[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 190 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7462-S7463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Rubio):
  S. 3101. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
repeal the retirement earnings test, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, older American workers are a 
vital source of economic strength. Before the pandemic, there were more 
seniors in the workforce than there were 20 years ago, and men and 
women age 55 and older lifted the overall labor force participation 
rate by a substantial margin. During the pandemic, more than 3 million 
seniors retired early, and millions more are considering early 
retirement. These losses harm seniors' retirement security by reducing 
their income and benefits.
  That is why today, with my good friend Senator Rubio, I am 
introducing the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, which would 
repeal the Social Security retirement earnings test. The earnings test 
is a confusing work disincentive. It says that you lose half your 
Social Security benefits if you earn more than $18,960. Then it gives 
your benefits back at full retirement age. The problem is that many 
seniors know their benefits will be cut if they make too much money, 
but not that they will be replaced later. They treat the earnings test 
like a 50-percent tax and work less to avoid it.
  When I have spoken to small business owners in South Carolina they 
have made clear to me that the earnings test is in fact a disincentive 
for many older workers, and it harms their businesses. Older Americans 
want to earn just enough that they fall right under the threshold so 
their benefits don't get cut, which makes it harder for small 
businesses to hire them even on a part-time basis. It is not surprising 
that research shows the earnings test reduces labor force participation 
by more than 3 percent.
  The earnings test also deepens inequality. It punishes lower-income 
seniors who need Social Security benefits and earned income to get by. 
And if you need Social Security benefits and earned income to meet 
caregiving responsibilities or pressing financial obligations or 
because you have a lower life expectancy, the earnings test says no, 
you have to wait until you reach full retirement age, whether that is 
65 or 67.
  Many seniors just can't wait that long, and the economy can't either. 
The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act will give these older 
Americans the freedom and flexibility they need, promote work, and help 
employers and workers find arrangements that work best for them.
  Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Cornyn, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 3103. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate 
the statute of limitations for the filing of a civil claim for any 
person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 1589, 
1590, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 
2422, or 2423 of such title; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. 3103

       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 ``Eliminating Limits to 
     Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       Section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Statute of Limitations.--There shall be no time limit 
     for the filing of any action commenced under this section.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall--
       (1) take effect on date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) apply to--
       (A) any claim or action that, as of the date described in 
     paragraph (1), would not have been barred under section 
     2255(b) of title 18, United States Code, as it read the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) any claim or action arising after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
      By Mr. CARPER:
  S. 3104. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to 
allow the District of Columbia to receive Federal funding under such 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
allow the District of Columbia to receive funding and other benefits 
under the Coastal Zone Management Act. I am pleased to offer this 
companion legislation to a bill introduced by the Congresswoman from 
the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Few of us realize that 70 percent of the District is located within 
the coastal plain. Similar to my State of Delaware, sea level rise, 
upstream sources of water, and degraded infrastructure mean that the 
District could experience serious future cleanup and repair costs due 
to flooding, including damage to Federal property, which makes up 
almost 30 percent of the District. Since 1950, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, reports there has been a 343-percent 
increase in nuisance flooding in

[[Page S7463]]

the District. Since 2006, D.C. has experienced two 100-year flooding 
events. Scientists predict that tides on the Atlantic coast could rise 
2 to 4 feet by the year 2100, causing as much as $7 billion worth of 
property damage in the District, which would regularly be under threat 
by floodwaters. This fact was highlighted by a study released by the 
nonprofit Climate Central last week. Needless to say, these events will 
become more and more common due to climate change and sea level rise.
  The District of Columbia would use funding from the Coastal Zone 
Management Program for flood risk planning and environmental 
restoration to prevent and mitigate future flood damage. At the same 
time, this work would help to restore and conserve the District's 
coastal resources such as habitat, fisheries, and endangered species.
  If included in the Coastal Zone Management Program, the District of 
Columbia would be eligible for $1 million or more of Federal funding 
annually to assist in coastal flood-control projects, to combat non-
point source water pollution, and to develop special area management 
plans in areas experiencing environmental justice and/or flooding 
issues.
  The National Coastal Zone Management Program, housed in NOAA, was 
established through the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management 
Act of 1972. At the time, Congress recognized the need to manage the 
effects of increased growth in the Nation's coastal zone, which 
includes jurisdictions bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes.
  There are currently 34 jurisdictional coastal zone management 
programs, including both States and territories. In order for the 
District of Columbia to participate in the program, Congress must pass 
this amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act that would include 
the District under the definition of a ``coastal State.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I am introducing 
today be printed in the Record following my statement.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3104

       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 ``Flood Prevention Act of 
     2021''.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FEDERAL 
                   FUNDING UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT 
                   OF 1972.

       Section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 
     (16 U.S.C. 1453(4)) is amended by inserting ``the District of 
     Columbia,'' after ``the term also includes''.
      By Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
        Booker, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, 
        Mr. Murphy, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Schatz, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 3108. A bill to provide counsel for unaccompanied children, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. HIRONO, Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Day in 
Court for Kids Act of 2021. This important legislation would provide 
all unaccompanied children with legal representation as they go through 
immigration proceedings. This will protect the legal rights of 
vulnerable children running from violence, abuse, and gangs, but it 
will also make our immigration system more efficient.
  Five years ago, I traveled to Baltimore, MD, to observe immigration 
court hearings on the children's docket. I watched children, who had 
suffered violence and trauma in their home countries, trying to 
navigate our complex legal system without any support. Leaving young 
people, children as young as 3, to combat an adversarial government 
lawyer and explain why they qualify for a legal immigration status is 
unacceptable and unconscionable.
  I have also had the opportunity to speak to children who were able to 
secure an immigration status with legal support. These children are 
grateful to have escaped the dangers that drove them to leave home. 
They also express with certainty that they would not have been able to 
succeed in their cases if they did not have lawyers representing them.
  In immigration court, people seeking relief through our immigration 
system do not have a right to counsel and often cannot afford counsel 
who understand our Byzantine immigration system and can explain the 
lifelong ramifications that result from certain decisions. This 
unfairness is most acute when it comes to unaccompanied children who 
are trying to escape brutal violence and crushing poverty. Most do not 
speak English, nor do they have any understanding of our legal system. 
Yet we expect them to argue their case before immigration court and 
against trained and skilled ICE attorneys.
  The Fair Day in Court for Kids Act would remedy this injustice by 
providing all unaccompanied children with legal counsel. Attorneys 
would review the case, advise the child of their legal options, and 
remain with them throughout their immigration proceedings. Legal 
counsel would ensure these children have the legal rights and 
opportunities they are afforded, helping our immigration system protect 
the people it was meant to support.
  In addition to protecting the rights of unaccompanied children, legal 
counsel will ensure their cases move quicker and more smoothly. Cases 
with unrepresented children are subject to delays and a slower pace as 
the judge must repeatedly help the child understand what is going on 
and help them respond. Children with legal counsel also have a 98 
percent appearance rate in court. These efficiencies can only help our 
overwhelmed immigration court system, which currently has a 1.4 million 
case backlog.
  I call on my Senate colleagues to help protect unaccompanied children 
and quickly pass this bill.

                          ____________________