Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 5, which was received from the House.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 63, which was received from the House.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, the Senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 3. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 4, a resolution of disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture; provided that there be up to 3 hours of debate equally divided, and following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage with no intervening action or debate. I further ask consent that following the disposition of S.J. Res. 4, the Senate resume consideration of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform Act; provided further that the Senate then proceed to votes in relation to the Dayton amendment, No. 31, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Nelson amendment, No. 37, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes. Finally, I ask that there be 4 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second and third votes in that series.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will first debate a disapproval resolution related to a rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture. Following the use or yielding back of the allocated debate time, the Senate will have a series of three stacked votes. Those votes will be on the disapproval resolution, the Dayton amendment, and the Nelson amendment to the bankruptcy bill. The majority leader has stated that we will continue to process additional bankruptcy-related amendments on Thursday, and therefore rollcall votes will occur throughout the day.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss Social Security and to say how honored I am to serve along with the President, who has shown his willingness to confront very difficult issues to help build a better future for America.

President Bush has clearly laid out that we have a challenge with our Social Security system, but he has also made it clear that he believes Social Security is a promise we must keep. Social Security was started to make sure that no American retiree, no senior citizen lived in poverty. It has been successful in accomplishing that. This is a promise we need to make sure is part of any changes in Social Security.

We know that change is frightening for all of us, particularly senior citizens. I know in my own family, as my relatives have gotten older, the less change the better for them. And we need to make sure of any changes in their financial security, that we reassure them that we are not taking anything away that will put them at risk. Unfortunately, as we discuss needed changes in Social Security, some have taken advantage of this to frighten our seniors. What I would like to discuss briefly this morning is what retirees and workers in this country need to know about the changes that President Bush is discussing.

One thing is important to make clear: The changes in Social Security that we are discussing today and that the President is discussing as he travels around the country will not affect anyone over 55. Anyone born before 1950 does not have to give these changes a second thought. Nothing about their retirement income will be affected. It is secure. In fact, the legislation we are discussing will, for the first time, guarantee that we won't change their benefits. It is important for everyone to know, particularly those over 55, that as the program is structured today, this Senate, this Congress, this President could change it at any time. In fact, many people who say there is no problem with the system and that these things could be corrected with small adjustments, unfortunately, when you ask them what these adjustments are, they are always small benefit cuts and tax increases, as we have done over 30 times in the past.

The President is talking about making sure that this doesn't happen again for anyone over 55. But what folks below 55 need to know--my children and, hopefully, someday my grandchildren--is that we are actually going to give them a better deal than they have now with Social Security because by the time my children retire, the current program will begin to cut their benefits dramatically.

It is important for American workers today to know that the average American family contributes over $5,000 a year in Social Security taxes. That is a lot of money for families who have very little money to save. Unfortunately, we are not saving one penny of what today's workers are putting into Social Security.

When I say that to folks back home, they generally smile at me like I am not telling them the truth: You mean we are putting over $5,000 a year in Social Security and you are not saving one penny of that?

I say: That is exactly true, unfortunately.

This is a very risky situation for people who are working today and contributing a lot of money. And folks who are talking about making small adjustments to fix Social Security for their future are actually asking them to pay more into Social Security in return for a smaller benefit in the future.

Fortunately, our President does not think this is a good deal. The plan that the President is discussing--and actually some variations that a lot of us have been working on--needs to make sure that any changes in the Social Security system are actually a better deal for poor and middle-income workers. I know one plan we have worked on is actually constructed in a way that the less people make, the bigger percentage of their Social Security taxes goes into their account. This gives younger and lower income workers the chance to accumulate as much money as they need to have a more secure retirement, with a better retirement income.

These plans also give people real ownership. I have heard folks say that the President's ideas take money out of Social Security and put it in the stock market. That is not true. I don't know if folks are confused or just don't have the facts straight, but what we are talking about with the President's changes is for the first time actually saving the money that people are putting in Social Security. And we are talking about, as a government, putting more money into Social Security than is now coming in through payroll taxes. So actually we are adding dollars to the Social Security system, making it stronger and more secure in the future. Younger workers will have the chance, as they work and grow toward retirement, to accumulate a savings account. And the exciting thing for us in the Congress is recognizing that many Americans now have no savings. They own very little. They can't benefit from the growth in our economy. And while a part of America owns things and it grows and earns interest, so many Americans don't have that opportunity.

What the President has put before the American people is the opportunity for every American worker to become a saver and an investor and to do it in a way that secures their retirement much more than it is secure today and protects their income. I believe that any changes in Social Security using personal accounts should guarantee low and middle-income workers a level of income so that there is no risk to them as they look at changes in the future.

We know, as we have looked at the program, that the opportunity for low-income workers is actually to get a larger income in retirement than they have been promised today. But we need to make sure, answering the critics of these changes, that we assure workers that there will be no benefit cuts, particularly for low and middle-income workers. And that assurance can be built into a plan.

It is important that all of us in the Senate and the Congress and, of course, the President, continue to let the American people know that the Social Security system, as it is designed today, needs some changes if it is going to be there for tomorrow's workers. But we also need to reassure them that these changes actually create a more secure and a stronger Social Security system than we have today.

As we have already said, the seniors of today, those near retirement, will not be affected, but younger workers for the first time will have the opportunity to actually save what they are putting into Social Security. This is an opportunity for a generation, for us in Congress to save Social Security, strengthen it, and make every American worker a saver/investor. This is an opportunity of which I want to be a part.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that would update flexible spending arrangements, known as FSAs, to allow up to $500 of unused health benefits to be carried forward to next year's FSA or transferred to a health savings account.

Flexible spending arrangements allow employees to set aside money in an employer-established benefit plan that can be used on a tax-free basis to meet their out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year. However, under current law, any money remaining in the FSA at the end of the year must be returned to the employer.

Nearly 37 million private sector employees have access to an FSA. However, only 18 percent of eligible employees take advantage of the pretax health care spending provided by flexible spending arrangements. Many employees cite the fear of forfeiting unused funds as the primary reason why they elect not to participate in an FSA.

This use-it-or-lose-it rule does more, though, than discourage widespread participation. It can also lead to perverse incentives such as encouraging people to spend money on health care products and services that they do not necessarily need. In other words, at the end of the year, if there is money left in the account, the employee's incentive is to go out and get an extra pair of sunglasses or whatever it is and spend that money, and that in turn drives up demand and the price of health care for everybody.

The bill I am introducing today provides greater flexibility and consumer choice. The bill would allow up to $500 of unused funds at the end of the year to be carried forward in that flexible spending arrangement for use in the next year, or that employee could begin a new HSA, a health savings account, and put up to $500 into that health savings account.

I believe this bill will encourage greater participation in flexible spending arrangements and, to a lesser extent, participation in health savings account benefit plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that approximately 76 percent of current FSA participants will take advantage of the rollover option each year.

Through this legislation, we can expand access to health care for millions of Americans by making it easier for them to save for their health care costs. This bill would also reduce end-of-the-year excess spending and overuse of health care services, allowing FSA participants to benefit from the prudent use of their health care resources.

I am grateful to Senators Salazar and Ensign who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. They understand that reducing health costs and increasing access to health care are worthy goals that we should all support.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that would update flexible spending arrangements, known as FSAs, to allow up to $500 of unused health benefits to be carried forward to next year's FSA or transferred to a health savings account.

Flexible spending arrangements allow employees to set aside money in an employer-established benefit plan that can be used on a tax-free basis to meet their out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year. However, under current law, any money remaining in the FSA at the end of the year must be returned to the employer.

Nearly 37 million private sector employees have access to an FSA. However, only 18 percent of eligible employees take advantage of the pretax health care spending provided by flexible spending arrangements. Many employees cite the fear of forfeiting unused funds as the primary reason why they elect not to participate in an FSA.

This use-it-or-lose-it rule does more, though, than discourage widespread participation. It can also lead to perverse incentives such as encouraging people to spend money on health care products and services that they do not necessarily need. In other words, at the end of the year, if there is money left in the account, the employee's incentive is to go out and get an extra pair of sunglasses or whatever it is and spend that money, and that in turn drives up demand and the price of health care for everybody.

The bill I am introducing today provides greater flexibility and consumer choice. The bill would allow up to $500 of unused funds at the end of the year to be carried forward in that flexible spending arrangement for use in the next year, or that employee could begin a new HSA, a health savings account, and put up to $500 into that health savings account.

I believe this bill will encourage greater participation in flexible spending arrangements and, to a lesser extent, participation in health savings account benefit plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that approximately 76 percent of current FSA participants will take advantage of the rollover option each year.

Through this legislation, we can expand access to health care for millions of Americans by making it easier for them to save for their health care costs. This bill would also reduce end-of-the-year excess spending and overuse of health care services, allowing FSA participants to benefit from the prudent use of their health care resources.

I am grateful to Senators Salazar and Ensign who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. They understand that reducing health costs and increasing access to health care are worthy goals that we should all support.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the bold and forward-thinking agenda that President Bush laid out for us last night.

The President was right in saying that the state of our Union is ``confident and strong.'' We have been blessed with a healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work, and with our Nation acting as a positive force for good in the world.

Our economy is bouncing back, but we all know that more must be done to make it stronger and more productive. The President understands that by making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive, we will keep America the economic leader of the world.

The President was very clear about the need for Congress to help reduce wasteful spending and burdensome regulations, make tax relief permanent, eliminate junk lawsuits, and lower health care costs. But I was most impressed with the President's willingness to tackle tax reform.

The President accurately pointed out that year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent Federal Tax Code. We all know that the Federal Tax Code is the No. 1 job killer in America, but very few of us seem willing to stand up and push for meaningful reform.

Earlier this year, the President established a bipartisan panel to study the Tax Code and to make recommendations. This is something I have been calling for for many years. When their recommendations are delivered, I stand ready to work with the President to give this Nation a Tax Code that is progrowth, easy to understand, and fair to everyone. If we want to secure the best jobs in the future, we must make America the best place in the world to do business. The President understands this, and I am hopeful that this body can make strides toward accomplishing that important goal.

Another goal the President put forward last night that is very close to my heart is the challenge of permanently fixing Social Security. I thought the President was clear about the financial problems facing the program. He pointed out what we all know but often fail to acknowledge--that Social Security will begin paying out more than it collects in just 13 years.

The current program does not have enough money to pay for all its promised benefits. Some may argue with this and say the trust fund will keep Social Security afloat until 2042, but I challenge them to show me the money, show me how they plan to make good on all of those IOUs. Our future seniors will not accept IOUs instead of real money, nor should they.

It is not enough to just oppose and obstruct one solution. The critics of reform must put forward their own plan. So far, we have not seen one.

I am very concerned about the misinformation surrounding this debate, and that is why I am introducing legislation today to require the Social Security Administration to update the information it gives American workers. The current statement entitled ``Your Social Security Statement'' fails to communicate the serious problems facing Social Security. The current statement reads like a passbook savings account and leads workers to believe that the Government is actually saving their money. It is not. The statement should tell workers that their combined employee and employer taxes total 12.4 percent of their wages throughout their life. It should tell them that none of that money is saved for their retirement. And it should tell them that each year that goes by, retirees get a lower and lower rate of return.

I thought the President's argument last night for the personal savings account was very accurate. He said:

Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than

anything the current system can deliver, and your account

will provide money for retirement over and above the check

you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you will

be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your

personal account, if you wish, to your children and

grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is

yours, and the Government can never take it away.

That last point is the most important part of this debate. Reforming Social Security with personal accounts is about forcing the Government to start saving workers' money for the first time in history so that no President, no Congress, can ever again spend it on other programs.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in 1999, the Social Security Administration began mailing the new Your Social Security Statement to all Americans over the age of 25 but not retired.

These statements include an accounting of Social Security taxes the individual worker has paid to date, the worker's eligibility status for benefits, and an estimate of the benefits the worker could receive.

For most Americans, this personal statement will be the sole source of official information on Social Security; yet it downplays or omits important information about the program.

The bill I am introducing today is called the Social Security Right to Know Act and would correct this problem at no cost by simply changing the statement to include information available in official reports.

The improved statement would inform workers, using information in the Social Security Trustees' Report, that the taxes paid into the program may not be sufficient to fund all of their benefits in retirement.

It would also inform workers, using information from the Office of Management and Budget, that the Social Security Trust Fund does not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.

The new statement would inform workers that they pay 6.2 percent of their earnings and their employer pays 6.2 percent on their behalf, for a total Social Security payroll tax of 12.4 percent.

It would also illustrate and explain to workers using information from the Government Accounting Office that while Social Security has performed well in the past, its average rate of return is expected to decline in the future.

While we may not agree on specific changes to Social Security, we should all agree that Americans have a right to know the true financial status of the program and how it will affect their retirement.

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

Mr. President, in 1999, the Social Security Administration began mailing the new Your Social Security Statement to all Americans over the age of 25 but not retired.

These statements include an accounting of Social Security taxes the individual worker has paid to date, the worker's eligibility status for benefits, and an estimate of the benefits the worker could receive.

For most Americans, this personal statement will be the sole source of official information on Social Security; yet it downplays or omits important information about the program.

The bill I am introducing today is called the Social Security Right to Know Act and would correct this problem at no cost by simply changing the statement to include information available in official reports.

The improved statement would inform workers, using information in the Social Security Trustees' Report, that the taxes paid into the program may not be sufficient to fund all of their benefits in retirement.

It would also inform workers, using information from the Office of Management and Budget, that the Social Security Trust Fund does not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.

The new statement would inform workers that they pay 6.2 percent of their earnings and their employer pays 6.2 percent on their behalf, for a total Social Security payroll tax of 12.4 percent.

It would also illustrate and explain to workers using information from the Government Accounting Office that while Social Security has performed well in the past, its average rate of return is expected to decline in the future.

While we may not agree on specific changes to Social Security, we should all agree that Americans have a right to know the true financial status of the program and how it will affect their retirement.

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

Mr. President, each State has unique road needs and different transportation priorities. In order to more effectively leverage limited dollars, State transportation agencies need increased flexibility to use Federal funds for projects identified as safety concerns.

Currently, when an urgent need arises, a State must apply to the Secretary of Transportation for a waiver and fill out mountains of paperwork in order to transfer funds to critical priorities. We need to empower States to make their own decisions when it comes to meeting their most urgent safety needs.

Today, I introduce legislation called the Surface Transportation Adaptability to Ensure Safety Act or ``STATES Act,'' which allows States to undertake a surface transportation project on any State- maintained public road if the State determines that the project is necessary to address high fatality rates or other safety concerns.

This bill empowers States, such as South Carolina, to respond to serious needs quickly, while also allowing them to make the most efficient use of the transportation dollars they receive. Under this legislation, a State can decide to use its Surface Transportation Program funding on a road functionally classified as a rural or minor collector without getting permission from Washington.

No red tape. No Federal bureaucracy. Just a decision made at the local level by the people with the best understanding of the situation. It is time to bring safety decisions down to the local level and give each State the discretion to allocate funds to the most pressing safety concerns in its highway program.

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

Mr. President, each State has unique road needs and different transportation priorities. In order to more effectively leverage limited dollars, State transportation agencies need increased flexibility to use Federal funds for projects identified as safety concerns.

Currently, when an urgent need arises, a State must apply to the Secretary of Transportation for a waiver and fill out mountains of paperwork in order to transfer funds to critical priorities. We need to empower States to make their own decisions when it comes to meeting their most urgent safety needs.

Today, I introduce legislation called the Surface Transportation Adaptability to Ensure Safety Act or ``STATES Act,'' which allows States to undertake a surface transportation project on any State- maintained public road if the State determines that the project is necessary to address high fatality rates or other safety concerns.

This bill empowers States, such as South Carolina, to respond to serious needs quickly, while also allowing them to make the most efficient use of the transportation dollars they receive. Under this legislation, a State can decide to use its Surface Transportation Program funding on a road functionally classified as a rural or minor collector without getting permission from Washington.

No red tape. No Federal bureaucracy. Just a decision made at the local level by the people with the best understanding of the situation. It is time to bring safety decisions down to the local level and give each State the discretion to allocate funds to the most pressing safety concerns in its highway program.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me express my sincere appreciation to the House leadership and, particularly, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for his leadership on the adoption issue over many years, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation.

One of the greatest titles in the world is parent, and one of the biggest blessings in the world is to have parents to call mom and dad. So it gives me great joy to stand here along with all my colleagues today to celebrate the thousands of moms and dads and children who have become bigger, stronger families through adoption.

Last Congress, we passed several important adoption provisions. We doubled the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all adoptions. We indexed that credit to inflation. We increased the earnings limit, and we exempted the beneficiaries from the alternative minimum tax. We included, as has already been mentioned, a $10,000 flat credit for special-needs adoptions. Additionally, we extended and doubled the tax deduction for employer-provided adoption benefits.

Unfortunately, the Senate's sunset provisions will make all these benefits disappear December 31, 2010. Sadly, it will soon start to affect couples who want to begin the adoption process and cannot afford all the adoption costs related to it.

H.R. 1057, the legislation before us today, will help couples by ensuring that they know that the adoption tax credit and the financial relief provided by this tax credit will be there for them when they find that beloved child. This bill will guarantee tax relief for adoptive parents and will help unite children with loving parents who can build strong and stable families in our country.

There may be some unwanted pregnancies, Mr. Speaker, but the thousands of couples that are waiting to adopt children prove that there are no unwanted children, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of additional comments, and I want to thank the gentleman from North Dakota for his perspective.

And just for those of my colleagues who have budget concerns, as has already been mentioned, this bill fits into the budget. It is also the best investment this country could make, building strong families; and just the reduction in foster care alone more than offset this tax bill.

If I could say a word about the colleague who interrupted our celebration with some political comments about my sales tax, I would assure all my colleagues, so there will not be any concern, that I have never in this body supported anything that increased taxes or costs on the American people and do not intend to and would never support the type of legislation that was just described here. So I do not want there to be concern on the other side, because I cut taxes; I do not raise them.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes 169, 170, 171, 172, 173,

174, 175, and 176. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 170, 174, 175, and 176. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 169, 171, 172, and 173.