[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 190 (Friday, December 20, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7287-S7288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



          HOLCOMBE RUCKER PARK NATIONAL COMMEMORATIVE SITE ACT

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, if you have ever had kids, you know 
how important it can be to encourage their education. But with many 
competing priorities, you sometimes need to use creative strategies to 
inspire success.
  That is something that Holcombe Rucker did. Rucker was a Black World 
War II veteran and teacher in the 1940s in Harlem. He started a small 
outdoor basketball team for Black youth and encouraged his players to 
maintain good grades and decorum. Some say he is the father of outdoor 
organized basketball for youth and helped give thousands of kids better 
pathways to higher learning.
  Holcombe Rucker grew up a poor parentless kid from 141st Street. He 
served in the Army during World War II before earning his bachelor's 
degree from City College. He then taught English at a Harlem junior 
high school, while also serving as a recreation director for both the 
St. Phillip's Church Community Center and the city parks department.
  When Rucker formed his youth basketball tournament in the late 1940s, 
however, he didn't get much support from city recreational leaders. So 
he often paid out of his own shallow pockets to provide refreshments 
and T-shirts and other essentials for players. Rucker would even share 
his lunch with his students, often coming home to his wife with an 
empty stomach.
  Rucker believed education and supervised recreation could make an 
enormous difference in the lives of his students. It is no surprise 
then why many of his players saw him as a father figure and credited 
him with helping to set them on a better path.
  As Rucker's summer tournaments grew in popularity, parks department 
officials finally moved them to a more desirable location. That would 
ultimately become the Holcombe Rucker Park. The court attracted the 
city's most talented young basketball players, including future 
professional basketball stars like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt 
Chamberlain, and Julius ``Dr. J'' Erving.
  I want to thank Congressman Espaillat for championing this bill, and 
I am proud to lead the effort in the Senate to designate this park, 
which is located on 155th Street, on the banks of the Harlem River, as 
the ``Holcombe Rucker Park National Commemorative Site.''
  This bill would allow for an educational exhibit, a plaque or another 
marker to be installed that would help memorialize the legacy of Mr. 
Rucker for generations to come.
  I want to thank Senator Rubio for his assistance.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
6852 and the Senate proceed to an en bloc consideration of the 
following bills: H.R. 8012, which was received from the House and is at 
the desk; and H.R. 6852.
  There being no objection, the committee was discharged of the 
relevant bill, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.

[[Page S7288]]

  

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered 
read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 8012) to establish the Jackie Robinson Ballpark 
National Commemorative Site in the State of Florida, and for other 
purposes was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and 
passed.
  The bill (H.R. 6852) to designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, 
New York, as a National Commemorative Site, and for other purposes was 
ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S7288, December 20, 2024, first column, the following 
appears: The bills (H.R. 8012 and H.R. 6852) were ordered to a 
third reading, were read the third time, and passed.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The bill (H.R. 
8012) to establish the Jackie Robinson Ballpark National 
Commemorative Site in the State of Florida, and for other purposes 
was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and 
passed. The bill (H.R. 6852) to designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in 
Harlem, New York, as a National Commemorative Site, and for other 
purposes was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, 
and passed.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Social Security Fairness Act

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I expect that sometime this evening, the 
Senate will move to the consideration of the Social Security Fairness 
Act, which would repeal two Social Security provisions: the windfall 
elimination provision, pronounced ``WEP,'' and the government pension 
offset, GPO.
  I agree with my colleagues that the WEP and GPO should be improved to 
ensure that teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others receive 
fair treatment under Social Security; however, I am disappointed that 
the Finance Committee did not have the opportunity to examine ways to 
address the WEP and GPO that would be fair to all Social Security 
beneficiaries and not hurt Social Security's long-term solvency.
  In its current form, the Social Security Fairness Act would cost 
nearly $200 billion over the next 10 years and exhaust the balance of 
the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund roughly 6 months earlier 
for all Social Security beneficiaries. The share of OASI benefits that 
could be paid when the trust fund is exhausted would be smaller under 
this bill than under current law, meaning all Social Security 
beneficiaries will see their Social Security benefits reduced earlier, 
and their benefits then will be even smaller than they would have been.
  I filed an amendment that would delay the implementation of the 
Social Security Fairness Act until changes are made that would offset 
the bill's negative impact on Social Security's actuarial balance as 
determined by the Social Security Board of Trustees. The amendment does 
not specify what the changes should be or how the changes should be 
determined.
  While I continue to have concerns with the approach taken in the 
Social Security Fairness Act, at the very least, this amendment needs 
to be adopted so that we do not have a negative impact on Social 
Security's solvency and impact the Social Security benefits of all 
Social Security recipients.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up. That 
will be the Crapo amendment No. 3331.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I just wanted to get up and explain why I 
will be voting against the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act 
a little bit later tonight. I am going to try to keep the volume down 
and maybe the frustration down a little bit more tonight than I did 
yesterday, but I thought it was important to again explain why 
sometimes the tough vote is the right vote.
  To kind of lay the groundwork, I am from North Carolina. I am up for 
reelection in November of 2026. I have heard some people walk up and 
down the hallway and say that they really oppose the bill, but they are 
up for reelection in 2028 or are up for reelection in 2030, and they 
are worried about the politics of it. I never worry about the politics 
when I am convinced in my heart of hearts it is the right decision, and 
let me explain why.
  The Social Security Fairness Act is trying to address what I think is 
an inequity and a problem. Unfortunately, it is doing it in a way that 
is at the expense of $200 billion out of the Social Security trust 
fund, without a dime offsetting it.
  Now, some of my fiscal conservative colleagues have said: Well, no, 
it is not really depleting it because it is the Social Security trust 
fund. So it is not adding to our debt.
  What they are forgetting is that when the Social Security trust fund 
becomes insolvent, the fairies don't come back and replenish the Social 
Security trust fund. We don't have trust fund fairies. What we have is 
a debt that is already over $33 trillion that we are going to be 
expected to write another check out of, and we are headed toward a debt 
crisis.
  This bill, by everyone's agreement--even those who are going to vote 
for it tonight--pulls forward its insolvency. The consensus right now 
is that it is going to occur 9 years from now. This pulls it forward by 
6 months.
  So I have to vote against this bill and not because I don't 
ultimately want to fix an injustice for a very small percentage of 
people who deserve a few hundred dollars more a month, but the way we 
have gone about it, it is going to be costly, and it is being done at a 
time when we are not plussing the accounts back up.
  I feel like, in my vote-casting, I am likely to be on the losing 
side. I understand that. None of these amendments are going to pass 
because, if they do, the bill fails, and we know that. So, for anybody 
who is pulling for one amendment or another, let me just show you how I 
can tell the future: Not a single one will pass. This bill will be 
voted out this evening, and it will be sent to the President's desk. 
Once the President signs it, he will have guaranteed that the Social 
Security trust fund will become insolvent 6 months sooner. Think about 
it this way: 8\1/2\ years from now versus 9 years from now. It is going 
to pull $200 billion out, causing that to occur.
  It is actually going to provide some benefit that I don't believe the 
beneficiaries deserve. It is really confusing that handful or that 
segment of the people who will get the benefit and is casting them into 
a group that, I think, arguably, maybe doesn't deserve the benefit. 
Anyone who should, we can take care of, but it is not $200 billion. But 
that is what happens when you don't have a single committee hearing on 
a bill. That is what happens when it comes from the House through 
something called a discharge petition. Bypassing all the processes, it 
comes to the Senate, and we never even have a hearing.
  We are going to have a vote later today for a $200 billion raiding of 
the Social Security trust fund that is going to bring insolvency 
forward from 9 years to 8\1/2\ years, and not a single vote or a single 
hearing has been held in a single committee on Capitol Hill.
  Now, folks, if you can't agree on the finances, if you can't agree on 
the fairness, can we all agree on the process for something as weighty 
as this? We should have given it the justice it deserves and held a 
hearing on it.
  For that reason, I am going to vote against it, and then I will be 
standing there, reminding my colleagues ``I told you so'' when I am 
also trying to help them fix the problem they are about to vote on to 
create.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________