[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4557-S4561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1355. A bill to regulate political robocalls; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall
Privacy Act, a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued
political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect
American families from being inundated by calls throughout the day and
night. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Durbin.
In recent years, we have seen an increase in the development of new
technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters. This
is a good thing. Political speech is essential and should be protected.
The vast majority of these developments strengthen the Democratic
process by promoting an interchange of information and ideas.
One of these developments is the robocall--a prerecorded message that
can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through
computer automation. With television and radio ads becoming so
expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role in
alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at
the polls.
But the process can be abused. Throughout recent elections, we have
continued to hear stories about people being inundated with phone calls
throughout the day and night. There is simply no good reason why
Americans wanting a good night's sleep should be awakened at 4:30 in
the morning by a robocall.
Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade
Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list, which millions of individuals have
registered for. But political calls are specifically exempted from this
list.
Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls.
Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some
safeguards. Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do.
It would ban political robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8
a.m.
It would ban any campaign or group from making more than two
robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day.
It would prohibit the organizer of any robocall from blocking the
``caller identification'' number and require an announcement at the
beginning of the call indentifying the individual or organization
making the call, and the fact that it is a prerecorded message. This is
to prevent robocalls from misleading the recipient of the call.
The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and directed
toward stopping the worst of these calls. The bill would create a civil
fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who
willfully violate the law.
The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately,
but not receive monetary damages. A judge can order violators of the
law to stop these abusive calls.
Let me briefly describe a few incidents that showcase why the
provisions in this bill are so important.
On Election Day in 2010, over 110,000 Maryland voters began receiving
anonymous robocalls instructing them to ``relax'' and stay home because
Governor Martin O'Malley had already won re-election. These calls came
a full two hours before the polls would close.
Days before the 2010 Midterm elections, voters in Kansas received
anonymous robocalls telling them to bring a voter registration card and
proof of home ownership to the polls on Wednesday. Not only are these
items not required to vote, but as we know, the election was on a
Tuesday.
Similarly, in my home state of California, about two dozen Los
Angeles residents complained of receiving Spanish language robocalls
from an unidentifiable source instructing them to vote on Wednesday,
November 3--the day after Election Day.
Shortly before last year's elections, individuals in St. Louis,
Missouri, heard their phones ring and checked the caller ID to find a
number belonging to a local hospital. Expecting the worst, they
answered the call. The voice on the other end was not a hospital
employee, but rather a prerecorded political message from an
organization that had been able to manipulate caller ID devices to make
it seem as if the calls were coming from emergency officials.
In October 2010, 50,000 Nevadans were awoken at 1 a.m. by a robocall
regarding a ballot question in the state that would change the judicial
selection process. The calls came in the middle of the night due to a
programming error--they were supposed to be made at 1 p.m.
To be clear, incidences like these involving the malicious or
untimely use of robocalls are not unique to the recent election.
In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents
received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and
Lesbian Push Organization,'' urging them to support one of the
candidates. That candidate lost the election, in part because of the
false, late-night call.
In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that
one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded
voice stating that the call contained information about U.S.
Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to
complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually
identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters
had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing
voters she had not made that call.
I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for
political speech, but the worst of these calls are disturbing people in
their homes and spreading misleading and outright false information.
Something must be done to rein in the robocalls which perpetrate these
actions.
This bill presents a solution. It does not ban robocalls. It merely
provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner
restrictions.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy
Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1355
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 ``Robocall Privacy Act of
2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Abusive political robocalls harass voters and
discourage them from participating in the political process.
(2) Abusive political robocalls infringe on the privacy
rights of individuals by disturbing them in their homes.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) Political robocall.--The term ``political robocall''
means any outbound telephone call--
(A) in which a person is not available to speak with the
person answering the call, and the call instead plays a
recorded message; and
(B) which promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a
candidate for Federal office.
(2) Identity.--The term ``identity'' means, with respect to
any individual making a political robocall or causing a
political robocall to be made, the name of the sponsor or
originator of the call.
(3) Specified period.--The term ``specified period'' means,
with respect to any candidate for Federal office who is
promoted, supported, attacked, or opposed in a political
robocall--
(A) the 60-day period ending on the date of any general,
special, or run-off election for the office sought by such
candidate; and
(B) the 30-day period ending on the date of any primary or
preference election, or any convention or caucus of a
political party that has authority to nominate a candidate,
for the office sought by such candidate.
(4) Other definitions.--The terms ``candidate'' and
``Federal office'' have the respective meanings given such
terms under section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF POLITICAL ROBOCALLS.
It shall be unlawful for any person during the specified
period to make a political robocall or to cause a political
robocall to be made--
(1) to any person during the period beginning at 9 p.m. and
ending at 8 a.m. in the place which the call is directed;
(2) to the same telephone number more than twice on the
same day;
(3) without disclosing, at the beginning of the call--
[[Page S4558]]
(A) that the call is a recorded message; and
(B) the identity of the person making the call or causing
the call to be made; or
(4) without transmitting the telephone number and the name
of the person making the political robocall or causing the
political robocall to be made to the caller identification
service of the recipient.
SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Enforcement by Federal Election Commission.--
(1) In general.--Any person aggrieved by a violation of
section 4 may file a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission under rules similar to the rules under section
309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
437g(a)).
(2) Civil penalty.--
(A) In general.--If the Federal Election Commission or any
court determines that there has been a violation of section
4, there shall be imposed a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000 per violation.
(B) Willful violations.--In the case the Federal Election
Commission or any court determines that there has been a
knowing or willful violation of section 4, the amount of any
civil penalty under subparagraph (A) for such violation may
be increased to not more than 300 percent of the amount under
subparagraph (A).
(b) Private Right of Action.--Any person may bring in an
appropriate district court of the United States an action
based on a violation of section 4 to enjoin such violation
without regard to whether such person has filed a complaint
with the Federal Election Commission.
______
By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 1357. A bill to exempt National Forest System land in the State of
Alaska from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about legislation I am
introducing today that would repeal an ill-fitting and broad-reaching
rule that limits not only timber harvest and mining but important
renewable energy projects in Southeast Alaska.
In March of this year, a Federal District Court ruling set aside the
2003 Tongass Exemption and reinstated the application of the 2001
Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the Tongass National Forest. This
decision means that the Tongass National Forest is now managed by a
cookie-cutter rule imposed upon all national forests rather than by the
2008 Tongass Land Management Plan developed by Forest Service personnel
under a wide reaching multi-year collaboration with Alaskans.
This will have a severe impact and reverse efforts to revitalize
local communities and increase economic diversification throughout the
region. Over the past few months, I have spoken with Tongass Forest
Supervisor Forest Cole and Department of Agriculture staff about what
flexibility they have under the rule.
I appreciate that Secretary Vilsack and the plaintiffs in this most
recent court case recognize the importance of hydropower development,
mining and personal use wood policies to the economy of Southeast
Alaska. However, what I have read of their settlement agreement doesn't
offer any certainty that there won't be more challenges and delays. Our
experience over the past decade suggests there will be.
With lots of demands on the Tongass Forest, the Forest Service needs
greater flexibility to address these issues while crafting a reasonably
sized timber sale program that keeps the few existing mills alive and
allows for modest expansion into second growth markets. Unemployment in
the rural portions of Southeast Alaska currently averages more than 15
percent. Energy costs in these non-hydropower communities are too high
as well. Instead of adding options, the roadless rule takes them away.
It is time once and for all to do away with the rule in Alaska.
I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, for joining me as a
cosponsor.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 1361. A bill to reduce human exposure to endocrine-disrupting
chemicals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Endocrine-
Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act to create a research
program through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
to further endocrine related research.
There are approximately 80,000 known chemicals in our environment
that are potentially harmful. Many of those chemicals have never been
tested to determine if they are damaging to human health. Products that
American families use every day such as household cleaners, cosmetics,
and personal care products could actually be causing them harm.
This legislation establishes the Endocrine Disruption Expert Panel to
study and evaluate up to 10 chemicals per year that are potentially
endocrine-disrupting to determine whether they have a high,
substantial, minimal, or no level of concern. Any chemical that is
deemed a high level of concern could be banned from use within 2 years.
This commonsense approach provides vital protections against harmful
chemicals while giving industry an opportunity to either find a way to
eliminate human exposure to the toxin or eliminate it from use.
The increased rate of disorders affecting the human endocrine system
is alarming. Children developing in the womb are particularly
vulnerable. Many scientists believe there are connections between
effects on the endocrine system and the chemicals around us, and it is
time to do more about it.
This bill promotes action based on hard, scientific evidence. I urge
all my colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1363. A bill to amend titles 10 and 41, United States Code, to
allow contracting officers to consider information regarding domestic
employment before awarding a Federal contract, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the American
Jobs Matter Act, legislation that will promote domestic job creation in
the field of Federal contracting.
We must do all that we can to stop the outward migration of jobs.
This bill takes the important step of directing the Federal Government
to notify contract applicants that it may consider American job impact
when deciding which bids to accept. The government would then be
allowed to use that information in making award decisions.
There should be no greater champion of American-made goods than the
Federal Government. Members of Congress come from 50 States and 435
districts and we each know of the special skill sets that our
constituents possess and how fortunate the Federal Government would be
to have these employees working on Federal projects. Yet our flawed
procurement policy has no mechanism to assess the impact of government
purchasing on American jobs.
This bill seeks to change that. Under the American Jobs Matter Act,
contractors will be allowed to submit information related to the net
effect of their offer on American employment. This information could
include the number of American jobs expected to be created or retained
as a result of the work. Bidders would also be allowed to guarantee
that the jobs created would not be moved outside the United States
after the contract is awarded. The legislation would finally give
Federal agencies the ability to assess the impact of procurement
decisions on American jobs. It does not dictate that a contract go to
the applicant that will create the most jobs. It just elevates job
creation to its right place in the hierarchy of criteria that should be
studied before making a decision.
The American Jobs Matter Act would be an important step towards
promoting a vibrant manufacturing base which is essential to our
standard of living, the health of our communities, and ensuring our
long-term economic security.
I want to thank my counterpart from the House of Representatives,
Representative Chris Murphy, for his leadership in that body on this
legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on
this issue.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 1364. A bill to ensure the timely payment of Social Security
benefits in August 2011; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Budget Committee chairman,
the Senator from North Dakota, has, in fact, laid out a budget. It puts
us on a serious road toward budget balance by utilizing real numbers,
not sleight of
[[Page S4559]]
hand numbers, not budget fakery numbers, not a budget as a political
document but a budget as an economic document. And it nips--indeed, it
savages--the annual deficit and the Federal debt of $4 trillion over 10
years.
This is real money, and it is real money that is basically in balance
between $2 trillion of spending cuts--which we have had all of those
kinds of talks going on down at the White House, and they seem to get
to an agreement of $2 trillion of spending cuts. But when it comes to
the revenue side, there seems to be an unwillingness to accept
revenues.
What I would like to do is elucidate further on the Budget Committee
chairman's presentation yesterday or the day before of this budget on
how we can produce $2 trillion of new revenue and it not be considered
as just straight tax increases but, instead, of going to two other
parts of the Tax Code that have been off limits to so much of the tax
planning and tax cuts that we have been talking about. Of course, I am
talking about the $14 trillion of tax expenditures that the Federal
Government expends by not having that tax revenue coming in to the tune
of $14 trillion for special tax preferences over the course of the next
decade.
Now, if that were not enough in itself, there is also an additional
$1 trillion that is money that is kept abroad that is not brought back
into this country and, therefore, is not taxed. Just a little portion
of that money being kept overseas could be brought in and used in
productive activities in the United States. But it would be brought in
as income instead of housed in one three-story building in the Cayman
Islands for 18,000 corporations, where all it is is a residence for a
corporation to use to avoid U.S. taxes.
Now, if we are going to do anything serious about lowering the
deficit, we are going to have to try to stop this nonsense that is
going on. In the case of tax preferences, the tax expenditures, the $14
trillion, the Senate, in an overwhelming vote a couple of weeks ago,
actually attacked one of those tax preferences.
Remember when we voted something like 95 to 5 here to get rid of the
subsidy on ethanol made from corn? It was a subsidy put in years ago to
encourage ethanol made from corn as a way of blending it with gasoline
that would then lessen our reliance on oil, particularly foreign oil.
But now we know we can make ethanol from a whole bunch of other things,
and it doesn't have to be making ethanol from something that we eat,
which all it was doing was driving the price of corn higher and, of
course, corn is being used as a feed in the feed lots and, therefore,
the meat products that the American consumer was getting at the grocery
store went much higher in price.
So we realized here was a tax subsidy, a tax preference, in other
words, a tax expenditure, that had outlived its usefulness. There are
$14 trillion of these tax preferences that are, in effect, for the next
decade, and it would not be an unreasonable question to ask: Could we
reduce those tax preferences just a little bit? If you reduced them,
just 17 percent of all those tax preferences, you would produce $2
trillion. If that $1 trillion that is kept overseas--if you could stop
some of those laws that keep foreign income held by U.S. companies
abroad, if you could just tax a little bit of that, then we could even
lower the percentage that we needed to get into the tax expenditures.
Now, there are some tax expenditures that are obviously very popular
and very necessary. Charitable contributions, which include
contributions to churches, they get a charitable deduction that you
deduct from your overall income in order to get your adjusted gross
income. From that you subtract the various deductions you have to get
to your taxable income. Clearly, giving charitable contributions is an
activity that we want to encourage, and we encourage that in the Tax
Code.
Another example is, you own a home. You go to the bank, you get a
mortgage, the mortgage payments that include principal and interest.
You are able to deduct the interest that you are paying on that
mortgage, and that is a tax preference. It was originally put in to
encourage home ownership. Well, should that preference continue for
those who don't need the help?
I think these are questions. So if we start just doing little things
with this $14 trillion of tax preferences, we can make major reductions
in the annual deficit.
Let me give another example: Oil and gas. There are a lot of tax
preferences for the oil and gas industry. Normally, when a business
goes in and provides capital to get a business up and going, that
capital equipment is allowed to be deducted over the life of that piece
of equipment.
Well, so much of oil and gas equipment is allowed to be written off
in the very first year as an expense of doing business in that first
year. That is just one other example. So if we look at it, are we
capable of taking $14 trillion of tax preferences--some people call
them tax expenditures; some people call them tax giveaways--and,
therefore, reduce those, especially the ones that are ineffective and
inefficient, even though it is going to step on somebody's toes? Some
special interest that has that tax preference, they are not going to
like it. They want their goodies. But for the purpose of balancing the
budget, for the purpose of bringing this deficit down so we can get on
the road to fiscal order instead of the fiscal chaos that we have now,
is that not a legitimate question to ask and a legitimate road to go
down?
No less than one of the senior economic advisers to President
Reagan--his name is Martin Feldstein. He was a Harvard professor and
the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Reagan. I
want you to see what he says about reducing tax expenditures.
Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce
government spending. Eliminating tax expenditures does not
increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving,
investment or risk-taking. It would also increase overall
economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort
private spending decisions. And eliminating or consolidating
the large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would
also greatly simplify tax filing. In short, cutting tax
expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising
revenue.
Martin Feldstein, well regarded in conservative circles.
With this crisis looming, why can't we get people to recognize that
if we want balance, they have to give, too, and here is a good way. I
want to expand on this--another way we could do it.
We could actually, as the Simpson-Bowles commission suggested, lower
these tax expenditures Martin Feldstein is talking about. We could even
take that additional revenue and pour it into the rest of the Tax Code
and lower the tax rates for everybody, including corporate tax rates,
and in the process we could also simplify the Tax Code into three tax
brackets. All of the tax brackets would be lowered if we got rid of
some of those tax expenditures. There are multiple ways we can use
this, and in the process, then, we are starting some serious tax
reform.
The Senator from North Dakota has laid this out. He has explained
this to the Senate. He has the unanimous support of the majority of the
Senate Budget Committee. He has the near-unanimous support of the
entire majority in the U.S. Senate. He has explained this to the
President and to the Vice President.
Of course, one of the easy ways to react to this is, well, there is
not enough time. If we want to do major tax reform and tax
simplification for the sake of our consumers, there sure is time
because we could solve this debt ceiling crisis with a commitment down
the line to doing just exactly what I have talked about.
As we are in this maelstrom of all of these different ideas going
around about what we are going to do before August 2 so the debt
ceiling can be raised and so the country can pay its bills, I have
heard about some disturbing things out there on the horizon. One is
that Social Security is going to get whacked and that Medicare is going
to get whacked.
By the way, what the Budget Committee is proposing does not whack
Social Security or Medicare providers. In the first place, Social
Security is not in financial trouble in the foreseeable future. It is
not until the late 2030s that it starts to get into difficulty. It is
around 2035 that it would not, in that year, be able to pay 100 percent
of its payments. We can correct that before then.
[[Page S4560]]
Our problem is now. Our problem is this next decade of bringing this
budget on a path toward balance and bringing the annual deficit down to
a much lower percentage of gross domestic product.
The budget I have just outlined, that is the work product of the
Senate Budget Committee chairman, brings it down at the end of the
decade to 1.8 percent--the deficit--to GDP. Anytime we get below 3
percent of the deficit being a percentage of GDP, we are on the path to
fiscal stability, and we would be moving toward that position of
balance--a position, by the way, we enjoyed 11 years ago because we
were in surplus. Eleven years ago, we had 4 years of surplus in a row,
but we started enacting policies--and, I might say, not with the vote
of this Senator--that caused the revenues to drop off considerably.
Then, of course, when we got in the situation where we started
increasing expenditures for one reason or another--increasing
expenditures for national defense, for two wars--and those were wars we
were not paying for with a revenue source; in fact, we were just going
out and borrowing the money.
So this brings me now to Medicare and Social Security. It might make
some people in Washington, DC, feel good to whack Medicare. It
certainly wouldn't make this Senator feel good. It certainly wouldn't
make an awful lot--as a matter of fact, some 45 million senior citizens
in this country are on Medicare, some of whom are living from hand to
mouth, from Social Security check to Social Security check, and from
Medicare reimbursement to Medicare reimbursement for their health care.
It certainly wouldn't make them feel good. And it is not going to do
anything immediately for the deficit we are having to confront. So why
trade off, saying we are going to whack these two programs and not
attack things such as tax expenditures that are inefficient and don't
produce what they are supposed to do via the incentives in the Tax
Code? It simply doesn't make sense.
Oh, by the way, isn't it interesting, isn't it almost ironic that the
people who are now attacking Medicare and saying we have to whack it
are the very people who were criticizing us 2 years ago in the health
care bill when we eliminated $\1/2\ trillion of inefficiencies and
overpayments out of Medicare to put the program on a more financially
solvent path? And they were the very ones who were criticizing us for
taking that money out of Medicare. Well, I say to my colleagues, we
already took on Medicare, so we ought to get down to the hard choices
of budget deficit reduction, which means cutting spending and getting
rid of some of these tax expenditures so we can start bringing our
budget into balance.
My final subject is Social Security. Now, why in the world would we
want to scare the bejabbers out of 45 million senior citizens of this
country, some of whom literally are living hand to mouth and from
Social Security check to Social Security check and some of whom cannot
afford the cost of drugs even partially provided for through Medicare
Part D, the prescription drug benefit? I don't think we want to do
that.
As we get closer to August 2, I am hearing--and I hope every other
Senator is hearing from all of these senior citizens and these disabled
workers who are relying on Social Security--that they are concerned
about Washington's failure to get its house in order, and if we fail to
get our house in order, it is going to threaten the very source of
income they count on. So to risk a government default and to say the
only way we can do it is by taking it out of Social Security is not
going to do anything for us in reducing the deficit over the next
decade, which is the problem at hand.
Yesterday, the President was asked if he could tell the folks at home
that no matter what happens, Social Security checks are going to go out
the day after the government is supposedly going to go into default. Do
my colleagues remember what the President said? He said: I cannot
guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved
this issue because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to
do it.
So the people who are relying on a fixed income of Social Security to
survive--Social Security payments are more than just a government
statistic. For them, Social Security is more than just a Federal outlay
or an entitlement expenditure. There are almost 4 million Social
Security beneficiaries in my State. I can tell my colleagues that their
Social Security pays the rent, it pays for the groceries, and it helps
pay their medical copays. It helps pay for that over and above what is
provided in Medicare.
It is interesting, these speeches I hear. It is all ``it is your
fault, and it is your fault, and it is the other guy's fault, and it is
so partisan, and it is so ideologically rigid.'' The only way we are
going to solve something that is as tangled up as this is for people of
good will to be willing to respect the other fellow's point of view and
come together and build consensus to find a workable solution.
So as we get closer--and we can almost hear the background music; it
is getting more ominous day by day as the clock ticks down to August
2--there is something we can do about it. The threat that Social
Security payments could be delayed should not be used as a weapon to
force a slash-and-burn cut to these entitlements. I said 45 million
earlier; it is actually 56 million retirees who rely on these payments.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service states:
Under normal procedures Treasury pays Social Security
benefits from the General Fund and offsets this by redeeming
an equivalent amount of the Social Security Trust Funds'
holdings of government debt. Treasury now may need to issue
new public debt to raise the cash needed to pay benefits.
Treasury may be unable to issue new public debt, however,
because of the debt limit.
In other words, if the debt ceiling is not raised, Social Security
benefits could be delayed or jeopardized. So perhaps what we ought to
do is enact some legislation that takes Social Security out of the
equation in the event we don't reach a deal on the debt ceiling by
August 2.
In the past, the President and the Congress have agreed to exempt
Social Security from the debt ceiling in order to ensure that the
payments go out to Social Security recipients. As a matter of fact, as
recently as 1996, Treasury reported it had insufficient cash to pay
Social Security benefits in March of that year. In response, Congress
then passed--and it was a bipartisan Congress; it was headed by a
majority of the Republican Party, and there was a Democratic President,
President Clinton. They passed--and it was signed into law--a measure
that provided the Treasury with temporary authority to issue securities
to the public in the amount equal to the Social Security benefit
payments due.
I will conclude by pointing out that after that was done in 1996,
Congress later extended the borrowing authority for an additional 2
weeks.
I believe we should use what we know works and not play games with
Social Security benefits. So I am introducing some legislation, and I
am introducing it today. It is called the Social Security Benefit
Protection Act. What it suggests is the way we ought to go. Now, I know
we are not going to take up and pass this legislation, but I have a
means by which I can get this idea out. What it does is guarantee that
the Social Security Administration will be able to continue paying
Social Security benefits to retirees, survivors, and disabled workers
regardless of what happens to this political gridlock here in
Washington.
Similar to the 1996 legislation, this legislation gives the Treasury
Department temporary authority to issue new debt to ensure the payments
can be made to Social Security beneficiaries, but only to the extent
necessary to cover the needs of the Social Security Program.
I urge our colleagues to try to come together and give the assurances
to millions of retirees that they are not going to be whacked and,
especially so, they are not going to be whacked out of political
gridlock by all the rest of us for these excessive reasons. I urge my
colleagues to take a look at the ideas in this legislation that I have
filed.
[[Page S4561]]
____________________