Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitative and Assistive Technology Act of 2008

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Preserving Records of Terrorist and Criminal Transactions, or PROTECT Act of 2008. I am proud to be joined by cosponsors Senators Feinstein, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Reed, Schumer, and Whitehouse.

In 1994, we passed the Brady Law, which requires criminal background checks for all guns sold by licensed firearm dealers. In the 14 years since it was enacted, the Brady law has prevented more than 1.5 million felons and other dangerous individuals from buying guns. I am proud to say that more than 150,000 of those denials have been to convicted domestic abusers because of a law I wrote in 1996.

Every time a Brady background check is conducted, the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System--or NICS--creates an audit log. The audit log includes information about the purchaser, the weapon, and the seller.

The information could be extremely valuable to the FBI. The agency could use it to help determine whether gun dealers are complying with the background check requirements, to help law enforcement fight crime by figuring out whether a criminal has been able to buy a gun, or even to help prevent terrorist attacks.

Yet, despite this information's value in fighting crime and terrorism, the FBI destroys the background check data.

In most cases, the audit log is destroyed within 24 hours after the sale is allowed to go through. That's because every year since 2004, a rider has been attached to appropriations bills mandating that the FBI destroy the background check record within 24 hours of allowing the gun sale to proceed. That means that the purchaser's name, social security number, and all other personally identifying information are purged from the system within 24 hours.

Once this information is destroyed, the FBI can no longer run searches using a person's name. So if a local law enforcement agency were to call the FBI to see if a criminal on the loose had purchased any guns recently, the FBI would not be able to search its database using the suspect's name if the gun was purchased two months, two weeks, or even two days earlier.

This destruction requirement hinders the FBI's ability to help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives verify that gun dealers are conducting background checks properly.

Before the destruction requirement, ATF could compare the NICS records to the paper records that gun dealers are required to keep on file to determine whether the dealers were submitting all the required information.

The destruction requirement also prevents the FBI from determining whether a felon, fugitive, or other person who is prohibited from having a gun was able to purchase one in violation of the law, and to retrieve guns from people who are prohibited from having them. The FBI has only three days to conduct background checks, and sometimes receives information after already approving a sale that the purchaser was legally prohibited from having a firearm. But without the background check information at hand, the FBI has no way of retrieving guns from these dangerous people who never should have been allowed to purchase them in the first place.

Prior to the 24-hour destruction requirement, the Government Accountability Office found that over a 6-month period the FBI used retained Brady background check records to initiate 235 actions to retrieve illegally possessed guns. According to GAO, 228--97 percent-- of those retrieval actions would not have been possible under a 24-hour destruction policy. Those are hundreds of guns in the hands of felons, fugitives and other dangerous people. We have the power to stop them, and we should use it.

Up until now, I have been talking about dangerous people who are prohibited from having guns under current federal law, such as felons, fugitives, and convicted domestic abusers. But there is one category of very dangerous people who are allowed to purchase firearms under current federal law-known and suspected terrorists. It is hard to believe, but nothing in our federal gun laws prevents known and suspected terrorists from purchasing guns.

And we know that terrorists exploit this Terror Gap in our gun laws. In a 2005 report that Senator Biden and I requested, GAO found that during a four-month period in 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase attempts were made by known or suspected terrorists. In 35 of those cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because FBI field agents were unable to find any disqualifying information within the federally prescribed three-day background check period. I have introduced another bill--the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act S. 1237--to close this Terror Gap, and I urge my colleagues to support that bill as well.

Not only do our current laws allow terrorists to buy guns, but the FBI also destroys the background check records from terrorist gun purchases within 90 days. That means that a joint terrorism task force conducting a terror investigation over the course of months or even years cannot call the FBI to find out if the target of the investigation--someone who is on the terror watch list--purchased firearms last year.

The PROTECT Act would address both of these record retention problems by preserving records that are critical to effective background checks, law enforcement, and terrorism prevention. Specifically, it would:

(1) require the FBI to retain for 10 years all background check records involving a valid match to a terror watch list; and

(2) require the FBI to retain for at least 180 days all other background check records.

This is a common-sense public safety measure. At a time when 32 people are murdered as a result of gun violence every day in the United States and we are fighting against terrorism, the last thing we should be doing is prematurely destroying a valuable anti-crime and anti- terrorism tool that we have at our fingertips.

At a Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing last year, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller if he thought that background check records should be retained for more than 24 hours. He replied, ``[T]here is a substantial argument in my mind for retaining records for a substantial period of time.'' That's what this bill would do, and I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in passing it swiftly.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with Senator Lindsey Graham, the Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Richard Burr, the Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Committee, in introducing the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. This legislation, which is designed to greatly enhance veterans' education benefits, is also cosponsored by Senators Chambliss, Lieberman, Cornyn, Alexander, Hutchison, Martinez, Stevens, Cochran, Collins, Barrasso, Domenici, Dole, Wicker, and Isakson.

Mr. President, America has an obligation to provide unwavering support to America's veterans, servicemembers, and retirees. Men and women who have served their country deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them, and they deserve to receive them as quickly as possible. And that is what our legislation is designed to accomplish.

The Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act would increase education benefits for servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. It would help facilitate successful recruitment efforts and, importantly, encourage continued service in the military by granting a higher education payment for longer service. It also provides a transferability feature to allow the serviceman and woman to have the option of transferring education benefits to their children and spouses. In developing this legislation, the one theme we heard from almost every veterans' services organization is the need for such a transferability provision.

As my colleagues know, our proposal is not the only measure that has been offered to increase GI education benefits, and I want to commend the efforts of Senators Webb, Hagel, Warner and others on their work to bring this important issue to the forefront in the Senate, by the introduction of S. 22. Each of us supports a revitalized GI program. While I don't think anyone disagrees with the overall intent of S. 22, I believe we can and should do more to promote recruitment and retention of servicemen and women and to ensure that veterans and their families receive the education benefits they deserve, and in a timely manner. But I remain very hopeful that we can all work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that will be signed into law as soon as possible.

Unlike S. 22, our legislation builds on the existing Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to ensure rapid implementation. Unlike S. 22, our bill focuses on the entire spectrum of military members who make up the All Volunteer Force, from the newest recruit to the career NCOs, officers, reservists and National Guardsmen, to veterans who have completed their service and retirees, as well as the families of all of these individuals.

The legislation would immediately increase education benefits for active duty personnel from $1100 to $1500 a month. To encourage careers in the military, the education benefits would increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service. Further, it would allow a servicemember to transfer 50 percent of benefits to a spouse or child starting after 6 years of service, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children. This is a key pro-retention provision. In addition, our bill would provide $500 annually for college books and supplies while our servicemembers are going to school.

The bill also would increase from $880 to $1200 per month the education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September

11, 2001. Further, it would gradually increase benefits to $1600 per month for those members of the Guard and Reserves who serve in the Selected Reserve for 12 years or more and who continue serving in the Selected Reserve.

Servicemembers who enlist after they have already received post- secondary education degrees should also be allowed to benefit under an improved GI Bill and be allowed to use their education benefits to repay Federal student loans. Under our bill, servicemembers could use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans. And, it doubles from $317 to $634 the education benefits for other members of the Guard and Reserves.

Our bill also recognizes the sacrifice of all who have served in the Global War on Terror, including members of the Guard and Reserve who are serving on active duty and deploying at historic rates by doubling the educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve and, again, making the educational benefits transferable to family members.

Finally, I do think it is important that the Administration's views on this important issue are taken into account. That is why earlier this month, Senator Levin and I wrote to the Department of Defense seeking views on proposals to modernize the GI Bill.

Again, it is my hope that the proponents of the pending veteran's education benefits measures can join together to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful legislation that the President will sign. Such legislation should address the entire spectrum of the All Volunteer Force. It must be easily understood and implemented and responsive to the needs not only of veterans, but also of those who are serving in the active duty forces, the Guard and Reserve, and their families. Their exemplary service to our nation, and the sacrifice of their families, deserves no less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. Today, we unite to ensure access to medical equipment for severely disabled Medicare beneficiaries who seek to lead independent and productive lives.

In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, Congress directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to proceed with a durable medical equipment competitive bidding demonstration project. The purpose of this demonstration was to determine whether competitive bidding can be used to provide quality medical equipment at prices below current Medicare Part B reimbursement rates. The bidding will result in a new fee schedule for some selected DME services, replacing Medicare's current fee schedule. In other words, competitive bidding will change how Medicare covers medical equipment and also determine which suppliers may participate in providing such equipment to beneficiaries.

It is critical to note that the Medicare competitive bidding program was designed to produce cost savings--both for Medicare and for beneficiaries in the form of lower copayments for medical equipment. The competitive process of submitting bids to supply particular services and products would reduce the price Medicare currently reimburses for these items.

Although competitive bidding may reduce the cost of some health services, this system will likely prove unworkable in certain circumstances. For example, many rural areas across the country may not have the health care infrastructure to support a competitive acquisition program. Small suppliers who service individuals residing in areas of low population density may be outbid by larger, distant providers, leading to limited access to medical equipment for Medicare beneficiaries living in these locations.

Another unique circumstance for which competitive bidding is inappropriate regards complex rehabilitation and assistive technology for individuals with significant and distinctive needs. Under the competitive acquisition program, thousands of individuals who require customized medical equipment may be forced to use ill-fitting products that will inevitably increase discomfort, further limit functional ability, and may even cause loss of function for these individuals who seek independence and mobility in their lives.

Let me give an example of how the competitive bidding program will hamper the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access necessary rehabilitative and assistive technology. If a Medicare beneficiary has been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and uses a power wheelchair due to the loss of muscle tone in the body, a wheelchair that is tailored to the individual is imperative for several reasons. Power wheelchairs that are not adapted to the particular needs of the individual lead to more than mere discomfort, but also can further worsening health. For instance, individuals with muscular dystrophy may have wheelchairs that allow them to change positioning in order to breathe more comfortably. In addition, these wheelchairs may also be adapted to accommodate other necessary medical equipment, such as breathing ventilators. Yet with Medicare competitive bidding, the process will likely yield more uniform wheelchairs, leaving severely impaired beneficiaries with limited options to meet their needs.

Our bill will remove complex rehabilitation and assistive technology products from the Medicare competitive bidding program. In a program intended to reduce costs through competition among suppliers providing medical products, it is simply untenable to include such sophisticated and personalized equipment. We all agree that we must address Medicare spending, but restricting access to necessary products for the beneficiaries that most require them is not the way to approach this issue--and may in fact increase costs.

I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Stabenow and myself in supporting the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008 to support Medicare beneficiaries in receiving the specialized medical equipment they so critically need.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. Today, we unite to ensure access to medical equipment for severely disabled Medicare beneficiaries who seek to lead independent and productive lives.

In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, Congress directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to proceed with a durable medical equipment competitive bidding demonstration project. The purpose of this demonstration was to determine whether competitive bidding can be used to provide quality medical equipment at prices below current Medicare Part B reimbursement rates. The bidding will result in a new fee schedule for some selected DME services, replacing Medicare's current fee schedule. In other words, competitive bidding will change how Medicare covers medical equipment and also determine which suppliers may participate in providing such equipment to beneficiaries.

It is critical to note that the Medicare competitive bidding program was designed to produce cost savings--both for Medicare and for beneficiaries in the form of lower copayments for medical equipment. The competitive process of submitting bids to supply particular services and products would reduce the price Medicare currently reimburses for these items.

Although competitive bidding may reduce the cost of some health services, this system will likely prove unworkable in certain circumstances. For example, many rural areas across the country may not have the health care infrastructure to support a competitive acquisition program. Small suppliers who service individuals residing in areas of low population density may be outbid by larger, distant providers, leading to limited access to medical equipment for Medicare beneficiaries living in these locations.

Another unique circumstance for which competitive bidding is inappropriate regards complex rehabilitation and assistive technology for individuals with significant and distinctive needs. Under the competitive acquisition program, thousands of individuals who require customized medical equipment may be forced to use ill-fitting products that will inevitably increase discomfort, further limit functional ability, and may even cause loss of function for these individuals who seek independence and mobility in their lives.

Let me give an example of how the competitive bidding program will hamper the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access necessary rehabilitative and assistive technology. If a Medicare beneficiary has been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and uses a power wheelchair due to the loss of muscle tone in the body, a wheelchair that is tailored to the individual is imperative for several reasons. Power wheelchairs that are not adapted to the particular needs of the individual lead to more than mere discomfort, but also can further worsening health. For instance, individuals with muscular dystrophy may have wheelchairs that allow them to change positioning in order to breathe more comfortably. In addition, these wheelchairs may also be adapted to accommodate other necessary medical equipment, such as breathing ventilators. Yet with Medicare competitive bidding, the process will likely yield more uniform wheelchairs, leaving severely impaired beneficiaries with limited options to meet their needs.

Our bill will remove complex rehabilitation and assistive technology products from the Medicare competitive bidding program. In a program intended to reduce costs through competition among suppliers providing medical products, it is simply untenable to include such sophisticated and personalized equipment. We all agree that we must address Medicare spending, but restricting access to necessary products for the beneficiaries that most require them is not the way to approach this issue--and may in fact increase costs.

I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Stabenow and myself in supporting the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008 to support Medicare beneficiaries in receiving the specialized medical equipment they so critically need.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Conrad and Kohl, I introduce the Incentives for Older Workers Act of 2008.

The United States is about to experience an unprecedented demographic shift with the aging of the baby boomer generation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1980, individuals age 50 and older represented 26 percent of the population. By 2050, this is expected to rise to 37 percent. In my home State of Oregon, residents age 65 and older are expected to comprise 25 percent of the State population by 2025. This will make Oregon the fourth oldest State in the country.

The aging of our population will have a significant impact on many aspects

of our society, including our labor market. A 2007 Conference Board study reports that current retirement trends could create a U.S. labor shortage of 4.8 million workers in 10 years. According to Dr. Preston Pulliams of Portland Community College, 53 percent of Oregon businesses report that it is extremely or very likely that their organization will face a shortage of qualified workers during the next 5 years as a result of the retirement of baby boomers.

The Incentives for Older Workers Act will help mitigate the effects of our aging workforce by providing incentives to older Americans to stay in the workforce longer, encouraging employers to recruit and retain older workers, and eliminating barriers to working longer. For example, the current Work Opportunity Tax Credit allows employers credits against wages for hiring individuals from one or more of nine targeted groups, such as recipients of public assistance and high risk youth. Our bill would extend that credit for employers that hire older workers.

In addition, Social Security benefits are increased if retirement is delayed beyond full retirement age. Increases based on delaying retirement no longer apply when people reach age 70, even if they continue to delay taking benefits. Our bill would allow people to earn delayed retirement credits up until age 72, instead of age 70.

To collect, organize and disseminate information on older worker issues, the bill also would create a National Resource Center on Aging and the Workforce within the U.S. Department of Labor. This center would act as a national information clearinghouse on workforce issues, challenges and solutions for older workers.

The bipartisan Incentives for Older Workers Act will provide seniors with the flexibility and opportunity to continue working in retirement if they choose to. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these important reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.