[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21046-21049]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. DeMint):
  S. 1750. A bill to-provide for the issuance of certificates to Social 
Security beneficiaries who are born before 1950 guaranteeing their 
right to receive Social Security benefits under title II of the Social 
Security Act in full with an accurate annual cost-of-living adjustment; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I am 
introducing called the Social Security Guarantee Act. The reason I am 
introducing this piece of legislation is in an attempt to try, at a 
time when it looks like the Social Security issue here in Congress has 
ground down to almost a halt--although I think there is still an 
opportunity; as we hear, the House may pass something to move the ball 
forward--I want to put forth an idea I think would be helpful as 
something we can get done that should have, I hope, bipartisan support 
and would create a sense of security and certainly reduce anxiety among 
those at or near retirement with respect to any future changes to 
Social Security.
  The Social Security Guarantee Act is a very simple concept. It says 
if you were born before 1950, this law now creates a right for you to 
the benefits that you have been promised.
  Now, you may say: Why is that a new thing? Well, believe it or not, 
there is a Supreme Court case on this point that says Social Security 
recipients have no right to the benefits they have been promised under 
the law. This would create such a right for people born before 1950.
  Now, why do I pick out 1950? Because in all the legislation that has 
been introduced in the Congress, the statements made by the President, 
and even

[[Page 21047]]

statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we 
have all agreed that people who are at or near retirement should not be 
subject to change, for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is 
there is money there to pay those benefits. Cashflow-wise, there will 
be enough money to pay for the benefits for our seniors and those who 
are near retirement or near the eligible age of 62. So there is not a 
need to change the Social Security system for these individuals. 
Therefore, everyone who is proposing changes to the system, to save it 
and strengthen it for the future, has set them aside verbally and said: 
We are not going to propose anything that is going to affect your 
benefits if you were born before 1950.
  Well, if we are going to say that, and promise that, then I think a 
step forward--both in terms of our ability to find a solution to the 
problem for younger workers and the fact that Social Security will not 
have sufficient resources to pay for benefits in the future--we take a 
step forward if we promise to put in law a guarantee that older 
workers' and retirees' benefits are guaranteed by the law.
  The second benefit is one that is political in this sense, in that 
one of the difficulties in trying to rally support in the public for a 
program that will save and strengthen Social Security for younger 
workers is the anxiety that older workers have and retirees have that 
somehow or other, at the last minute, they will be folded into this 
bill and somehow their benefits will be affected or their taxes will be 
increased.
  This should provide a level of comfort and reduce that anxiety and 
create a proper focus for reform, the proper focus for reform being the 
future, not the present, not the past.
  So I put this forward as an admittedly minimalist step, but I think 
an important one, that creates a better atmosphere where there are not 
political accusations of trying to take someone's Social Security check 
away or that grandma's check be cut in half, or whatever the case may 
be. You hear all these things from those who do not want to make any 
kind of changes to the Social Security system for younger workers. So 
they go out and try to scare older workers and retirees.
  I might add, another reason to do this is, it would not be fair at 
this point to reduce their benefits or to change the structure when 
they are either in the system or very close to being in Social 
Security.
  So this is a step on which I would hope we could get bipartisan 
agreement, that we could pass this by unanimous consent. I do not know 
of anybody in this Chamber who has made the statement that they think 
we should change benefits for current retirees, or that we should 
change benefits for folks who are near retirement. That being the case, 
I see no reason we would not pass this and, in a sense, take those born 
before 1950 and say: OK, you are off the table. No Social Security 
changes are going to affect you. Your interest in the Social Security 
debate then becomes the future, not you. It becomes your children, your 
grandchildren, their children, their grandchildren, not how it affects 
you and your life today.
  I think that is a helpful step in the right direction, to try to get 
something that is appropriate, a stronger Social Security system, that 
is appropriately designed for future generations of Americans.
  I am pleased Senator DeMint has joined me in this legislation. I 
certainly put out a call for all those who are interested in trying to 
take a small step forward in moving the Social Security agenda to join 
me in securing the benefits for our seniors, removing the anxiety that 
often comes, particularly with those who live from Social Security 
check to Social Security check, removing the anxiety that they have 
about the potential for their benefits to be affected by any changes 
Congress would make. This would create a vote, which I suspect would be 
unanimous, that would put every Senator on record for putting in the 
law that they will not change the Social Security benefits for those 
who were born before 1950. That has a powerful effect when a Member 
votes that way. It makes it very difficult for them to come back and 
say: I am going to change my mind.
  It is a meaningful piece of legislation. It is a step in the right 
direction. It does remove the anxiety which is a positive thing for our 
seniors. It creates a platform for us to build into the future a 
stronger Social Security system. I am hopeful that in the next couple 
of months, if not early next year, that we can get a vote on this; that 
we can have unanimous consent to bring it up and to pass it and to get 
a strong vote from every Member of the Senate that Social Security 
reform programs put forward in the Senate to save and strengthen the 
Social Security system will be all about the future, will be all about 
younger workers and how we make the system stable for them without 
using scare tactics about how it is going to affect older workers who 
are, in most cases, the most vulnerable citizens in our society.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI:
  S. 1751. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the 
State sentences for which burial in National Cemeteries and Arlington 
National Cemetery are prohibited to include any sentence of life 
imprisonment for a State capital crime; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to close 
a loophole in current law that allows convicted murderers to be honored 
at our national cemeteries. I believe we must preserve our national 
cemeteries as places of honor for our veterans. Arlington National 
Cemetery--and all our national cemeteries--are hallowed ground. They 
should not be polluted by the remains of convicted murderers.
  In August, I learned of a tragic and troubling circumstance regarding 
our national cemeteries. The remains of a convicted cold-blooded 
murderer sentenced to two life sentences for his crimes were buried at 
Arlington National Cemetery on July 27, 2005. This man, Russell Wagner, 
was convicted of stabbing to death two elderly residents of Hagerstown, 
MD--Daniel Davis, 84 and his wife, Wilda Davis, 80. He was sentenced in 
State court to two life sentences for these unspeakable crimes. While 
serving his sentence in prison, Wagner died from a heroin overdose. 
Because he served honorably in Vietnam, his remains were allowed to be 
placed in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors, even 
though he committed this terrible crime.
  This episode has been terribly painful for the Davis family, 
understandably: they have had to relive the horror of their parents' 
brutal murder, while seeing the man who took away their loved ones 
being honored as a hero in our Nation's most sacred burial ground. 
There has been community outrage--which I share. The law that allows 
this disgrace must be changed.
  Arlington is for heroes. So many Marylanders who served with honor 
were laid to rest in Arlington, the heroes from every war: men like 
Navy Diver Michael Steadam, who was brutally murdered by terrorists 
simply because he was a member of our military. In the Iraqi conflict, 
37 Marylanders have died, including two from the same high school who 
died within weeks of each other. These are the heroes who deserve 
burial at our national cemeteries.
  In my 18 years as the head of the VA-HUD subcommittee, I was proud to 
work closely with our Veterans' Service Organizations. They are 
tireless advocates for America's veterans. I so respect and admire 
them. I know many in these groups are uncomfortable with the idea of 
Congress tinkering with the benefits our veterans have earned. I can 
understand their yellow flashing lights. Promises made to our veterans 
must be promises kept. For 18 years, I fought every day to safeguard 
these benefits--and continue to do so, because they represent America's 
payment of a debt we owe our brave veterans for their service--a debt 
that can never be fully repaid. But this is murder.
  Federal law already prohibits murderers from being honored at 
Arlington and our national cemeteries. In 1997,

[[Page 21048]]

Congress passed a law to restrict burial eligibility, to prevent 
convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh from being buried in a 
national cemetery following his execution. Under current law, if a 
veteran is convicted of a capital crime in a Federal court, he or she 
cannot be placed in a national cemetery. Yet, if someone is convicted 
of the same crime in a State court, they retain their eligibility to be 
placed in a national cemetery if they are eligible for parole. This 
loophole enabled the man who murdered Mr. and Mrs. Davis to be placed 
alongside the heroes at Arlington.
  Why did Congress pass what is known as the McVeigh law? Not to 
further punish the guilty, but to preserve our national cemeteries as 
places of honor for our veterans. So I was shocked to learn that the 
law we passed in 1997 does not apply in the case of the man who 
murdered Daniel and Wilda Davis. He was convicted of two life 
sentences, but because he was convicted in State court, he remained 
eligible for interment with honors at Arlington National Cemetery. This 
doesn't make any sense. The purpose of the 1997 law was to protect the 
standards our military men and women live by: to protect the values 
they fight and die for. The cold-blooded murder of an elderly couple is 
certainly contrary to those values.
  I am introducing this bill on behalf of the Davis family. But I am 
also introducing it on behalf of a Nation at war. Every day across this 
country, brave young soldiers are being honored and laid to rest in our 
national cemeteries. We have precious little to offer in comfort for 
their grieving loved ones, who have made the ultimate sacrifice a 
Nation can ask. But we can insist that these sacred resting places and 
the honors our Nation rightfully bestowed on those who have died in its 
service are preserved as sanctuaries and monuments to the values they 
died protecting. Placing the remains of a cold-blooded murderer in this 
hallowed ground makes a mockery of that service. And it is wrong.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 1754. A bill to apply the Federal medical assistance percentage 
determined for a State for fiscal year 2005 for fiscal years 2006 
through 2014; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to apply 
the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for a State for fiscal 
year 2005 for fiscal years 2006 through 2014. Oklahoma is one of the 
hardest hit States receiving a 2.27 percent reduction in our FMAP funds 
for 2006, resulting in a loss of approximately $65 million, along with 
21 other states that will suffer more than a 0.5 percent reduction. I 
would like to introduce with unanimous consent the text of a chart 
created by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority that lays out the 2006 
FMAP reduction.
  Federal law states that the FMAP is based on the three most recent 
calendar years with acceptable data available from the Department of 
Commerce. Every four to five years the Department of Commerce's Bureau 
of Economic Analysis performs a comprehensive revision of its 
calculation of per capita income. They performed a revision in 2003 
which revises the data for the previous years as well. Therefore, when 
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) calculated the 
FMAP for fiscal year 2006, they used the revised data from 2001, 2002 
and 2003. A reduction of 2.27 percent would be disastrous for the state 
of Oklahoma.
  My legislation purposes to keep the fiscal year 2005 percentage 
levels for 2006 through 2014, while we take an in depth look at 
revising the formula so states do not continue to get hit with such 
drastic reductions. Please join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                             OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY
                             [Estimated Federal Cost Impact to Cap FMAP Reduction at .5 Percentage Point Projected FFY 2006]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Total MAP       Total cost to    Federal cost to   Dif: adj. cost
                             State                                  2006 FMAP       expenditures      state w/full        cap FMAP        to State w/5%
                                                                    reduction      (2004 trended)    FMAP reduction    reduction @ 5%       reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska........................................................    7.42 (percent)       927,820,408        68,844,274        64,205,172         4,639,102
Wyoming.......................................................    3.67 (percent)       411,742,028        15,110,932        13,052,222         2,058,710
New Mexico....................................................    3.15 (percent)     2,507,212,586        78,977,196        66,441,134        12,536,063
Oklahoma......................................................    2.27 (percent)     2,924,733,647        66,391,454        51,767,786        14,623,668
Maine.........................................................    1.99 (percent)     2,344,739,613        46,660,318        34,936,620        11,723,698
West Virginia.................................................    1.66 (percent)     2,362,624,867        39,219,872        27,406,657        11,813,214
North Dakota..................................................    1.64 (percent)       565,830,511         9,279,620         6,450,468         2,829,153
Vermont.......................................................    1.62 (percent)       899,658,464        14,574,467        10,076,175         4,498,292
Utah..........................................................    1.38 (percent)     1,445,925,839        19,953,777        12,724,147         7,229,629
Montana.......................................................    1.36 (percent)       726,849,009         9,885,147         6,250,901         3,634,245
Alabama.......................................................    1.32 (percent)     4,174,809,256        55,107,482        34,233,436        20,874,046
Louisiana.....................................................    1.25 (percent)     5,735,530,756        71,694,134        43,016,481        28,677,654
Nevada........................................................    1.14 (percent)     1,202,661,716        13,710,344         7,697,035         6,013,309
Mississippi...................................................    1.08 (percent)     3,752,796,588        40,530,203        21,766,220        18,763,983
Arkansas......................................................    0.98 (percent)     2,974,366,673        29,148,793        14,276,960        14,871,833
South Dakota..................................................    0.96 (percent)       622,166,738         5,972,801         2,861,967         3,110,834
Rhode Island..................................................    0.93 (percent)     1,900,919,404        17,678,550         8,173,953         9,504,597
Tennessee.....................................................    0.82 (percent)     8,319,862,112        68,222,869        26,623,559        41,599,311
Idaho.........................................................    0.71 (percent)     1,069,486,215         7,593,352         2,245,921         5,347,431
Wisconsin.....................................................    0.67 (percent)     5,292,600,883        35,460,426         8,997,442        26,463,004
Kansas........................................................    0.60 (percent)     2,055,601,420        12,333,609         2,055,601        10,278,007
South Carolina................................................    0.57 (percent)     4,449,546,832        25,362,417         3,114,683        22,247,734
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................    56,667,503,565       751,712,038       468,374,520       283,337,518
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Included are states that are projected to experience an FMAP reduction in FFYO6.
Estimated costs provided in this chart are based on state MAP expenditures published on CMS 64 reports (2004 trended by 9% for 2 years). The costs do
  not reflect official estimates from any of the states, but should provide a fair representation of the impact for each state.

                                 ______
                                 
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DAYTON:
  S. 1756. A bill to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence; 
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence, headed by a Cabinet-level 
Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence. While I am loath to add another 
agency to the already oversized Federal bureaucracy, it is imperative 
that we elevate peace to at least the same level as war within the 
Federal Government, inside the President's Cabinet Room, and in our 
national policymaking.
  The Department's mission is set forth in section 101 of the proposed 
legislation. It says:

       The Department shall--
       hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service 
     to every level of American society;
       endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to 
     expand human rights;
       strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;
       promote the development of human potential;
       work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed 
     conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new 
     structures and nonviolent dispute resolution;
       take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of 
     policies that promote national and international conflict 
     prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful 
     resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict;

[[Page 21049]]

       address matters both domestic and international in scope, 
     and
       encourage the development of initiatives from local 
     communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental 
     organizations.

  The legislation mandates that an amount not less than 2 percent of 
the Department of Defense's annual appropriation be expended for those 
peacemaking and peace-advancing efforts, which does not affect the 
Department of Defense's level of funding.
  Now is clearly the time to create a Department of Peace and 
Nonviolence. The continuing war in Iraq, a war which I opposed, a war 
initiated before all attempts at peaceful resolution had been made, 
should teach us again that war is not the answer. Despite the 
incredible heroism of the men and women in our Armed Forces who have 
fought, patrolled, and helped so well and for so long in Iraq, 138,000 
of them are still there with no end in sight. More of them are wounded, 
maimed, and killed every day. Terrorism activities against our troops 
and against Iraqi citizens are continuing and even increasing in their 
lethality.
  Tragically, wrongly, but unavoidably, anti-American hatred also 
continues to grow throughout the Arab world. Who can doubt that some of 
the sons and daughters of Iraqis killed during the past 2\1/2\ years of 
war will grow up to become vicious terrorists, hell-bent on revenge 
against America. Our leaders did not intend to create this anti-
American backlash, what the CIA calls ``blowback.'' However, they are 
ignoring it at our peril.
  Our Nation possesses a military might that is unprecedented in the 
world's history and unparalleled in the world today. We must remain so.
  Yet, if we are to remain the world's leader and if we are to lead the 
world into a more secure and a more prosperous future, we must become 
better known and more respected for our peacemaking successes than for 
our military forces. Peace is far more than the absence of war, 
although that is the starting point. Peace, to have any lasting value, 
must be advanced, expanded, and strengthened continuously. Doing so 
requires skill, dedication, persistence, resources and, most 
importantly, people. We need thousands of American emissaries of peace 
at home and abroad. We need our embassies to become centers for 
peaceful initiatives worldwide, and we need advocates for peace-
promoting policies here in Washington.
  This country was founded by a Revolutionary War, a necessary war for 
independence. But our Nation's Founders wanted this to be a nation of 
peace. President Thomas Jefferson said, in 1801:

       That peace, safety, and concord may be the portion of our 
     native land, and be long-enjoyed by our fellow-citizens, is 
     the most ardent wish of my heart, and if I can be 
     instrumental in procuring or preserving them, I shall think I 
     have not lived in vain.

  Mr. President, 158 years later President Dwight Eisenhower, himself 
no stranger to war, said:

       I think people want peace so much that one of these days 
     governments had better get out of the way and let them have 
     it.

  To further that goal, in 1984, Congress passed legislation and 
President Ronald Reagan signed it into law, creating the U.S. Institute 
of Peace. Today, the Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan 
organization funded by Congress to promote peace and curb violent 
international conflict. The last 20 years have shown that the 
Institute, and all of us, have much more to do to create and to sustain 
a peaceful world.
  Similar to Thomas Jefferson, peace, safety and concord for our fellow 
citizens is the most ardent wish of my heart. If I can be instrumental 
in procuring or preserving them, I think that I shall not have lived in 
vain.
  A peaceful world, inhabited by people throughout the world who have 
learned how to keep peace better than how to make war, who want peace, 
who know its benefits and who insist that their governments let them 
have it--that would be the best world and the greatest inheritance we 
could give to our children and our grandchildren and generations that 
will follow them. Without it, nothing else is reliable. With it, 
everything else is possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1763. A bill to promote the employment of workers displaced by 
Hurricane Katrina in connection with Hurricane Katrina reconstruction 
efforts; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have all seen the unprecedented 
destruction and suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina.
  With the Katrina disaster, tens of thousands of people in the Gulf 
States have lost their jobs. In fact, over 200,000 have filed for 
unemployment benefits. For that reason, I introduced the Hurricane 
Katrina Reconstruction and Displaced Workers Assistance Act of 2005. 
This legislation would give priority in awarding Federal contracts for 
the rebuilding efforts to those companies where workers displaced by 
Hurricane Katrina comprise at least 25 percent of the workforce 
fulfilling the contract. It is the least we could do to help displaced 
workers.
  Unfortunately, on the same day I introduced my bill to help workers, 
President Bush did just the opposite. He issued a proclamation saying 
that those who get Federal contracts for rebuilding will not have to 
pay workers the prevailing wage. This is unfair to working men and 
women. It is not right. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina should not be 
used as an excuse to take advantage of working people.
  Therefore, to ensure that workers in the region affected by the 
hurricane are paid the region's prevailing wages, I am introducing a 
second version of the Hurricane Katrina Reconstruction and Displaced 
Worker Assistance Act of 2005. It will still give priority to those 
companies who hire displaced workers, but it will also ensure that all 
workers are paid the prevailing wage.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

                          ____________________