Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2005

Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Dayton, Dodd and Corzine, I am introducing legislation that, if adopted, will protect and even save the lives of victims of domestic or sexual violence and their families. This bill, the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, addresses the impact of domestic and sexual violence that extends far beyond the moment the abuse occurs.

I am introducing this legislation today as a tribute to Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were such champions for victims of domestic violence. Senator Wellstone and I first introduced this legislation together in 1998. Paul's desk was just behind me here on the Senate floor. I can still see him behind me waving his arms and making the case for people who have no voice.

Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a family problem, and many victims had nowhere to turn for help.

Today, thanks to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) we have made great progress in fighting these violent crimes. I worked to help pass this landmark legislation in 1994 and I am proud to be a part of reauthorizing it this year. But although VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet immediate challenges, there is still work to be done.

As someone who has spent my entire public life working with victims and experts to fight domestic violence, I am offering this bill based on what these courageous individuals have told me they need. Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children and keeping a roof over their heads. It is critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of domestic or sexual violence so that they can provide permanent safety for themselves and their families and so that they are not forced, because of economic dependence, to stay in an abusive relationship.

In order to do this, we must ensure that victims of domestic or sexual violence can seek the help they need without the fear of losing their jobs. Too many victims have been fired for missing work in order to find shelter or get a court restraining order, even after receiving permission from their employers. Today, a woman can use the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for a sick or injured spouse, but she cannot use that act to seek protection from her abuser. The SAFE Act will allow victims to take time off from work without penalty in order to make court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning. For too many victims, access to these essential services can mean the difference between life and death.

Unfortunately, some victims of domestic or sexual violence are forced to leave their jobs and relocate to protect themselves and their families. We must ensure the continued financial security of these victims through the use of unemployment benefits. Currently, a woman can receive unemployment benefits if she leaves her job because her husband must relocate. But if that same woman is fleeing her husband's abuse, in many States she cannot receive the same benefits. Currently, 28 States and the District of Columbia provide some type of unemployment assistance to victims of domestic or sexual violence. Our bill will ensure that assistance is available in every State, so that no woman has to make the tragic choice of risking her safety to protect her livelihood.

Moreover, victims must not be made silent by the fear of discrimination in employment and insurance. Punishing victims for circumstances beyond their control is wrong and only helps abusers in their efforts to control their victims. Denying a woman employment

because she is a victim of domestic violence robs her of the economic security she needs to escape a dangerous relationship. Making insurance coverage decisions based on a history of abuse only encourages women to lie about their victimization and avoid seeking help until it is too late. The SAFE Act prohibits discrimination in employment and insurance based on domestic or sexual violence, to ensure that victims are never punished for their abusers' crimes.

Sadly, domestic violence and poverty are inextricably linked, and many victims of domestic or sexual violence are also recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Work requirements in this program often punish victims who must take time off to protect themselves and their children. In 1996, Senator Paul Wellstone and I offered an amendment to TANF called the Family Violence Option, which allows States to adjust TANF work requirements for victims of domestic violence. The SAFE act will strengthen the Family Violence Option, in order to protect some of the most economically vulnerable victims.

Despite the great progress that has been made, domestic violence is still a serious problem in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, and over 5.3 million incidents occur every year. Domestic or sexual violence also continues to have severe economic consequences, costing businesses between 3 and 5 billion dollars each year in lost productivity. The SAFE Act will help victims to escape dangerous situations and prevent abuse from occurring. This will not only protect the lives of countless victims, it will allow them to be more productive members of the economy.

I am proud of the guidance we've received from advocates in crafting this legislation. I want to thank them for their efforts and their commitment to breaking the cycle of violence. I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts of the advocates in Washington State who have provided invaluable input in drafting this legislation. The support and leadership of our communities will help us take this critical next step in passing SAFE.

For victims of domestic violence, an abusive relationship can seem like a hopeless situation. Through VAWA, we have already provided new hope to millions of these victims. The SAFE Act is the crucial next step in ending the cycle of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and provide victims and their families with the tools they need for productive, independent and most importantly, safe futures.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today we reintroduce the Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005.

Earlier this year, Senator Specter and I introduced a comprehensive bill to bring urgently needed reforms to protect Americans' privacy and to secure their personal data. Chairman Specter has shown great leadership on this issue, and I appreciate his dedication to solving these challenging problems through his willingness to work together to enhance this legislation as we have deemed appropriate. Since initial introduction of our bill, we have worked with Senator Feinstein and other members of the Judiciary Committee to address areas of concern and to perfect the bill. We have also worked closely with a wide variety of stakeholders and experts in these issues, which has also improved the bill.

I especially thank Senator Feinstein for her dedication and resolve to address these difficult data security and privacy concerns. I commend her input and leadership, and I am pleased that she is joining as an original cosponsor of this revised bill. I also thank Senator Feingold for his commitment to ensuring that the government also acts responsibly in its use of our personal information and appreciate his support as an original cosponsor. This is a good bill--carefully calibrated to help remedy the problems we set out to address--and I look forward to continuing our efforts to pass effective legislation.

We have teamed together and applied our collective wisdom to sort through these issues with care and precision. We took the time needed to develop well-balanced, focused legislation that provides strong protections where necessary, and that offers strong penalties and consequences as disincentives for those who fail to protect Americans' most personal information.

Reforms like these are long overdue. As we look toward the end of the year, these necessary reforms should be included in our domestic priorities so that we can achieve some positive changes in areas that affect the everyday lives of Americans.

First our bill requires data brokers to let people know what sensitive personal information they have about them, and to allow people to correct inaccurate information. These principles have precedent from the credit report context, and we have adapted them in a way that makes sense for the data brokering industry. This is a simple matter of fairness.

Second, we would require companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. In the digital age, any company that wants to be trusted by the public must earn that trust by vigilantly protecting the databases they use and maintain which contain Americans' private data. They also have a responsibility in the next link in the security chain, to make sure that contractors hired to process data are adequately vetted to keep the personal information in these databases secure. This is increasingly important as Americans' personal information more and more is outsourced for processing overseas and beyond U.S. laws.

Third, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people have a right to know when they are at risk because of corporate failures to protect their data, or when a criminal has infiltrated data systems. The notice rules in our bill were carefully crafted to ensure that the trigger for notice is tied to ``significant risk of harm'' with appropriate checks-and- balances, in order to make sure that companies do not underreport. We also recognize important fraud prevention techniques that already exist. But our priority has been to make sure that victims have critical information as a roadmap that offers the assistance necessary to protect themselves, their families and their financial well-being.

Finally, our bill addresses the government's use of personal data. We are living in a world in which our government increasingly is turning to the private sector to get personal data the government could not legally collect on its own without oversight and appropriate protections. This bill would place privacy and security front and center in evaluating whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. It would require contract reviews that include these considerations, audits to ensure good practice, and contract penalties for failure to protect data privacy and security.

This legislation meets other key goals. It provides tough monetary and criminal penalties for compromising personal data or failing to provide necessary protections. This creates an incentive for companies to protect personal information, especially when there is no commercial relationship between individuals and companies using their data. We also would authorize an additional $100 million over four years to help state law enforcement agencies fight misuse of personal information.

This is a solid bill--a comprehensive bill--that not only deals with the need to provide Americans notice when they have already been hurt, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability in dealing with the public's most personal and private information.

I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this emerging problem. Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold have long recognized the importance of data privacy and security, and I appreciate their support in this effort and on this bill. Other members on the Commerce Committee, such as Senator Nelson and Senator Cantwell, and on the Banking Committee, have also taken great strides in these areas as well, and we look forward to working closely with them to pass legislation this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Medicare Do Not Call Act, to prohibit private insurance companies from telemarketing their Medicare prescription drug and Medicare Advantage plans to Medicare beneficiaries. I am very pleased to be introducing this bill along with my colleagues, Senators Johnson and Lautenberg. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Beginning this Saturday, October 1, private insurance plans offering Medicare prescription drug coverage will begin marketing their products to Medicare beneficiaries.

Depending on which Medicare region they live in, beneficiaries will be confronted with selecting from as many as 20 stand-alone prescription different plans. In New Jersey, beneficiaries will choose among 17 different plans. Under current law, these plans can both send mail to and call seniors and people with disabilities who are eligible to enroll in the Medicare Part D benefit. As a result, in addition to being flooded with mail, our seniors and disabled will be flooded with phone calls.

I am extremely concerned that permitting plans to telemarket creates great potential for unscrupulous individuals and businesses to defraud this vulnerable population. Even if the plans themselves are honest brokers, it may be difficult for a senior or disabled beneficiary to distinguish between who is honest and who is not.

I am very concerned that such individuals may seize the opportunity to take advantage of this vulnerable population. Unless we act now, there will be an endless potential for fraud and identity theft within the Medicare Part D plan.

Beneficiaries are already confused about what their rights are with respect to the new prescription drug benefit. A senior who is told that she must provide her Social Security or credit card number to a telemarketer in order to obtain Medicare prescription drug coverage may feel compelled to do so, lest she forgo her opportunity to obtain prescription drug coverage.

Concerns about telemarketing fraud against seniors are very real. The Department of Justice estimates that telemarketing crooks cheat one out of six consumers every year, resulting in costs to Americans of $40 billion a year. Americans over 65, our Nation's seniors, are the primary target of these scams.

At a time when identity theft is at an all time high, the Federal government should take every precaution available to protect the American public. We should not permit government-sponsored programs, such as the Medicare prescription drug program, to engage in telemarketing. The best way to prevent such fraud from occurring is to prohibit telemarketing of any and all Medicare sponsored prescription drug products. The Medicare Do Not Call Act will do just that. My legislation imposes serious criminal penalties on unscrupulous individuals and companies that seek to defraud Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing appeals. We must do everything we can to protect this vulnerable population.

The bottom line is that telemarketing simply is not necessary to educate seniors about their prescription drug options. My legislation permits insurance companies who are contacted by beneficiaries to discuss plan options with them. As beneficiaries talk to trusted friends and organizations and read over the literature about the different drugs plans, they can then contact plans to discuss their options further. My legislation does not stop beneficiaries from speaking to these companies; it simply prohibits these companies from making the initial `cold call' to beneficiaries.

I deeply believe that the Federal government has a responsibility to do everything in its power to prevent telemarketing fraud. Permitting drug plans to telemarket to seniors and people with disabilities may provide a source of information to these individuals; however, because each plan wants to sell their own products, telemarketers may not provide the most objective information about a beneficiary's options.

There are better ways to educate seniors and disabled about the prescription drug benefit. The Medicare Do Not Call Act provides additional resources--$2 per Medicare beneficiary--to the State Health Insurance Counseling and Assistance Programs (SHIPs) to provide counseling and enrollment assistance services to Medicare beneficiaries. SHIPs provide valuable objective information to beneficiaries and can provide tremendous assistance in helping beneficiaries select the plan that best suits their needs.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. By prohibiting these un-invited calls we can protect seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries from fraudulent intentions and ensure that this complicated transition within the Medicare program be as straightforward, and safe, as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Specter to introduce legislation that is important to a number of rural communities located in over half of the States. Our legislation will ensure that over 50 mostly rural airports will not see an 85 percent reduction in their annual grant from the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program.

I think all Senators are well aware of the wide-ranging impact the tragic events of September 11, 2001, have had throughout our economy. One of the hardest hit industries has been commercial aviation, which is continuing to feel the effects in terms of higher costs and loss of passengers. Nowhere has the decline in commercial aviation been felt more than in small and rural communities.

All across America, small communities already face growing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently depends on the quality of their airports and the

availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, airports often provide the critical link to the national and international transportation system.

Ensuring small communities have the resources they need to preserve this vital airport infrastructure in rural areas is the purpose of our bill.

Under current formulae for distributing Federal funds, every airport that has more than 10,000 annual passenger boardings is guaranteed an entitlement grant from the FAA's AIP of at least $1 million per year. These are called ``primary'' airports. Airports with less than 10,000 annual boardings receive $150,000. Unfortunately, there are a handful of primary airports that have had their annual boardings drop below 10,000 as a result of the effects of 9/11. One of these airports is the Roswell International Air Center in my State of New Mexico.

For the passed two years, Congress has permitted these so called ``virtual primary'' airports to retain their full $1 million entitlement, even though their annual boardings had dropped below the 10,000 threshold as a direct result of 9/11. This two-year waiver was included in section 146 of the Vision 100 aviation reauthorization act. (P.L. 108-176).

Unfortunately, based on preliminary boarding data for 2004, there are still about 50 primary airports that have not yet regained their previous boarding levels. As a result, these airports will face a cut in their annual entitlement in FY2006 from $1 million to $150,000.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of these likely virtual primary airports for fiscal year 2006 be printed in the Record.

Likely Virtual Primary Airports for FY2006

Alaska--Fort Yukon, Gustavus, Haines, Iliamna, Kodiak,

Metlakatla, Skagway, Merrill Field* and Manokotak*.

California--Imperial, Santa Rosa, Visalia.

Connecticut--Groton-New London.

Florida--Naples.

Georgia--Athens.

Iowa--Burlington, Fort Dodge.

Illinois--Belleville, Quincy.

Indiana--Lafayette.

Kansas--Garden City, Salina.

Kentucky--Owensboro.

Maine--Rockland*.

Massachusetts--Worcester.

Michigan--Alpena, Escanaba.

Minnesota--Grand Rapids, Hibbing.

Montana--Sidney-Richland*.

North Carolina--Hickory, Pinehurst/Southern Pines.

Nebraska--Grand Island, Kearney, Scottsbluff.

New Hampshire--Lebanon.

New Mexico--Roswell.

Ohio--Youngstown/Warren.

Oregon--Pendleton.

Pennsylvania--Altoona, Bradford, Brookville, Lancaster, and

Reading*.

Rhode Island--Block Island, Westerly.

Tennessee--Jackson.

Utah--Cedar City.

Virginia--Weyers Cave.

Washington--Anacortes, Moses Lake, and Port Angeles*.

West Virginia--Clarksburg*.

Wyoming--Laramie.

*These primary airports where above 10,000 boardings in

CY2003 but could lose their $1 million AIP entitlement based

on the preliminary CY2004 enplanements.

List compiled from preliminary FAA data.

The good news is a number of airports that were virtual primary airports in fiscal year 2005 have seen their annual boardings increase back above 10,000 per year. However, for this handful of airports that were still below 10,000 boardings in 2004, I believe it is appropriate that they have another year to regain their status as primary airports and not suffer the loss of 85 percent of their fiscal year 2006 annual entitlement grant for airport improvement projects.

Thus, our bill provides a simple one year extension of the existing law to preserve the airports' current level of federal funding and give these mostly rural communities a little breathing room while the airline industry recovers from the effects of 9/11.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter and resolution from the City of Roswell and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support and had 29 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan support, I hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this year.

Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset.

This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1,245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong.

My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1,200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1,200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1,215 in monthly income.

Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income.

Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires.

Government employees work hard in service to our Nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities.

Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset altogether. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200.

I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living.

The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.