of that amount.

VA is also currently precluded from refinancing a loan if the homeowner does not have at least 10 percent equity in his or her home.

The compromise agreement would remove the equity requirement for refinancing from an FHA loan or conventional loan to a VA-guaranteed loan. This would allow more veterans to use their VA benefit to refinance their mortgages. Many veterans do not have 10 percent equity and thus are precluded from refinancing with a VA-guaranteed home loan.

Given the anticipated number of non-VA-guaranteed adjustable rate mortgages that are approaching the reset time when payments are likely to increase, the committee believes that it

is prudent to facilitate veterans refinancing to VA-guaranteed loans. In light of today's housing and home loan crises, additional refinancing options will help some veterans bridge financial gaps and allow them to stay in their homes and escape possible foreclosures. These provisions would allow more qualified veterans to refinance their home loans under the VA program.

This omnibus benefits bill would also make crucial updates to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which protects service members' rights to return to their prior jobs with the same wages and benefits. The provisions in the committee bill are derived from S. 2471, the proposed USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, which Senator Kennedy and I introduced on December 13, 2007. This legislation would ensure that Federal agencies assist service members in a more effective manner by requiring the Department of Labor to investigate and refer cases in a more timely manner and by requiring reports from the Department of Labor on their compliance with the deadlines.

The omnibus benefits bill includes a provision derived from S. 3000, the proposed Native American Veterans Access Act of 2008, which I introduced on May 8, 2008. This provision is intended improve VA's ability to understand and respond to the needs of Native American veterans. While Native Americans are more likely to serve in uniform than the general population, many of them find cultural and geographical barriers between themselves and the benefits they earned through service. In addition, those returning to traditional homelands, especially reservation communities, frequently come home to dismal job opportunities and starved economies. The proposed bill would require a study to help us understand the employment needs of Native American veterans and how best to address them.

The compromise agreement also includes provisions derived from legislation I introduced on April 25, 2007, S. 1215, which would update the Special Unemployment Study required to be submitted by the Secretary of Labor to the Congress by mandating that it cover veterans of Post 9/11 global operations. It would also require the report to be submitted on an annual, rather than a biennial, basis. By updating this report, Congress will have more data available on more recent groups of veterans--those who served and are serving in the Post-9/11 global operations. This will help with assessments of the needs of current veterans entering the work force and develop appropriate responses.

Before I close, I recognize and thank the individuals involved in putting together this comprehensive measure. Specifically, I thank Kimberly Ross, Brian Lawrence, Juan Lara, and Mike Brinck from the House committee and Amanda Meredith, Mindi Walker, and Kevin Tewes from the minority staff on the Senate Committee. I also thank the majority staff who assisted me in developing the compromise agreement and all the legislation that led up to it. Patrick McGreevy, Mary Ellen McCarthy, Ted Pusey, Babette Polzer, and Dahlia Melendrez have worked throughout the 110th Congress on many of the provisions included in this legislation, and I am pleased that our collective efforts have led to this compromise agreement becoming a reality.

I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation that would benefit many of this Nation's nearly 24 million veterans and their families.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Joint Explanatory Statement, which was developed with our colleagues in the House, printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting on S. 3023, the proposed Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, as reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This omnibus veterans' benefits bill will provide much needed support to our Nation's veterans. It contains six titles and 34 provisions that are designed to enhance compensation, housing, labor and education, and insurance benefits for veterans. A full explanation of the bill is available in the committee's report accompanying this legislation, Senate Report 110-449.

I believe that it is important that we view veterans' compensation, and indeed all benefits earned by veterans, as a continuing cost of war. This legislation reflects that perspective.

I will highlight a few of the provisions that I have sponsored in the legislation that is before us today.

This legislation would result in improved notices being sent to veterans concerning their claims for VA benefits. Following a number of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, VA's notification letters to veterans about the status of their claims have become increasingly long, complex, and difficult to understand. These notification letters must be simplified, as veterans,

VA, veterans' advocates, and outside review bodies have all recommended. The notices should focus on the specific type of claim presented. They should use plain and ordinary language rather than bureaucratic jargon. Veterans should not be subjected to confusing information as they seek benefits.

To further improve the VA compensation system, this legislation would end the prohibition on judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of matters concerning the VA rating schedule. VA issues regulations which are used to assign ratings to veterans for particular disabilities. Under current law, actions concerning the rating schedule are not subject to judicial review unless a constitutional challenge is presented. This legislation would amend the law to treat actions concerning the rating schedule in the same manner as all other actions concerning VA regulations.

I expect VA to comply with all laws passed by Congress in developing and revising the Rating Schedule. However, justice to our Nation's veterans requires that actions concerning the rating schedule be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as is available for the review of actions involving other regulations.

VA's home loan guaranty program may exempt homeowners from having to make a down payment or secure private mortgage insurance, depending on the size of the loan and the amount of the VA guaranty. In general, eligibility is extended to veterans who served on active duty for a minimum of 90 days during wartime, or 181 continuous days during peacetime, and have a discharge other than dishonorable. Members of the Guard and Reserve who have never been called to active duty must serve a total of six years in order to be eligible for the benefit. Certain surviving spouses are also eligible for the housing guaranty.

Public Law 108-454 increased VA's maximum guaranty amount to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a single family residence, as adjusted for the year involved.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Public Law 110-185, temporarily reset the maximum limits on home loans that the Federal Housing Administration may insure and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may purchase on the secondary market to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, but did so without reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA limits to nearly $730,000, in the highest cost areas, while leaving the then-VA limit of $417,000 in place. On July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was signed into law as Public Law 110-289. That law provided a temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount for VA loans originated from July 30, 2008 through December 31, 2008 to the same level as provided in the Stimulus Act.

S. 3023, as amended, would extend the temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount until December 31, 2011. This would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to purchase more costly homes.

The committee bill would also increase the maximum guaranty limit for refinance loans and increase the percentage of an existing loan that VA will refinance under the VA home loan program.

Under current law, the maximum VA home loan guaranty limit for most loans in excess of $144,000 is equal to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single family home. Public Law 110-289 set this value at approximately $182,437 through the end of 2008. This means lenders offering loans of up to $729,750 will receive up to a 25 percent guaranty, which is typically required to place the loan on the secondary market. Under current law, this does not include regular refinance loans.

Current law limits to $36,000 the guaranty that can be used for a regular refinance loan. This restriction means VA will not guarantee a regular refinance loan over $144,000, essentially precluding a veteran from using the VA program to refinance his or her existing FHA or conventional loan in excess of that amount.

VA is also currently precluded from refinancing a loan if the homeowner does not have at least 10 percent equity in his or her home.

The committee bill would decrease the equity requirement from 10 percent to 5 percent for refinancing from an FHA loan or conventional loan to a VA-guaranteed loan. This would allow more veterans to use their VA benefit to refinance their mortgages. Many veterans do not have 10 percent equity and thus are precluded from refinancing with a VA-guaranteed home loan.

Given the anticipated number of non-VA-guaranteed adjustable rate mortgages that are approaching the reset time when payments are likely to increase, the committee believes that it is prudent to facilitate veterans refinancing to VA-guaranteed loans. In light of today's housing and home loan crises, additional refinancing options will help some veterans bridge financial gaps and allow them to stay in their homes and escape possible foreclosures. These provisions would allow more qualified veterans to refinance their home loans under the VA program.

The omnibus benefits bill would also make crucial updates to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which protects servicemembers' rights to return to their prior jobs with the same wages and benefits. The provisions in the committee bill are derived from S. 2471, the proposed ``USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007,'' which Senator Kennedy and I introduced on December 13, 2007. This legislation would ensure that federal agencies assist servicemembers in a more effective manner, by requiring the Department of Labor to investigate and refer cases in a more timely manner, and by requiring reports from the Department of Labor on their compliance with the deadlines.

Finally, the omnibus benefits bill includes a provision derived from S. 3000, the proposed ``Native American Veterans Access Act of 2008,'' which I introduced on May 8, 2008. This provision is intended to improve VA's ability to understand and respond to the needs of Native American veterans. While Native Americans are more likely to serve in uniform than the general population, many of them find cultural and geographical barriers between themselves and the benefits they earned through service. In addition, those returning to traditional homelands, especially reservation communities, frequently come home to dismal job opportunities and starved economies. The proposed bill would require a study to help us understand the employment needs of Native American veterans and how best to address them.

I thank the committee's ranking member, Senator Burr, for the agreements we have been able to reach. I truly appreciate his cooperation and that of the other members of the committee that have aided our work. I look forward to working with all those on the committee and our colleagues in the House in order to bring this legislation to final action before the end of this month.

I urge colleagues to support this important legislation that would benefit many of this Nation's nearly 24 million veterans and their families.

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.