SOCIAL SECURITY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2023--MOTION TO PROCEED

On 2024-12-18, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) delivered a floor speech titled "SOCIAL SECURITY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2023--MOTION TO PROCEED" in the Senate. The speech addressed immigration and also covered taxes, the environment. It referenced legislation including HR82, S7131, S7133, among other bills.

SOCIAL SECURITY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2023--MOTION TO PROCEED

Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 188 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024) [Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 188 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)] [Senate] [Pages S7131-S7133] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SOCIAL SECURITY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2023--MOTION TO PROCEED The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Cortez Masto). Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 82, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows. Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 693, H.R. 82, a bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1631 Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a few moments, my friend Senator Peters will offer legislation that responds to the reports of unusual drone activity, and I thank him for his great work and leadership on this. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan drone legislation, which the FBI, the DHS, the FAA, and the DOD--the Department of Defense--all support. The Senate should pass our bill without delay. Our bill, among other things, explicitly authorizes State and local authorities to conduct drone detection and helps them better coordinate with Federal law enforcement Agencies to keep communities safe. The people in New York and New Jersey have a lot of questions, and they are not getting good enough answers. [[Page S7132]] The utter confusion surrounding these drone sightings shows that the Feds can't respond all on their own; they need help detecting these drones from local officials who have neither the resources nor the explicit authority to act. The bill fixes that. We all know drones are a relatively new phenomenon, and there are millions of them all over the United States. A lot of them are hobbyists. Some of them are companies doing legitimate work. But the Federal Government just doesn't have the ability or resources. If we were to say the Federal Government should look at this completely, they would be taken away from so many other important jobs. So the most logical thing to do is say: Let the localities have some authority. These are law enforcement authorities. These are people we know and we trust. Now, for all we know, the recent drone incidents are entirely benign, but the people of New York and New Jersey understandably still have questions, and they deserve answers. The problem is, the widespread use of drones is relatively new in the eyes of Federal law, and therefore the authority to detect drone activity near sensitive infrastructure is totally within Federal jurisdiction. That should be fixed in an appropriate way. The Federal Government just doesn't have the ability to go in every corner of America and see whether the drones are safe or not safe. Local law enforcement is appropriate, and they will work with the Feds in working on this. The bill is about giving local officials on the ground greater flexibility and proven technology to detect and track threats in their jurisdictions. It is about giving people answers they don't now have, heard directly from authorities on the ground. If this bill becomes law, we will have better clarity in the future. So I yield to my friend from Michigan who has worked hard on this issue for a long period of time. It has broad bipartisan support. I hope the Senate can act. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Mr. PETERS. Madam President, every day, more and more Americans are using drones for everything from hobby flights to commercial applications, as well as law enforcement activities. Drones can offer important societal and economic benefits, but they can also cause problems if they are not used appropriately. Recently, in New Jersey, we have seen reports of loud and menacing drones. And while the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other key Agencies have assured the public that these drones pose no immediate homeland security threat, they have certainly caused unease and concern for many Americans. Rogue drones can interfere with commercial air traffic--as we saw with the recent closure of runways at a New York airport--as well as large public gatherings like football games or concerts. The National Football League, a key supporter of this legislation, has shared that in recent seasons, they have seen more than 2,500 drones violate the airspace around stadiums, in some cases leading them to stop the football games to resolve potential threats to their fans as well as to their teams. We have also seen how drones operated by a bad actor can quickly become a very serious security threat. This summer, an assailant used a drone to surveil President-elect Trump's rally site in Butler, PA, just hours--just hours--before firing shots in a horrific assassination attempt. That is why I have been working to pass bipartisan legislation that would address these concerns by giving law enforcement the tools and the authorities that they need to detect, identify, and track drones to ensure that they do not pose any risk to Americans. My legislation, which passed out of the committee that I chair-- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs--unanimously last Congress, out of committee, would equip law enforcement agencies, including State and local police--like the officials currently dealing with the ongoing situation in New Jersey--with the tools to better detect and to track drones and identify cases where they may pose a security threat to large public gatherings, airports, critical infrastructure facilities, as well as our communities. Most urgently, this bill would ensure that law enforcement has the technology needed to quickly and clearly identify exactly what the reported sightings of drones across the country actually are. If a drone is found to be a potential danger, our law enforcement agencies, they must--they must--have the tools to mitigate these threats effectively. That is why my bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to operate a pilot program so that State and local law enforcement agencies can conduct drone mitigation activities to safely disable threatening drones before they cause serious harm. This legislation has strong bipartisan support here in the U.S. Senate. We currently have 28 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle-- 14 Democrats, 11 Republicans, and 3 Independents. And as the number of registered drones continues to grow, so does the need to pass this critical legislation to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can address these potential threats. So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense bill to safeguard our homeland and ensure that law enforcement can better protect our communities from the potential threats posed by recklessly or nefariously operated drones. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1631 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, no one disputes that drones flying in airspace could be a danger, that drones flying over the Super Bowl could be a danger, that drones flying over military bases could be a danger. That is why it is illegal. It is currently illegal, and the Federal Government has the capacity to investigate and stop drones that are in airspace over our military bases, following our ships. We have that capacity. What is disputed and what the Biden administration is currently telling us is they don't see a problem. So if there is a problem, let the Biden administration be forthcoming. Let us know the extent of the problem. Let us know who is flying the drones. Let us know what is going on. Instead, this bill says: Well, we don't know. The Biden administration doesn't know, but why don't we give the power to the local officials to go after drones. But I rise today to object to this unanimous consent request because, at this time, public trust in government is at historic lows. This body must not rush to grant sweeping surveillance powers without proper consideration and debate by the committees of jurisdiction, which is what I pledge to do beginning in January when we will be in charge of the committees. Yet what is going on is exactly what this legislation seeks to do now: to expand Federal authority to intercept communications and disrupt drone activity, powers that raise serious concerns for Americans' privacy, civil liberties, and Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure. We are being told this legislation is urgent; that it is needed to address an imminent drone threat. Yet the government itself admits no such threats exist. So either there is a threat or there isn't a threat, but the Biden administration keeps saying: Well, it is all normal stuff, and it is just planes. So it is or it isn't. Why don't we try to get to the truth of the matter of what actually exists and what the threat is before we propose legislation. Federal Agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, have stated clearly that there is no current national security risk, no public safety concern, and no unlawful drone activity requiring intervention. So there either is a problem or there [[Page S7133]] isn't a problem. If there is a problem, let's discuss how to do it while protecting the communications of innocent Americans whose communications could be cau

Referenced legislation: HR82, HR82, S1631