[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]]



                          ____________________