Firearms Fairness and Affordability Act

Mr. President, today I am doing my part to end the growing crisis of high school dropouts. I am introducing the Fast Track to College Act, a bill to increase high school graduation rates and improve access to college through the expansion of dual enrollment programs and Early College High Schools. Such programs allow young people to earn up to two years of college credit, including an Associate's degree, while also earning their high school diploma.

As our country struggles with an economic recession, I believe we must continue to invest in our public schools. While we must carefully consider how taxpayer dollars are spent during these trying times, education is one of the wisest investments we can make, and it is an investment that must be made now, before our children fall farther behind.

Education provides an outstanding return on investment for taxpayers, and it builds the foundation for future economic growth. Young people who drop out of high school are at increased risk for unemployment and incarceration, and they are more likely to depend on public assistance for healthcare, housing, and other basic needs. Conversely, adults with a bachelor's degree will earn two-thirds more than a high school graduate over the course of their working lives, and they are much less likely to experience unemployment or rely on social programs.

Our Nation's future depends on how we respond to the growing crisis in our schools, especially the rising number of high school dropouts. This generation of Americans is the first in history to be less likely to graduate from high school than their parents, and the U.S. is the only industrialized Nation where that is the case. This is not a sustainable trend if we hope to remain powerful and prosperous. Recent reports have illustrated the enormous challenge: the national graduation rate is only 70 percent, and is significantly lower in many large urban school districts. For example, my home state of Wisconsin has a relatively high graduation rate of 86 percent, but that rate drops to only 46 percent in the urban schools in Milwaukee. Such an achievement gap cannot continue.

As we work to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, we must find solutions to the growing dropout crisis and provide opportunities for young people to pursue higher education. More funding is not the only answer for the problems in our schools--we must also reform our whole approach to education. We must ensure that young people are being equipped with the skills they need to compete in a 21st century economy. In particular, we can no longer view a high school diploma as a satisfactory goal for students. In today's world, students need at least two years of college or technical education in order to secure a well-paying job and provide for themselves and their families.

That is why I ask my colleagues to support this bill, which provides competitive grant funding for Early College High Schools and other dual enrollment programs that allow low-income students to earn college credit and a high school diploma at the same time. These programs put students on the fast track to college and increase the odds that they will not only graduate, but go on to continue their education and secure higher-paying jobs. The Gates Foundation has been funding evaluations of such programs for several years now, and they have shown incredible promise as a tool for increasing attendance, graduation, and college enrollment rates, particularly among low-income high school students. Students are motivated by a challenging curriculum and the tangible rewards of achievement, including free college credit and exposure to career opportunities. This free college credit is critically important, especially in this economy, as family savings dwindle and tuition costs continue

to rise. Dual enrollment programs can provide just enough costs savings to make college affordable, especially for low and middle-income families who might think it is out of their reach.

Specifically, this bill authorizes $140,000,000 for competitive 6- year grants to schools, with priority given to schools that serve low- income students. The funding will help defray the costs of implementing new programs, strengthening existing programs, and providing students and teachers with the resources they need to succeed in early college high schools and other dual enrollment programs. The bill also includes $10 million for states to provide support for these programs, as well as an evaluation component so we can measure the program's effectiveness.

I am proud to sponsor this legislation because I believe this investment in our schools will help solve the dropout crisis and secure America's future by ensuring that all young people can compete in today's global economy. Further, I believe that all children, regardless of income or other factors, deserve equal opportunities to fulfill their potential, and it is both morally and fiscally responsible for this Congress to invest in high-quality educational programs that help them reach that potential.

While our country faces unprecedented challenges at this moment in history, I believe we also face incredible opportunities to shape our future. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to reinvest in a world-class education system that will move our country forward into the 21st century.

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 rise today to introduce the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act along with my colleague, Senator Collins. This bill is the culmination of years of work and careful study, and would go a long way to ensuring the safety of vulnerable older Americans. We have hard evidence that this policy will work and will protect lives. It is vital that we consider getting this legislation moving soon, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee, the elder justice community, and Congressman Joe Sestak in the House to make that happen.

Thousands of individuals with a history of substantiated abuse or a criminal record are hired every year to work closely with exposed and defenseless seniors within our nation's nursing homes and other long- term care facilities. Because the current system of state-based background checks is haphazard, inconsistent, and full of gaping holes, predators can evade detection throughout the hiring process, securing jobs that allow them to assault, abuse, and steal from defenseless elders.

We can and must take action to stop this type of abuse by building on the resounding success of a seven-state background check pilot program, enacted as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which enabled seven states to make major improvements in their existing screening procedures of individuals applying for jobs in long-term care settings. The results of this 3-year pilot program were a resounding success: more than 7,200 individuals with a history of abuse or violence were kept out of the workforce in Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.

The states who participated in the pilot have all chosen to continue their programs, and are taking additional steps to build on the success of the technological infrastructure they created. The Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act will expand these outstanding results nationwide by making it possible for all states to make these commonsense improvements. The cost of enabling states to efficiently connect registries and databases, expand the range of workers who are screened, and add a national criminal history check is very modest. If states take these steps, we can reduce the terrible toll of elder abuse. If we do not, experts tell us abuse rates will continue to rise.

Our straightforward approach is strongly endorsed by State Attorneys General across the country, the Elder Justice Coalition, which speaks for over 500 member organizations, AARP, the American Health Care Association, NCCNHR, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, and advocates in hundreds of communities who work every day to protect the well-being of elders and individuals with disabilities.

Last Congress, the Patient Safety and Abuse Prevention Act was passed unanimously out of the Finance Committee. We are so close to getting this policy passed. I ask my colleagues to join Senators Collins, Kerry, Whitehouse, Bingaman, Levin, Casey, Lincoln, Klobuchar, Stabenow, Bayh, and Cochran in supporting our efforts to reduce and prevent abuse of our elders and loved ones.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that support material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with my colleagues Senators Voinovich and Kohl that will strengthen the Federal Government's ability to serve the public at a time when Federal agencies face a wave of retirement of highly experienced employees.

When we think about the coming demographic shock of millions of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age, we usually focus on the cash-flow implications for the Social Security and Medicare programs. But their aging will also have a profound effect on the Federal workforce.

On average, retirements from the Federal workforce have exceeded 50,000 a year for a decade. The numbers will certainly rise in the near future. The Office of Personnel Management calculates that 60 percent of the current Federal workforce, whose civilian component approaches three million people, will be eligible to retire during the coming 10 years.

Federal agencies, which already must hire more than a quarter-million new employees each year, will need to work hard to replace those retirees, as the private sector and state and local governments will be facing the same problem and competing for qualified replacements.

The Baby Boom retirement wave will have another impact. It will cause a sudden acceleration in the loss of accumulated skills and mentoring capabilities that experienced workers possess.

Research has repeatedly shown that, in general, older workers equal or outperform younger workers in organizational knowledge, ability to work independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability. Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and sound management.

Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to full-time work on a waiver basis.

Agencies could make use of even more Federal annuitants for short- term projects or part-time work, but for a disincentive in current law.

Current law mandates that annuitants who return to work for the Federal Government must have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. The bill I introduce today with Senators Voinovich and Kohl would provide a limited but vital measure of relief to agencies who could benefit from the skills and knowledge of Federal retirees. It provides an opportunity for Federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment.

This simple but powerful reform will provide some much needed hiring flexibilities for agencies, especially given the expertise the Federal Government will need to effectively implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing earlier this month where we discussed how oversight entities will meet their responsibilities to ensure that stimulus funds are spent effectively. Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro indicated that the reemployment of annuitants is an essential authority that the Government Accountability Office uses when circumstances arise that require rapid staffing increases. Using statutory authority possessed by GAO, the agency is able to attract and hire back their annuitants without offsetting their pay by the amount of their pension.

Most executive branch agencies do not enjoy similar flexibility as GAO. Instead, current law requires these agencies to offset an annuitant's salary, unless the agency can first obtain a waiver from OPM. This waiver will be granted if the agency demonstrates to OPM that only a particular annuitant is qualified to fill a particular need and the annuitant will only return if his or her salary is not offset. The waiver process is administratively cumbersome, and often prevents agencies from even considering a returning annuitant for an important position.

Whether at GAO or in our Government's Inspectors General offices, experienced, qualified former employees--with institutional knowledge-- could play an important role in oversight of stimulus spending. This point was recently made by both Acting Comptroller General Dodaro and the Chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, CIGIE, Phyllis Fong, in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Inspectors General will have to quickly hire experienced auditors and investigators to ensure critical oversight of stimulus spending. This legislation will allow IG offices to bring back valuable and experienced employees to the Federal Government to ensure aggressive oversight, enhanced transparency, and accountability for taxpayer dollars.

Ensuring an experienced acquisition workforce is available to oversee stimulus spending is just as critical. The government spent $532 billion on contracts last year--a 140 percent increase from 2001 to 2008. At the same time, the Federal Government entered the 21st century with 22 percent fewer federal civilian acquisition personnel than it had at the start of the 1990s. As early as 2012, 50 percent of this workforce will be eligible to retire. This means that as our contract spending continues to increase dramatically, our contracting workforce continues to shrink. This legislation will allow agencies to bring in experienced acquisition personnel at a time when they are desperately needed--whether to ensure that stimulus funds are spent wisely or to help administer over $500 billion in government contract spending

Several organizations have endorsed the reforms in our bill, including the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Government Managers Coalition.

I would also note two important points about the bill.

First, it will not materially affect the necessary flow of younger workers into Federal agencies. The bill contemplates reemployment for part-time or project work of not more than 520 hours in the first six months following the start of annuity payments, not more than 1,040 hours in any 12-month period, and not more than 3,120 hours total for the annuitant's lifetime. In terms of eight-hour days, those figures are equivalent to 65, 130, and 390 days, respectively.

These limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limited-scope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment of annuitants.

I would also note that this bill gives no cause for concern about financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, their retiree health and life insurance benefits would be unaffected by their part-time work. Even without making any allowance for the positive effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings.

This measure offers benefits for Federal agencies, for Federal retirees who would welcome the opportunity to perform part-time work, and for taxpayers, especially during these tough economic times. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friend Senator Crapo to introduce an important piece of legislation that would help to strengthen the financial health of America's firearm and ammunition manufacturers, who in turn support wildlife conservation in America.

The firearm and ammunition industry pays a Federal excise tax of 11 percent on long guns and ammunition and 10 percent on handguns. The Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department collects this tax. The Bureau sends the proceeds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, also known the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund.

The tax is a major source of conservation funding in America. Since 1991, the firearm and ammunition industry has contributed about $3 billion to the Pittman-Robertson Fund and since the inception of the tax, has contributed over $5.5 billion. In 2008, over $321 million was collected.

Of all the industries that pay excise taxes on the sale of their products to support wildlife conservation efforts, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are the only ones that have to pay excise taxes every 2 weeks. Other industries, such as archery and fishing, pay their tax every 3 months.

This frequent payment obligation imposes a costly and inequitable burden on the firearms and ammunition industry. Manufacturers spend thousands of additional man-hours just to administer the paperwork associated with making the bi-weekly excise payments.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, changing the deposit schedule from a bi-weekly to quarterly payment would save the industry an estimated $21.6 million dollars a year. That is money that the industry could use for investment in researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing plants and equipment, and communicating with the hunting and shooting sports community.

Let me take a moment to explain what this legislation does not do. It does not reduce the firearm and ammunition industry's excise tax rates. It simply adds fairness to the tax code.

It is important for my Colleagues to understand the history and nature of the firearm and ammunition excise tax. During the Great Depression, hunters and conservationists recognized that overharvesting of wildlife would destroy America's treasured wildlife and natural habitats. Sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, and the firearm and ammunition industries lobbied Congress to extend the existing 10 percent excise tax and impose a new 11 percent excise tax to create a new fund. The fund was called the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund after Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in 1937.

The industry, hunters, and conservationists came together to create this structure. They recognized the importance of conservation. And they encouraged Congress to impose a tax on their guns and ammo. It is rare thing when taxpayers ask to be taxed. But preserving our country's wildlife habitat was and continues to be that important.

Today, more than $700 million each year is generated and used exclusively to establish, restore, and protect wildlife habitats.

Now let me explain the effect that the bill we are introducing today would have on the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. As the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its revenue estimate, the net budget effect to the fund is $4 million. This is purely a result of the shift in the timing of collections, from bi-weekly to quarterly, over a 10-year budget window. Consumers of firearms and ammunition would still pay the exact same amount of tax.

The firearm and ammunition industry recognizes the ten-year $4 million loss to the trust fund. The industry developed a comprehensive 5-year proposal to ease this effect. Under the proposal, the industry would contribute $150,000 a year for the next 5 years, a total of $750,000, to the fund.

These actions again show the partnership between hunters, conservation groups, and the firearm and ammunition industry to protect conservation programs and initiatives. That's why this legislation is supported by the following groups: Archery Trade Association; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Boon and Young; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Wild Turkey Federation; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Pheasants Forever; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International; Wildlife Management Institute; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.

I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation. I am very glad that Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Roberts, Ensign and Enzi have also signed onto this legislation as original cosponsors. I hope that we can come together, just as the industry, hunters, and conservation groups have, to pass this legislation. It is a matter of tax fairness. Let us do our part to correct this inequity in the tax code. Let us do our part to support an American industry that in turn supports wildlife habitat restoration and conservation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friend Senator Crapo to introduce an important piece of legislation that would help to strengthen the financial health of America's firearm and ammunition manufacturers, who in turn support wildlife conservation in America.

The firearm and ammunition industry pays a Federal excise tax of 11 percent on long guns and ammunition and 10 percent on handguns. The Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department collects this tax. The Bureau sends the proceeds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, also known the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund.

The tax is a major source of conservation funding in America. Since 1991, the firearm and ammunition industry has contributed about $3 billion to the Pittman-Robertson Fund and since the inception of the tax, has contributed over $5.5 billion. In 2008, over $321 million was collected.

Of all the industries that pay excise taxes on the sale of their products to support wildlife conservation efforts, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are the only ones that have to pay excise taxes every 2 weeks. Other industries, such as archery and fishing, pay their tax every 3 months.

This frequent payment obligation imposes a costly and inequitable burden on the firearms and ammunition industry. Manufacturers spend thousands of additional man-hours just to administer the paperwork associated with making the bi-weekly excise payments.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, changing the deposit schedule from a bi-weekly to quarterly payment would save the industry an estimated $21.6 million dollars a year. That is money that the industry could use for investment in researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing plants and equipment, and communicating with the hunting and shooting sports community.

Let me take a moment to explain what this legislation does not do. It does not reduce the firearm and ammunition industry's excise tax rates. It simply adds fairness to the tax code.

It is important for my Colleagues to understand the history and nature of the firearm and ammunition excise tax. During the Great Depression, hunters and conservationists recognized that overharvesting of wildlife would destroy America's treasured wildlife and natural habitats. Sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, and the firearm and ammunition industries lobbied Congress to extend the existing 10 percent excise tax and impose a new 11 percent excise tax to create a new fund. The fund was called the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund after Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in 1937.

The industry, hunters, and conservationists came together to create this structure. They recognized the importance of conservation. And they encouraged Congress to impose a tax on their guns and ammo. It is rare thing when taxpayers ask to be taxed. But preserving our country's wildlife habitat was and continues to be that important.

Today, more than $700 million each year is generated and used exclusively to establish, restore, and protect wildlife habitats.

Now let me explain the effect that the bill we are introducing today would have on the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. As the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its revenue estimate, the net budget effect to the fund is $4 million. This is purely a result of the shift in the timing of collections, from bi-weekly to quarterly, over a 10-year budget window. Consumers of firearms and ammunition would still pay the exact same amount of tax.

The firearm and ammunition industry recognizes the ten-year $4 million loss to the trust fund. The industry developed a comprehensive 5-year proposal to ease this effect. Under the proposal, the industry would contribute $150,000 a year for the next 5 years, a total of $750,000, to the fund.

These actions again show the partnership between hunters, conservation groups, and the firearm and ammunition industry to protect conservation programs and initiatives. That's why this legislation is supported by the following groups: Archery Trade Association; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Boon and Young; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Wild Turkey Federation; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Pheasants Forever; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International; Wildlife Management Institute; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.

I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation. I am very glad that Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Roberts, Ensign and Enzi have also signed onto this legislation as original cosponsors. I hope that we can come together, just as the industry, hunters, and conservation groups have, to pass this legislation. It is a matter of tax fairness. Let us do our part to correct this inequity in the tax code. Let us do our part to support an American industry that in turn supports wildlife habitat restoration and conservation.

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

Mr. Presdient, today, we introduce the Statutory Time- Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009. I thank Senator Specter, the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and Senators Whitehouse and Sessions, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Administrative Oversight and Courts Subcommittee for cosponsoring.

This legislation incorporates recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States to alter deadlines in certain statutes affecting court proceedings to account for recent amendments to the Federal time-computation rules. This bipartisan bill would provide judges and practitioners with commonsense deadlines that are less confusing and less complex than current deadlines, and also ensure that existing time periods are not shortened.

After much study and significant public comment, the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules arrived at proposed new rules intended to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process of calculating court deadlines. The proposed rules respond, in part, to findings from the Judicial Conference that the current time-computation process is confusing and can lead to missed deadlines and litigants' loss of important rights. Under the current time-calculation rules, weekends and holidays are not counted when calculating court deadlines of less than 30 days, but are counted for calculating court deadlines longer than 30 days. The proposed new rules simplify this process by counting holidays and weekends regardless of a court deadline's time period. According to the Judicial Conference, these proposed changes would respond to practitioners' complaints and criticism from judges.

This legislation would amend a number of Federal civil and criminal statutes affecting court proceedings and harmonize them with the proposed rules. First, this remedial bill would alter certain statutory court deadlines to counterbalance any shortening of the time period resulting from the ``days are days'' approach. For example, the bill changes 5 days to 7 days, and 10 days to 14 days, to prevent time periods from becoming shorter when a practitioner counts all days, including weekends. This change would, in effect, maintain the same time periods in the statutes. In addition, if a time period ends on a holiday or a weekend the time period would be extended to the next business day. The bill would also change some statutory deadlines that would otherwise be inconsistent with the amended rules deadlines and lead to confusion.

This bipartisan legislation is time-sensitive. Both the Department of Justice and Judicial Conference urge swift consideration of this proposal, to allow it to take effect on December 1, 2009, the same date as the amendments to the rules.

According to a letter the Department of Justice sent to the Judicial Conference last year: ``Failure to adopt statutory changes that move in concert with the proposed rule changes will result in exactly the opposite effect of what is intended--changes to the rules alone will introduce greater confusion rather than desirable simplification.'' Although the Obama administration has not formally weighed

in on this legislation, I anticipate that the Justice Department will again support this proposal. In addition, this bill mirrors the proposal from the Judicial Conference which enjoyed broad support from numerous legal and bar organizations, including of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation and Criminal Justice Section.

I hope we will consider this measure expeditiously and improve the effectiveness of our judicial system. Passing this bill will create a consistent and standard method for lawyers and judges to calculate court deadlines.

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