[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10770-S10774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1552. A bill to provide for grants through the Small Business 
Administration for losses suffered by general aviation small business 
concerns as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; to 
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Inhofe, 
Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, Senator Johnson, Senator Hollings and 
myself, to introduce the General Aviation Assistance Act. This 
legislation would provide assistance in the form of Small Business 
Administration grants, helping to support an essential part of our 
aviation industry at a very critical time.
  When many of the large passenger airlines were in trouble, we knew we 
had to act quickly to support this vital industry. When the planes were 
grounded following the September 11 attacks, many airlines were in a 
precarious position.
  The situation in the general aviation industry is equally, if not 
more, precarious. And the services general aviation businesses provide 
are no less critical to our economy.
  In Iowa and in many rural States, commercial service is very limited. 
Without general aviation, traveling by air means driving for hours to 
reach a small commercial airport that offers few flights, often at 
inconvenient times. That is not a workable situation for most 
businesses. Many could not locate to rural America without general 
aviation services.
  The general aviation industry is made up of a number of small 
business. It operates at more than 5,300 public use airports 
nationwide, compared to the 650 airports in the nation that have 
airline service. Ninety-two percent of the aircraft registered in the 
United States are general aviation aircraft. That includes charter 
businesses, crop dusters, the people who maintain small noncommercial 
airports and those that train future pilots. These businesses provide 
jobs for thousands of hard-working Americans and many cannot survive 
much longer without our help.
  Our failure to support general aviation now would deal a severe blow 
to the rural economy. Unlike the commercial airlines, general aviation 
is made up largely of small businesses. Their ability to remain in 
business rests on their ability to fly. A very significant number of 
these businesses are in danger of not making it through the year 
without relief.
  Over the past month, while visiting many of Iowa's airports to 
discuss airlines safety, I also met with a number of general aviation 
operators. For many small plane operators, flight restrictions lasted 
far longer than they did for the big airlines. Indeed, there are still 
some general aviation companies near large cities that are still closed 
today.
  Last week, I spoke with Bill Kyle from Charles City, IA who is a 
small independent operator. From September 11 to September 22, he lost 
two thousand dollars a day. He is still losing $800 dollars every day 
because his business is reduced at a similar rate to the reductions 
seen in commercial aviation. These are not the type of losses that a 
small business like Bill Kyle's can survive, not without some 
assistance.
  The legislation we are introducing today will provide small general 
aviation businesses with grants to make up for their actual losses from 
September 11 through the end of the year. The program would be 
administered by the Small Business Administration which would make sure 
that the amount of assistance provided was fairly determined. Grants 
could be as much as $6 million, although, of course, the vast majority 
would be far less.
  We must act. This assistance could be the difference between a 
general aviation business taking off or being grounded permanently.
  A number of my colleagues are working to assist small business to 
recover from this tragedy. I am sure that many have been hearing from 
their constituents about this issue. So, I am sure they know that few 
small businesses have been impacted as dramatically as the hard-working 
people in general aviation.
  I am committed to getting general aviation back on track. It is 
important to these small businesses. It is important to the people they 
employ. And it is important to the rural economy as a whole. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1553. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
bonus deduction for depreciable business assets; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to help stimulate the economy by creating a strong incentive 
for businesses to invest immediately in new productive assets.
  Unfortunately, the evil acts of terrorists on September 11 did more 
than shatter lives, hopes and dreams and destroy or damage great 
buildings in New York and Washington. They also caused serious harm to 
our national, and even the world's economies.
  While we do not yet know the full extent of the havoc brought to the 
U.S. economy by the calamities of September 11, practically all the 
experts agree that the damage will be significant. Few of them doubt 
that we are now in a recession. Moreover, many of the Nation's leading 
economists agree that the Congress and the President should move 
quickly to enact a package of tax cuts and other measures to stimulate 
the economy and try to prevent the downturn from becoming a long and 
deep one.
  For this reason, the bipartisan leadership of Congress in both 
houses, along with the White House, have been meeting for weeks in an 
attempt to develop a consensus on what such an economic stimulus 
package should include. Last Friday, the Committee on Ways and Means of 
the House of Representatives approved an initial stimulus bill.
  While it appears evident to me that it will be difficult for everyone 
in both parties and in both houses to agree on the proper content of 
the economic stimulus package, there are some guiding principles for 
the package on which most seem to agree. First, and almost by 
definition, the stimulus package should provide a strong incentive for 
players in the economy to take action they would not ordinarily take. 
Second, such an incentive should cause the desired action to occur 
quickly, when it will be of the most good to the economy. Finally, the 
stimulus should be temporary, and not cause a large long-term effect on 
the Federal budget, which could lead to an increase in interest rates.
  It may be that there are many specific tax law changes that meet 
these guiding principles. Some have suggested another round of tax 
rebate checks, but designated only for those who were not able to 
participate in the advance tax cut Congress passed in May of this year. 
Others are proposing the acceleration of the income tax rate cuts that 
were included in that same tax bill that are presently scheduled to 
take effect in future years. Still others insist that the stimulus 
package include new spending on our infrastructure or relief to ailing 
industries and to displaced employees.
  In the end, the economic stimulus package signed into law will 
probably contain a combination of several of these ideas. Our political 
process will

[[Page S10771]]

require us to reach some kind of consensus, which means some of this 
idea and some of that idea will have to be included.
  Knowing that the stimulus package will be a collage of ideas, I 
believe it is important that it include a core provision that almost 
everyone seems to agree meets the criteria of true economic stimulus, a 
strong inducement for businesses to invest in productive assets. The 
purpose of the bill I introduce today is to put before the Senate a 
bold plan that I believe would accomplish this goal.
  The Economic Stimulus Through Bonus Depreciation Act of 2001 would 
provide businesses throughout America a very strong, but short-term, 
incentive to purchase business assets and put them to work over the 
next few months. A strong and concentrated surge in capital spending by 
U.S. businesses would provide a tremendous shot in the arm to our 
economy, as present inventories become depleted and manufacturers 
scramble to keep up with the new demand.
  Specifically, my bill would provide a 50-percent bonus depreciation 
deduction for business assets purchased after September 10, 2001, and 
before July 1, 2002, and placed in service before January 1, 2003. This 
means that businesses that want to take advantage of this strong 
incentive, which generally provides more than twice the first year 
deduction than is allowed under current law, would have to act quickly 
and order the new business assets by next June 30, and take delivery by 
next December 31.
  For example, suppose a business needed a new delivery truck that cost 
$50,000. Under current law, most trucks are considered 5-year property, 
and are generally depreciated over a 5-year period. If the business 
purchased the truck in 2002, the current-law depreciation deduction for 
the first year would be $10,000. In other words, the business would be 
able to write off one-fifth of the cost of the truck in the year of 
purchase.
  Under my bill, that same business would be allowed a 50-percent 
first-year depreciation deduction, rather than the 20 percent. So, 
instead of a deduction of $10,000 in 2002, the business would be 
allowed to deduct $25,000 of the cost of the truck in the first year. 
This is a significant difference, and it should be enough of a 
difference to change behavior when coupled with a short window of 
opportunity.
  The short time frame is a key to the success of a stimulus promotion 
bill like this one. My bill would require that a business make a 
decision and enter into a contract to purchase a new asset by next June 
30, and then take delivery on the property by December 31, 2002.
  I will note that the economic stimulus bill approved by the House 
Ways and Means Committee last week includes a somewhat similar 
provision, one that provides for 30 percent extra depreciation for 
certain business assets. However, that bill allows the purchaser to 
take almost 3 years to decide to buy a new asset, then allows another 
several months to place the property into service. With all respect to 
my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, I believe the window of 
opportunity for the enhanced deduction created by that bill is too 
long. It does not instill the sense of urgency that I believe is needed 
to truly create a significant stimulus.

  It is important to note that my bill also applies to more types of 
business property than does the Ways and Means bill. The bill passed by 
the Ways and Means Committee would generally provide for an enhanced 
depreciation deduction for depreciable property with a recovery period 
of 20 years or less, except for leasehold improvements. The bill I am 
introducing today would apply to all types of depreciable property, 
including leasehold improvements and depreciable real estate.
  As a practical matter, I realize that many real estate projects, as 
well as many larger build-to-order equipment projects, take longer than 
a year to build and place in service. However, it is also true that 
many larger and costly projects can be built within the time 
constraints of this bill, especially if there is a concerted attempt to 
do so. I believe that the short time frame of my bill would induce many 
companies to act much more quickly than they otherwise would, in order 
to get business assets ordered and built in time to qualify for the 
bonus depreciation. This is where the economic stimulus power of this 
bill comes into play. The more effort that is made to get real estate 
projects finished, or to get equipment ordered, delivered, and placed 
in service in time to meet the deadlines of this bill, the more 
economic stimulus is created.
  Moreover, I believe this bill meets the three guiding principles I 
mentioned earlier. First, it provides a strong incentive for businesses 
to take stimulative action they would not otherwise take, in this case 
to purchase assets by June 30, 2002, in order to reap a significant tax 
savings. Second, because of the short deadline, this action will take 
place right away, when economic stimulus is really needed. Finally, the 
bill raises few risks of raising interest rates. Depreciation is a form 
of cost recovery over a period of time. Because our tax code allows the 
cost of assets to be recovered over time, a speed-up of the time of 
recovery has few long-term costs to the Federal budget. So, allowing 
businesses to write off a larger portion of the cost of assets for a 
short time period has a negative effect on the Treasury in the first 
two or three years, but begins to reverse itself afterward. Thus, much 
of the early year costs of my bill will be fully reversed within the 
10-year budget window.
  President Bush has indicated his support for the inclusion in the 
economic stimulus package of an enhanced depreciation provision. A 
number of Democrats and Republicans have also spoken out in support of 
this idea. And, as I mentioned, the Ways and Means Committee included a 
version of bonus depreciation in the bill it passed last week. Bonus 
depreciation is a solid economic stimulus idea. In crafting a consensus 
package, I urge my colleagues to include a depreciation provision that 
packs a punch by offering the promise of a large deduction for actions 
taken in a relatively short time frame. I believe the legislation I 
introduce today fits the bill nicely, and I urge its consideration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1553

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Economic Stimulus Through 
     Bonus Depreciation Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. BONUS DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN BUSINESS 
                   ASSETS.

       (a) In General.--Section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to accelerated cost recovery system) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Bonus Allowance for Certain Business Assets.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any qualified property--
       ``(A) the depreciation deduction provided by section 167(a) 
     for the taxable year in which such property is placed in 
     service shall be an amount equal to 50 percent of the 
     adjusted basis of the qualified property, and
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2), the amount otherwise 
     allowable as a depreciation deduction under this chapter for 
     any subsequent taxable year shall be computed in the same 
     manner as if this subsection had not been enacted.
       ``(2) Adjusted basis.--The aggregate deduction allowed 
     under this section for taxable years described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) with respect to any qualified property shall not 
     exceed the adjusted basis of such property reduced by the 
     amount of the deduction allowed under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(3) Qualified property.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified property' means 
     property--
       ``(i)(I) to which this section applies, or
       ``(II) which is computer software (as defined in section 
     167(f)(1)(B)) for which a deduction is allowable under 
     section 167(a) without regard to this subsection,
       ``(ii) the original use of which commences with the 
     taxpayer on or after September 11, 2001,
       ``(iii) which is--

       ``(I) acquired by the taxpayer on or after September 11, 
     2001, and before July 1, 2002, but only if no written binding 
     contract for the acquisition was in effect before September 
     11, 2001, or
       ``(II) acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written 
     binding contract which was entered into on or after September 
     11, 2001, and before July 1, 2002, and

       ``(iv) which is placed in service by the taxpayer before 
     January 1, 2003.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--

[[Page S10772]]

       ``(i) Alternative depreciation property.--The term 
     `qualified property' shall not include any property to which 
     the alternative depreciation system under subsection (g) 
     applies, determined--

       ``(I) without regard to paragraph (7) of subsection (g) 
     (relating to election to have system apply), and
       ``(II) after application of section 280F(b) (relating to 
     listed property with limited business use).

       ``(ii) Election out.--If a taxpayer makes an election under 
     this clause with respect to any class of property for any 
     taxable year, this subsection shall not apply to all property 
     in such class placed in service during such taxable year.
       ``(iii) Repaired or reconstructed property.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in regulations, the term `qualified 
     property' shall not include any repaired or reconstructed 
     property.
       ``(C) Special rules relating to original use.--
       ``(i) Self-constructed property.--In the case of a taxpayer 
     manufacturing, constructing, or producing property for the 
     taxpayer's own use, the requirements of clause (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if the taxpayer 
     begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property 
     on or after September 11, 2001, and before January 1, 2003.
       ``(ii) Sale-leasebacks.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(i), if property--

       ``(I) is originally placed in service on or after September 
     11, 2001, by a person, and
       ``(II) is sold and leased back by such person within 3 
     months after the date such property was originally placed in 
     service,

     such property shall be treated as originally placed in 
     service not earlier than the date on which such property is 
     used under the leaseback referred to in subclause (II).
       ``(D) Coordination with section 280F.--For purposes of 
     section 280F--
       ``(i) Automobiles.--In the case of a passenger automobile 
     (as defined in section 280F(d)(5)) which is qualified 
     equipment, the Secretary shall increase the limitation under 
     section 280F(a)(1)(A)(i), and decrease each other limitation 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 280F(a)(1), to 
     appropriately reflect the amount of the deduction allowable 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(ii) Listed property.--The deduction allowable under 
     paragraph (1) shall be taken into account in computing any 
     recapture amount under section 280F(b)(2).
       ``(4) Applicable convention.--Subsection (d)(3) shall not 
     apply in determining the applicable convention with respect 
     to qualified property.''.
       (b) Allowance Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Section 56(a)(1)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to depreciation adjustment for 
     alternative minimum tax) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Additional allowance for certain business assets.--
     The deduction under section 168(k) shall be allowed.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Clause (i) of section 
     56(a)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or (iii)'' 
     after ``(ii)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service on or after 
     September 11, 2001, in taxable years ending on or after such 
     date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1555. A bill to express the policy of the United States with 
respect to the adherence by the United States to global standards in 
the transfer of small arms and light weapons and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Security 
and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking Act of 2001, cosponsored by 
Senators Leahy and Akaka.
  Small arms and light weapons, such as assault rifles, machine guns, 
grenades, and portable launchers of antiaircraft missile systems, are 
the weapons of choice for terrorists and their friends, and I fully 
believe that U.S. leadership is needed to stem the global torrent of 
illicit arms. All too often these arms fall into the hands of 
terrorists, drug cartels, and violent rebellions. Curbing the 
proliferation of these weapons must be a vital component of our efforts 
to combat international terrorism.
  The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, in fact, is due in no small 
part to the ready availability of these weapons in that war torn 
country, and Afghanistan clearly demonstrates how a country can become 
a threat to regional and global security if it is flooded with small 
arms and light weapons. The Taliban and the al Qaeda network were able 
to gather more than 10 million small arms and light weapons from a 
variety of sources over the past decade, including AK-47s, hand 
grenades, and Stinger missiles. Today the United States and its allies 
are faced with these very weapons as we move forward with Operation 
Enduring Freedom.
  The global networks of terrorism are clearly linked to the networks 
of the illicit arms trade and to the states that harbor terrorists, and 
terrorists around the globe also utilize the intertwined global 
networks of the illegal arms trade and the drug trade to generate 
financial resources for their destructive and threatening activities.
  As I have previously discussed on the floor, the global proliferation 
of small arms and light weapons is a staggering problem.
  An estimated 500 million illicit small arms and light weapons are in 
circulation around the globe.
  In the past decade, an estimated 4 million people have been killed in 
civil war and bloody fighting. Nine out of ten of these deaths are 
attributed to small arms and light weapons.
  The sheer volume of available weaponry has been a major factor in the 
devastation witnessed in recent conflicts in Angola, Cambodia, Liberia, 
Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Kosovo, among 
others, as well as the violence endemic to narco-trafficking.
  The increased access by terrorists, guerrilla groups, criminals, and 
others to small arms and light weapons poses a real threat to U.S. 
forces overseas. For the United States, as we now engage in the war on 
terrorism, this issue is a very real force protection issue.
  The conflicts fueled by small arms and light weapons undermine 
regional stability and endanger the spread of democracy and free 
markets around the world.
  Clearly this is a huge problem, with profound implications for U.S. 
security interests.
  I strongly believe that the U.S. Government must take the lead in the 
international community in addressing this issue. It is in the United 
States national interest to promote responsibility and restraint in the 
transfer of small arms and light weapons; to combat irresponsible 
practices in such transfers, to ensure that nations engaged in 
substandard practices are held accountable; to encourage other members 
of the international community to meet, as minimum standards U.S. law 
and practices; take strong action to negotiate and support making the 
trafficking of small arms traceable; bolster rules governing arms 
brokers; and eliminate the secrecy that permits millions of these 
weapons to circulate illicitly around the globe, fueling crime and war.
  As a matter of fact, as a major supplier country in the legal arms 
trade, the United States has a special obligation to promote 
responsible practices in the transfer of these weapons.
  That is what the Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms Trafficking 
Act of 2001 aims to do. It: Affirms U.S. policy to maintain the highest 
standards for the management and transfer of small arms and light 
weapons exports, and that it is U.S. policy to refrain from exports 
that could be used in internal repression, human rights abuses and 
international aggression; enforces the ban in international commercial 
transfers of military-style assault weapons and, improves end-use 
monitoring of U.S. arms transfers; urges the administration to enter 
into negotiations with the European Union and NATO member states, as 
well as other members of the international community to bring our 
allies into compliance with U.S. law and standards for the export and 
transfer of military-style assault weapons as well as on such critical 
issues as marking and tracing of small arms and light weapons, rules 
governing the conduct of arms brokers, and the enforcement of arms 
embargoes; calls on the administration to establish a U.S.-EU 
Coordinating Group on Small Arms, and to work to and implement and 
advance the Program of Action of the United Nations Conference on the 
Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects; 
improves the transparency of U.S. transfers in small arms and light 
weapons, and requires the establishment of a registry of all U.S. 
firearm exports; and, encourages all states that have not done so to 
ratify the OAS convention on small arms and light weapons.
  And let me be clear: This legislation does not interfere with 
legitimate and responsible transfers of small arms or the lawful 
ownership and use of guns in the United States.

[[Page S10773]]

  The United States needs to push hard to improve the international 
standards and the application of legally binding agreements to stem the 
illicit trade in these weapons. Fighting the proliferation of small 
arms is critical to our efforts to combat terrorism, narco-trafficking, 
international organized crime, regional and local war.
  I believe that combating the proliferation of small arms and light 
weapons is a critical element of the fight against terrorism, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and with the 
administration to pass the Security and Fair Enforcement in Arms 
Trafficking Act of 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.  
        Schumer, Mr. Allen, Mr. Warner, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Dayton, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. 
        Carnahan, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1556. A bill to establish a program to name national and community 
service projects in honor of victims killed as a result of the 
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we all witnessed a great national 
tragedy on September 11. While the deaths and damage occurred in New 
York, Washington, and the fields of Pennsylvania, a piece of all of us 
died that day.
  Many people came up to me in the weeks after the attack and asked: 
``What can I do? I've given blood. I've donated to relief efforts. But 
I want to do more.''
  We all shared in the horror. Now everyone wants to share in the 
healing.
  But how?
  Then a constituent of mine, Bob Van Oosterhout, wrote me with an 
idea. Why not have the Federal Government devise a program that would 
encourage communities throughout the Nation to create something that 
would honor the memory of one of the victims lost in the attack? 
Together these local memorials to honor individuals would dot our 
Nation and collectively honor all those lost in the attack.
  What could be simpler? Or more moving?
  From that idea came the Unity in the Spirit of America Act, which I 
am introducing today along with my distinguished colleague Senator Kyl.
  Here's how it would work: Communities, it could be as small as a 
neighborhood block, or nonprofit organizations, houses of worship, 
businesses, or local governments would choose some kind of project that 
would unite them and their community.
  Applications and the assigning of names for each project will be 
handled by the Thousand Points of Light Foundation in conjunction with 
the Corporation for National Service. Once the bill has passed, 
applications and procedures will be posted on the foundation's web 
page.
  In the meantime, I urge people to meet with their neighbors, or 
coworkers, or fellow church members to start identifying projects that 
would make fitting memorials to the victims of the attack of September 
11.
  It could be cleaning or creating a park, adopting a school and 
mentoring students, creating a meals program for the homeless, or just 
about anything that would do honor to the memories of those who died on 
September 11.
  The Thousand Points of Light Foundation will track each project's 
progress on their web page.
  The only rule would be that qualified projects should be started by 
September 11, 2002.
  Then on that day--as all over America we gather to grieve over the 
first anniversary of the attack that enraged the world--we'll also be 
able to look over thousands and thousands of selfless acts that made 
our world better.
  In our sadness, we can create 6,000 points of life across our Nation. 
And we will show the world that our resolve was not fleeting, or our 
memories not short.
  They will see Unity in the Spirit of America.
  And what could bring more fitting honor to all those innocents we 
lost.
  I am also pleased that this bipartisan legislation enjoys the support 
of the Senators from New York, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton, and the 
Senators from Virginia, Senators Warner and Allen.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1556

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Unity in Service to America 
     Act'' or the ``USA Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROJECTS HONORING VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS.

       The National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12501 et seq.) is amended by inserting before title V the 
     following:

       ``TITLE IV--PROJECTS HONORING VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS

     ``SEC. 401. PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `Foundation' 
     means the Points of Light Foundation funded under section 
     301, or another nonprofit private organization, that enters 
     into an agreement with the Corporation to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(b) Identification of Projects.--
       ``(1) Estimated number.--Not later than December 1, 2001, 
     the Foundation, after obtaining the guidance of the heads of 
     appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Director of the 
     Office of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall--
       ``(A) make an estimate of the number of victims killed as a 
     result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 
     (referred to in this section as the `estimated number'); and
       ``(B) compile a list that specifies, for each individual 
     that the Foundation determines to be such a victim, the name 
     of the victim and the State in which the victim resided.
       ``(2) Identified projects.--The Foundation shall identify 
     approximately the estimated number of community-based 
     national and community service projects that meet the 
     requirements of subsection (d). The Foundation shall name 
     each identified project in honor of a victim described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A), after obtaining the permission of an 
     appropriate member of the victim's family and the entity 
     carrying out the project.
       ``(c) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to have a project 
     named under this section, the entity carrying out the project 
     shall be a political subdivision of a State, a business, or a 
     nonprofit organization (which may be a religious 
     organization, such as a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim 
     organization).
       ``(d) Projects.--The Foundation shall name, under this 
     section, projects--
       ``(1) that advance the goals of unity, and improving the 
     quality of life in communities; and
       ``(2) that will be planned, or for which implementation 
     will begin, within a reasonable period after the date of 
     enactment of the Unity in Service to America Act, as 
     determined by the Foundation.
       ``(e) Website and Database.--The Foundation shall create 
     and maintain websites and databases, to describe projects 
     named under this section and serve as appropriate vehicles 
     for recognizing the projects.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 1558. A bill to provide for the issuance of certificates to social 
security beneficiaries guaranteeing their right to receive social 
security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act in full 
with an accurate annual cost-of-living adjustment; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my 
colleague, Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, in introducing the Social 
Security Benefits Guarantee Act, legislation aimed at conferring upon 
current Social Security beneficiaries an explicit property right to 
their benefits.
  As the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security and 
Congress continue to consider options about how best to put our most 
vital social program on sound financial footing, it is increasingly 
important to assure today's beneficiaries that they are not going to be 
adversely affected by any reform proposal that Congress may ultimately 
enact into law.
  Although reasonable people can disagree about how best to restore 
Social Security to a path of long-term solvency, philosophical or 
political leanings should not obstruct us from meeting our moral 
obligation to preserve and protect the benefits of current 
beneficiaries.
  Both basic fairness and practicality dictate that individuals and 
families who are currently receiving Social Security benefits should 
not be expected to adapt to any of the steps necessary to shore up 
Social Security's long-range financial health. Indeed, President Bush 
outlined as his very first

[[Page S10774]]

principle in the creation of the present Commission that 
``Modernization must not change Social Security benefits for retirees 
or near-retirees.''
  No matter what reform plan Congress may consider, one of the more 
productive interim steps we can undertake is to create an environment 
where constructive, bipartisan policy options can be pursued. Toward 
this end, I believe that it is important to remove the ``demagoguery 
factor'' from the Social Security reform discussion by ensuring seniors 
that they receive every cent that the government has promised them, 
including an accurate annual cost-of-living increase. That is why we 
are introducing the Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act today.
  Unfortunately, current law affords no such protection for our 
nation's elderly. In the Supreme Court's 1960 decision Flemming v. 
Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, the Court held that Americans have no property 
right to their Social Security benefits, and that Congress has the 
power to change Social Security benefits at any time. One unfortunate 
byproduct of this case law is that current beneficiaries have fallen 
victim to scare tactics from politicians, interest groups and others 
stating or implying that sustainable long-term Social Security reform 
will lead to a reduction or endangerment of their benefits.
  Social Security reform is too important to working Americans to allow 
short-term political demagoguery to drown out serious bipartisan 
efforts to put our most vital social program on sound fiscal and 
actuarial footing. By passing an explicit property right to Social 
Security benefits for those eligible for and receiving benefits, 
Congress can assure seniors that their benefits will be protected and 
focus the reform discussion on the future, where it belongs, and how we 
can best preserve Social Security's financial dependence at a cost that 
future generations can bear.
  In closing, it is my sincere hope that our colleagues will join 
Senator Voinovich and me in supporting this commonsense legislation to 
provide America's seniors peace of mind during the inevitable policy 
challenges that lie ahead for Social Security's financing.
  I again thank Senator Voinovich for working with me in this effort, 
and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1558

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as ``The Social Security Benefits 
     Guarantee Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. GUARANTEE OF FULL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WITH 
                   ACCURATE ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall issue a benefit guarantee certificate to each 
     individual who is determined by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security as of the date of the issuance of the certificate to 
     be entitled to benefits under title II of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). The Secretary shall also issue 
     such a certificate to any individual on the date such 
     individual is determined thereafter to be entitled to 
     benefits under such title.
       (b) Benefit Guarantee Certificate.--The benefit guarantee 
     certificate issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall represent 
     a legally enforceable guarantee--
       (1) of the timely payment of the full amount of future 
     benefit payments to which the individual is entitled under 
     title II of the Social Security Act (as determined under such 
     title as in effect on the date of the issuance of the 
     certificate); and
       (2) that the benefits will be adjusted thereafter not less 
     frequently than annually to the extent prescribed in 
     provisions of such title (as in effect on the date of the 
     issuance of the certificate) providing for accurate 
     adjustments based on indices reflecting changes in consumer 
     prices as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics or 
     changes in wages as determined by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security.
       (c) Obligation To Provide Payments as Guaranteed.--Any 
     certificate issued under the authority of this section 
     constitutes budget authority in advance of appropriations 
     Acts and represents the obligation of the Federal Government 
     to provide for the payment to the individual to whom the 
     certificate is issued benefits under title II of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) in amounts in accordance 
     with the guarantee set forth in the certificate.

                          ____________________