[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 159 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12002-S12007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Frist):
S. 1717. A bill to provide for a payroll tax holiday; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk to be appropriately
referred a bill that is cosponsored by Senator Bond and Senator Frist.
This is going to be called the payroll tax holiday bill.
Mr. President, we have been talking a lot about a war, and we are
beginning to read stories about the great valor and the fantastic
American military machine, of which the American people ought to be
very proud. Clearly, we have, in months and years past, supplied a very
large amount of the American tax dollars to provide for adequate
defense. This war we have waged for a few weeks against hatred and
terrorism--while that war changed us forever, it also showed the world
what a tremendous military force America is and what a great idea we
have with democracy and capitalism matched up, with growth and
prosperity--what a tremendous idea it is.
The idea and ideal was received on the streets of cities in
Afghanistan with cheering for the few Americans who were part of it.
This morning, we hear a communique from one of our military talking
about how they are being received.
At the same time that we are paying for this and asking for our
wonderful volunteer men and women of the military, there is another
war, and it is a tough one. It has to do with an economy that for 11
years was at the very peak of performance--almost without comparability
in any period of economics that we note here in America. Now that
economy, as one might have predicted, is going into one of the normal
and natural downturns--except each one of these recessions are
different. The qualities are different. What happened to get us there
is different. There are also a lot of similarities. If we don't engage
in the war that is also on our plate, called recession, in as unified a
manner as we attacked the war on terrorism, with a proposal to help the
economy, thus help our people--that is, Democrat and Republican--and
gather together and say we each, Democrat, Republican, and the White
House, have a plan--a lot of Senators have plans. We only had one vote,
and it is pretty obvious that the Democrat plan can't muster the 60
votes that is going to be required to get a tax package through the
Senate.
We all know the vote. The distinguished Senator from Montana, the
chairman of the Finance Committee, has done a yeoman's job in trying to
put together a partisan package. I have been there when you had to do
that, and then I have had to defend it and try to get it through, with
the entire party on the other side being opposed. I have listened and
watched and seen this distinguished Senator do his very best. If the
Republican plan--which may be the President's plan--is called up, I
regret to say that I think it is going to get the same kind of
treatment from the other side of the aisle. I can't say why each side
has decided that they have a better plan, but that is what has
happened. Let's hope that it is nothing more than that and that both
sides still wish to get something done, to get an economic stimulus
package; that is, a package that will cause America's economy to grow,
jump-start, give it a little boost.
I am not going to talk about the things that have already been done,
other than to say that once the recession started--that is a long time
ago; for those who think this just came upon us, if you trace the
economy--and I am sure the occupant of the chair, who, for many years
of his life, day by day, had to rely upon his ability to analyze the
economy and/or that of those who worked for him, and decisions had to
be made on the best assumptions you could put together. But it is clear
if you look at what happened, this recession started downward about 16
months ago, before the swearing in of the new President. It started
down and it has been coming down a little bit at a time for all these
months.
During that period, the Federal Reserve Board has, for the 12th time,
I believe, reduced interest rates. I know if my friend from New Jersey
were standing here and we were discussing this issue, we would both be
saying that is a very good thing, reducing the interest rates. No
question, America relies upon capital for growth, for investment, for
everything we put people to work with; you have to have money to buy a
house, to buy a car.
Incidentally, if anybody wants to know how important interest rates
are, look at the anomaly in America today. One of the biggest anomalies
is that we are selling more cars than ever. So we are breaking the bank
on selling cars in America in the middle of a recession. Well, I guess
one could say the people finally woke up and wanted new cars, but I
don't think so. I think they have wanted them all along. But guess
what. The automobile companies decided it was better to sell cars and
finance at zero interest rate and keep people working than it was to go
ahead and cut back on production, charge interest rates so the finance
companies would be turning a profit, but their factories would be
laying off people. What an experiment because their people kept working
and producing automobiles, and the rate of finance is zero. They must
have analyzed what that does or does not do for their economic picture.
But in the end, cars are selling because the cost of buying them is
cheap.
Now, the economy is still not recovering properly, although somehow--
at least this Senator believes that while I understood what was
happening and clearly was out front saying we were moving toward a
recession probably 12 months before we started saying it here, I
believe there is a real chance if we do something right quick that this
economy will start back up.
There are some good signs out there, but there are some not so good
signs that could indicate it is going to be a long recession. But I am
putting before the Senate today a proposal. There are many Senators I
have talked to about it. I won't mention their names. But a few of them
I thank profusely because they have publicly commented to papers such
as the Wall Street Journal, and others; some Democrat Senators who have
analyzed it with me have said it is a very good approach.
The reason that it is not moving with large numbers of Senators at
this point is because everybody has some entanglements--and I use that
word not pejorative--in terms of putting the packages together where
they have committed here and there and, of course, they can't just jump
off those ships, they have to let normal events occur.
But this morning, Senator Bond, Senator Frist, and I put this before
the Senate and the American people because we truly believe it is
something that ought to be looked at. We are not here saying it is
absolutely a cinch that it will work. But we are saying--three of us--
with gaining strength today--the Wall Street Journal quotes Dr. Lindsey
from the White House. His analysis would indicate that this is a good
economic stimulus package. Let
[[Page S12003]]
me suggest that it is quick, doesn't have any administrative costs
associated with it. It helps city, county, States, and private sector,
and, indeed, every working man and woman in America who pays payroll
tax for Social Security.
The 6.2 percent that comes out of their paycheck will stay in their
paycheck for whatever month we choose. The legislation is drawn for the
month of December, for one month. Likewise, the employer does not remit
to the Federal Government; they keep the money.
In one month, if the month of December is chosen, I say to my friend
from the beautiful State of Montana, $38 billion will go into the
American economy via the wage earners and businesses, large and small,
in one month. They will have that money close to the Christmas season
one way or the other.
If we do January, everybody will know it is there. If we do December,
it will be in their paychecks. The reason I keep using one or the other
month is because we have not moved with dispatch as everybody had
hoped. As a consequence, I do not know if we can get it done in time
for Christmas relief.
It is a very simple bill. It is quick. The economic activities of it
are immediate. It eliminates 12.4 percent payroll tax from the OASDI
for the month of December; $38 million in immediate relief to be spent
for whatever the recipient wants to do with it.
Self-employed workers will see their taxes reduced by 12.4 percent in
that month. It will be split evenly between the employer and employee
at 6.2 percent on each side. Then, obviously, there is language putting
the Social Security fund back in its original posture by transferring
from the general fund. That accounts for the removal and use in the
economy and the replenishment that one would expect. It is very simple.
The three of us do this not as a total stimulus package, but for the
tax portion that has been discussed by each side as being important.
By a strange coincidence, the two provisions that were in the
Republican package, the rebate and the 2 percent, the 2-percent
marginal rate change, turned out to be $38 billion. This package is $38
billion. It is just a coincidence, but if we are looking for a
substitute, we could substitute that money.
Whatever the Senate wants to do about workers compensation, hospital
and health protection--those are not part of the stimulus package in
any event. They are part of us wanting to be helpful because people are
hurting. Those can be worked out. Whether we fight over those or not,
clearly, eventually, they will be worked out in both bodies.
There are a lot of economists who have been analyzing this. We do not
have a lot of them here today to talk about, but there are a lot.
Perhaps when we return, I will print in the Record an article entitled
``A Stimulus Package May Not Work'' by Joanne Morrison. It cites three
or four economists who analyze where we are.
I say to my colleagues, there are two arguments against what we are
doing. One, it is taking too long, and, two, it will take too long
after we pass it. It may be a long-term event rather than a short-term
stimulus. Second, without any question, there is serious doubt as to
whether the other packages are very stimulative. In both instances,
that is corrected here.
Is it fair? It seems pretty fair. I am not saying we can solve each
and every problem, but it is pretty fair. I have sent the tax bill to
the desk.
I thank my two cosponsors and the Senator from Montana for letting me
present my thoughts on this. There are a lot of people beginning to ask
about it and starting to support it. We will put the names of those
institutions that support this in the Record as soon as we can. The
Governors are coming on board. We have asked no one. They are reading
about it now, and we probably will ask a number of other groups in the
country to give us their views.
I thank the Senate for giving me time. It is nice that debate can
occur, but we are not there yet. Maybe a new idea can find its place
here. I hope it is new enough to receive the consideration it deserves.
Mr. President, we must move forward. Right now, we have a Republican
stimulus bill that passed the House. We have the President's plan and
the Senate Republicans' plan. We have the Senate Democrats' plan.
But we don't yet have a stimulus plan that will pass the Senate and
be signed by the President.
I believe this bill can be the key to bringing both sides together
quickly once we return from the upcoming Thanksgiving week recess.
Let me be clear. I support the President. I think this administration
is right on track when it comes to an economic stimulus package.
However, any existing plan has to be modified to garner enough Senate
support to pass.
We can't wait till later to get this job done. The administration and
Congress have promised to enact a stimulus package. The American people
expect a stimulus package. The markets expect a stimulus package. It
would be a huge mistake to wait.
The retail sales reported yesterday showed sales up 7.1 percent in
October. However, this was almost all due to aggressive and
unsustainable incentives in the auto sector. In effect, these
incentives are shifting auto sales that would have been made next year
into this year. The economy is going to be in trouble once these
incentives stop.
In order to break the impasse and move the process forward, let me
describe the bill we have introduced today.
We propose a one-month payroll tax holiday, which would replace the
current proposals for a supplemental rebate and the speed-up of the
marginal rate reductions.
I'll tell you why.
IRS Commissioner Rossotti has raised administrative issues related to
the supplemental rebates. Because of where we are in the calendar, such
rebates would have to be folded into the taxpayers' 2001 tax returns
and refunds next spring.
A payroll tax holiday will be more effective at increasing spending
than the rebate checks sent out earlier this year or a new round of
rebate checks. It will put the tax cut in paychecks automatically,
without the need for special mailings.
Psychologically, workers are used to adjusting their spending habits
based on the size of their paychecks. At present, workers spend about
95 cents for every dollar of after-tax earnings. Increasing their
after-tax earnings will therefore lead to more spending--if they
perceive the tax cut to be part of their regular earnings.
That's why separate rebate checks don't work as well. When a worker
gets a separate rebate check they are more likely to treat it as a
special windfall gain and save the money or pay down debt. According to
the University of Michigan, as of October, in the midst of a recession,
only 30 percent of people receiving rebate checks were saying they
would spend the money.
The speed-up of the marginal rate reductions up has been criticized
as a permanent change in tax law that benefits upper income folks most.
The bottom line: A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative,
temporary tax cut that is very likely to be spent.
All wage earners earning below $80,400, even those that don't earn
enough to pay income taxes, would benefit.
Both the employee and employer share (6.2 percent each) of the social
security (OASDI) payroll tax would be suspended. Self-employed social
security payroll taxes would also be suspended. The Social Security
trust fund would be made whole via a transfer from the general fund.
Employees would have more take home pay and employers would have
increased cash flow.
A school teacher making $40,000 would see an increase in their take-
home pay of $207 in December. A self-employed contractor earning
$40,000 per year (who pays both the employer and employee share of 12.4
percent) would see an increase in pay of $413.
It is most desirable to make the one-month period December 1, 2001
through December 31, 2001. A payroll tax holiday in December would be
perfectly timed for the holiday shopping season. The whole tax cut
would go out in only one month. We wouldn't have to wait for a new
round of rebate checks to go out--a process that could take months and
interfere with the speed of tax refunds.
In addition, in 2001 the payroll tax is applied to income up to
$80,400. By December, approximately 6 percent of
[[Page S12004]]
wage earners have already reached the limit and would not receive the
benefit of the payroll tax holiday.
The cost of a December holiday is about $38 billion in fiscal 2002.
If the holiday were in January, the cost would by about $43 billion,
because all wage earners would receive the benefit.
Mr. President, we are at an impasse here in the Senate. Let's all
admit that neither the Democratic plan nor the President's plan has the
requisite 60 votes to pass this Chamber.
I believe this proposal could provide us with the key component to
reaching a bipartisan way to enact a stimulus bill quickly.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Senator Domenici has a proposal he has
crafted to provide immediate economic stimulus and assistance to low-
and middle-income workers who have been suffering, as we all have, from
the economic downturn.
I have signed on with him in support of his measure because his idea,
which is a payroll tax holiday for December, would be the easiest,
simplest, fairest, and most effective way to get a stimulus of between
$38 and $41 billion directly into the pockets of middle and lower
income workers in the United States.
This is not a tax cut for the rich because anybody who is making over
$80,000 a year has already finished making their Social Security or
payroll tax, FICA tax, contributions. This would provide, if we can put
this in the stimulus package and pass it quickly this month, that you
would not send in your FICA tax withholdings or contributions for
December. It is simple. Nothing goes in the mail. You don't have to
worry about mail deliveries or all the problems we have had. Obviously,
most people know we haven't had mail for almost a month in Congress.
There are other places where security precautions have delayed the
mail.
You don't have to go through a complicated system of developing
regulations and rules or even cutting checks for a rebate. When the
President proposed a rebate many weeks ago, there was time to get the
rebate check prepared and get it out in December so we would have a
productive, economically thriving holiday season. Unfortunately,
because of the lateness of the hour, it is likely that a rebate check
or other assistance that has to be paid out by check from the Federal
Government will be 6 to 8 weeks away and will not hit in the pockets
where the working men and women can spend it until sometime in January
or February.
This obviously is one part of a stimulus package. I happen to believe
that in addition to more generous unemployment benefits and providing
assistance through grants to the States for health care, we also need
to have assistance for small businesses, many of which have been
absolutely savaged by the economic downturn as well as the crash at the
World Trade Center.
Those parts are important, too. I have some small business provisions
I hope will be included in the stimulus package.
The great thing about the Domenici proposal for the FICA December tax
holiday, not paying the Social Security withholding amounts in
December, is that it can happen immediately. It will put the money in
the pockets of those who can best spend it. It helps the single mom who
is just struggling to get by. It helps the individual worker who makes
about $40,000. They would have $210 more in their pockets. For a self-
employed person who has to pay both the employee and employer side of
the FICA tax, 12.4 percent, that would be about $420 they would not
have to send to the Federal Government in December. Of course, there
would be a transfer from the general revenue to Social Security so we
would not impact Social Security.
I urge all my colleagues to pay attention to the thoughtful and
effective proposal Senator Domenici has outlined for us. This should be
the centerpiece. Democrats and Republicans can come together behind
this proposal, move it quickly; let's get moving. We are in an economic
downturn. It has been going on for 15 months. It got a whole lot worse
after September 11. This economy needs a boost. Leaving the FICA tax in
the pockets of the people who are working, the medium- and low-income
workers, and the people who employ them is the best way to get this
economy moving again.
______
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 1718. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
section 29 to other facilities; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Clean
Alternative Fuels Incentives Act of 2001. This bill extends and limits
the credit of producing fuel from non-conventional sources to
facilities that produce qualified fuels using technologies that provide
certain environmental benefits, but only if such facilities produce
enhanced value synthetic fuels from coal.
It is important to outline the goals of this legislation at the
outset. The four primary goals of this bill are all very important to
the future of this Nation. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces
our Nation's trade imbalance and reliance on foreign energy sources.
Second, the cleaner, alternative fuels emit cleaner byproduct into the
environment. Third, these technologies produce jobs in the United
States. Fourth, they encourage the development of technologies that
will be economically viable after the short period during which the
incentive is provided.
Starting with the energy crisis in the 1970s, Congress acted on
numerous occasions to provide tax credits intended to develop
alternative fuels. Prior sessions of Congress took these steps in
recognition of the need to encourage the development and use of
alternative fuels, which they hoped would help lead our Nation towards
energy independence.
Today our Nation not only needs to continue its efforts to develop
alternative fuel resources, but given our constantly growing energy
needs we must consider the environmental impact that conventional and
non-conventional fuels have on our environment, particularly in light
of the Clean Air Act.
In order to maximize the most efficient use of our Nation's reserves,
this Congress needs to commit to the development of clean alternative
fuels. My home State of Montana has vast coal reserves. In fact, many
times our State has been referred to as the ``Saudi Arabia of coal.''
Not only do we have vast reserves, but also with clean coal
technologies we can use these resources and do little harm to the
environment.
Those who say that coal is not one of the answers to energy
independence because of its environmental impact are dead wrong. Coal-
fired plants generate over 50 percent of our Nation's electricity.
Interestingly, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, reported
that Montana's emissions of nitrogen oxide, NOx, sulfur dioxide, SO2,
and carbon dioxide, CO2, all decreased from 1986-1996 while producing
the same amount of electricity. This proves to me that our coal
technologies are improving. Folks, I believe the environmental
emissions will continue to improve and if you provide incentives to
help clean alternative fuels reach the marketplace, some day we will
reach energy independence in this Nation.
One question that some of you may have is, ``Are these proven
technologies?'' These are proven technologies, but to make the
continued development of these technologies a reality, the Congress
needs to provide meaningful incentives. The bill that I offer today
accomplishes exactly that, it provides clean alternative sources of
energy a real opportunity to bring energy independence to this Nation.
This bill would extend the non-conventional fuels credit for
facilities that produce synthetic fuel from coal using a technology
that results in: (1) Measurable reductions of certain emissions when
producing the fuel or when the fuel is burned as a fuel, not including
any reductions caused by dilution and (2) measurable increases in the
value of coal, not including any increases caused by additives. These
two factors will lead to accomplishment of the four goals I stated
previously. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our Nation's
trade imbalance and reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the
technologies provide cleaner emissions into the environment. Third,
these technologies produce jobs in the United States. Fourth, they
encourage the development of technologies that will be economically
viable after the short period during which the incentive is provided.
[[Page S12005]]
I hope that Members of this body will support this important piece of
legislation, which helps our Nation at a time of dire need.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Miller,
and Mr. Bennett):
S. 1722. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
simplify the application of the excise tax imposed on bows and arrows;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch,
Miller, and Grassley, I am pleased to introduce the Arrow Excise Tax
Simplification Act of 2001. This bill will protect funding for the
Wildlife Restoration Program, the Pittman-Robertson fund, by
simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax and
closing an unintended loophole that allows arrows assembled outside the
United States to avoid the excise tax imposed on domestic
manufacturers.
The creation of the Wildlife Restoration Program is one of the great
success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women,
State fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry.
Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors
volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be
used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat
conservation.
Originally the archery industry did not participate in this program.
However, the growth of bow hunting in the '60s and '70s led the archery
industry to decide they would support the excise tax that funds State
game agencies. As a result, the tax was extended to archery equipment
in 1975. The tax on archery equipment was meant to parallel the tax
that hunters were paying on firearms and ammunition. The archery
industry and bow hunters are pleased to contribute to the success of
the Wildlife Restoration Program.
Because current law taxes components and not arrows, foreign
manufacturers are selling arrows in the United States without paying
the excise tax that is imposed on arrows made in the United States. Not
only are these untaxed imports unfair to American workers, they
threaten the integrity of the Wildlife Restoration Fund.
This issue is important to companies in Montana. Mike Ellig, a
manufacturer of archery products in Bozeman, MT, pays this tax. He
supports the tax, but asks that it be fair. Mike's company, Montana
Black Gold, and the archery industry want to support the Wildlife
Restoration Program. But the way the tax works today, American
manufacturers are at a competitive disadvantage.
This legislation will close the loophole that allows imported arrows
to avoid the excise tax paid by domestic manufacturers. While keeping
the current 12.4 percent tax on arrow components, the proposal will
impose a tax of 12 percent on the first sale of an arrow assembled from
untaxed components. U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers will
be treated equally.
Since this loophole was inadvertently created in 1997, archery
imports, mostly finished arrows, increased from $113,000 in 1997 to
$2,600,000 in 2001 to date. If Congress does not act quickly to close
this loophole, domestic manufacturers will be forced to relocate
outside of the United States. They simply cannot afford to lose market
share for a fifth year to competitors who do not pay the same tax they
pay. If a few more move overseas, the rest will follow. The result will
be a catastrophic loss of revenue for the Federal Wildlife Restoration
Fund.
Current law also taxes non-hunters, contrary to congressional intent.
To relieve non-hunters from the requirement to pay for wildlife
management, the legislation would eliminate the current-law tax on bows
with draw weights of less than 30 pounds. Those bows are not suitable
or, in many States, legal for hunting. To preserve the revenue for the
Wildlife Restoration Fund, the bill would retain the current tax on
bows that are suitable for hunting.
The proposal would also clarify that broadheads are an accessory
taxed at 11 percent rather than as an arrow component taxed at 12.4
percent. This will correct the ambiguity in the 1997 act that led to
the misclassification of broadheads.
In summary, the Arrow Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2001 would
accomplish worthy objectives. It would close the loophole that allows
foreign imported arrows to escape the tax and remove the tax on youth
and recreational archery equipment that were never meant to be taxed.
We will accomplish these goals while protecting the Wildlife
Restoration Program by ensuring that there is no significant diminution
of revenues collected by the archery excise tax. The Joint Committee on
Taxation estimates the proposal will decrease revenues by $5 million
over ten years resulting in small changes in outlays from the Federal
Aid in Wildlife Fund. Failure to close the import loophole will
eviscerate the archery tax base resulting in devastating losses to the
fund.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1723. A bill to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect
to the statute of limitations on actions; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a
ruling interpreting a provision in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that
will make it harder for Americans to protect their private financial
data from identity theft. I rise today with the senior senator from
Iowa to introduce the ``Protect Victims of Identity Theft Act'' to
provide consumers in Vermont and across America with the protections
that they need and deserve. I thank Senator Grassley for his leadership
and look forward to working with him on this legislation.
Unfortunately, identity theft victimizes thousands of Americans every
year. Once a skilled scam artist gets his hands on a consumer's Social
Security or bank account number, he can wreak unimaginable havoc on a
family's finances.
With society conducting more and more of its business electronically,
the incidence of identity theft in America is on the rise. As of June
of this year, the Federal Trade Commission reported that its identity
theft hotline was answering over 1,800 calls per week, up from the 445
calls per week the hotline received in November 1999. These calls are
mostly from people who have been hurt by identity theft, but thousands
of others come from consumers worried about becoming an identity
thief's next victim.
When Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act, FCRA, more than
thirty years ago, it gave consumers important tools to ensure the
accuracy and privacy of their credit information. The FCRA imposed
affirmative obligations on the consumer reporting agencies that
maintain these reports in order to protect consumers' private
information from unauthorized disclosures. The FCRA says that consumer
reporting agencies must maintain ``reasonable procedures'' to avoid
improper use of a consumer's private information.
These safeguards are essential to protect each American's
confidential financial information. The FCRA demands that consumer
reporting agencies require that prospective users of credit information
identify themselves, certify the purposes for which they are seeking
the information, and verify that they will not use the information for
any other purpose, to name just a few examples. Consumer reporting
agencies that fail to live up to these obligations or that are careless
with consumers' private information can be held liable to consumers
harmed by their security lapses.
Current law provides consumers 2 years from the ``date on which the
liability arises'' to bring suit against a non-compliant consumer
reporting agency. This week, the United States Supreme Court concluded
that the term ``the date on which liability arises,'' means the day
that a consumer reporting agency fails to comply with FCRA's
requirements. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 2001 WL 1401902 (Nov. 13, 2001). As
a result, the statute of limitations clock starts ticking whether or
not a consumer is aware that information about his finances has been
illegally handled or disclosed. That means that the 2-year limitations
period can expire before a consumer ever even suspects that her credit
information has fallen into the wrong hands.
[[Page S12006]]
The 750,000 Americans who annually have their identity stolen and
their credit put at risk deserve better. It is unfair for the law to
only protect consumers if they discover the identity theft within 2
years of the crime, even if the consumer had no reason to know about
it. That stands the normal rule of discovery for fraud on its head.
Our bipartisan legislation would clarify that the statute of
limitations for identity theft does not start until the consumer
discovers the problem or should have discovered the problem through the
exercise of reasonable diligence. The exercise of reasonable diligence
is the traditional common law duty under fraud discovery rules and does
not impose any new mandate or requirement on a consumer under the FCRA.
This change in the law ensures that consumers have a fair opportunity
to vindicate their rights.
This bipartisan legislative fix is needed to put a stop to identity
theft. It will encourage consumer reporting agencies to establish
proper security measures needed to deny identity thieves access to
Americans' most personal financial information. It ensures that the
Fair Credit Reporting Act has real teeth to fulfill its mission of
protecting the accuracy and privacy of consumer credit information. And
it will give consumers in Vermont and across America a fair shot at
vindicating their right to keep private information away from
unscrupulous con artists.
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. 1723
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 ``Protect Victims of Identity
Theft Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.
Section 618 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681p) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 618. JURISDICTION OF COURTS; LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS.
``(a) In General.--An action to enforce any liability
created under this title may be brought in any appropriate
United States district court, without regard to the amount in
controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction,
not later than 2 years after the date on which the violation
is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise
of reasonable diligence.
``(b) Willful Misrepresentation.--The limitations period
prescribed in subsection (a) shall be tolled during any
period during which a defendant has materially and willfully
misrepresented any information required under this title to
be disclosed to an individual, and the information so
misrepresented is material to the establishment of the
liability of the defendant to that individual under this
title.''.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Vermont in introducing a bill to protect victims of identity theft.
This legislative remedy is prompted by the sweeping impact of the
Supreme Court's decision this past week on the rights of more than
750,000 Americans who annually have their identity stolen and their
credit put at risk. Under current law, consumers have a two-year
statute of limitations to sue credit reporting companies that fail to
protect private financial information from improper disclosures and
security lapses. The problem with the Supreme Court's decision is that
a victim of identity theft often has no idea that information about his
finances has been negligently handled or disclosed by a credit
reporting company until it's too late to take any legal action. Under
current law, the two year statute of limitations begins when the
consumer's credit reporting company fails to comply with the law--not
when the consumer discovers or should have discovered the problem.
Our bill, the Protect the Victims of Identity Theft Act of 2001,
changes that rule. As stated, it simply clarifies that the statute of
limitations for identity theft does not start until the consumer
discovers the problem or should have discovered the problem. This
change in the law ensures that consumers have a fair chance to
vindicate their rights should credit reporting companies fail to take
reasonable steps to protect private financial and personal information
from theft and misuse.
I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this
legislation to protect the American consumer.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1725. A bill to require the Comptroller General to carry out a
study to determine the feasibility of undertaking passenger rail
transportation security programs that are similar to those of foreign
countries; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in the last two months we have experienced
a steep learning curve as a country and as a Congress in our efforts to
improve homeland security.
As we saw with the drafting of the airline security bill, the United
States has not cornered the market on security innovations and
measures; there is much we can learn from other countries that have
faced or addressed the same challenges. For this reason, I am
introducing legislation that would require the General Accounting
Office to initiate a study examining the security measures that have
worked for other regions and countries such as the European Union and
Japan.
For example, the $15 billion channel tunnel or Chunnel linking
England to the European continent has been open to train service, for
passengers and freight, since 1994 without a major security incident.
In 2000 alone, 2.8 million cars, 7.1 million passengers, and 2.9
million tons of freight made the 31 mile journey under the English
Channel safely.
Security has always been a major concern for the Chunnel and that
Britain, France, and Eurotunnel, the company operating the tunnel, have
made security a top priority without degrading passenger service. In
fact, in addition to its private security staff provided by Eurotunnel,
the Chunnel is policed by a bi-national force of police, immigration,
and customs officers with armed patrols in the British and French
terminals. And both the company and the respective government agencies
also conduct routine intelligence-led security checks on both passenger
and freight vehicles.
So I suspect that our friends in Europe, and in Asia, and other
regions, may be able to provide valuable insight on how we can improve
our rail transportation security. It is my intent with this bill to
direct the General Accounting Office to complete, no later than January
2002, a study of rail transport security measures in other countries in
an effort to seek innovative screening procedures and processes and
other security measures that may be a benefit to the United States.
Subsequently, an assessment of these measures would be provided to
Congress.
In the hours and days after September 11, Americans discovered we are
not alone in this struggle and I urge my colleagues to support this
bill that encourages the United States to reach out and learn from
others.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1728. A bill to provide for greater security at seaports; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Maritime
Security Advancement Act which is designed to mitigate the threat of
maritime- and seaport-related terrorism.
In the aftermath of the despicable terrorist attacks of September 11,
I believe it is critical that we pass the strongest possible security
enhancements to our transportation system and do so as soon as
possible. To this end, we have been working to enhance aviation
security, and for obvious reasons, this has been one of our first and
highest priorities in the wake of the recent attacks. At the same time,
we must also address concerns about highway safety, rail safety,
pipeline safety, and maritime and seaport security. I support efforts
to close the security gaps in each and every mode in the vast national
and international transportation network that is so critical to our
economy, our freedom, and our way of life.
We are going to need the resources of the United States coupled with
the cooperation of our global neighbors in order to wage the war
against terrorism. For it is a fight we must win, and will win. The
purpose of the legislation I am introducing today is to employ more
tools in the fight against terrorism. Specifically, the Maritime
[[Page S12007]]
Security Advancement Act would direct the Secretary of Transportation,
in awarding loan guarantees, grants, and other forms of financial
support for research and development under the discretionary authority
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to give preference to
projects with the potential to reduce the threat of maritime- and
seaport-related terrorism.
For example, the legislation would promote the development of
projects designed to increase the feasibility of securing cargo,
sealing containers, and making cargo containers more tamper resistant;
improve cargo container content labeling technologies; and provide for
innovations in the physical handling of cargo in ways that could reduce
the threat of terrorism aimed at our maritime transportation system.
The bill would also direct the Secretary to identify the technologies
with the potential to provide the greatest security with respect to
handline, labeling, sealing, and transportation of cargo and report to
Congress on its findings. And the bill authorizes the Secretary to
issue new rules requiring deployment of such technologies and practices
in an effort to enhance security and reduce the threat of terrorism.
We must leave no stone unturned in the effort to preserve the
security of this nation's transportation infrastructure, so that we
might both carry on the business of the Nation and ensure our continued
economic viability, and also ensure that we are in good position of
strength to be able to wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate
terrorism. And we cannot remain strong if we cannot remain mobile.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
____________________