[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.
____________________