The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S10379-S10382 on Sept. 22, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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, 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;
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.
____________________
