[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H619-H628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREATMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY UNDER ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
REQUIRING A BALANCED BUDGET
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 44, as
designee of the majority leader, I call up the concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 17) relating to the treatment of Social Security under
any constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of House Concurrent Resolution 17 is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 17
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, for the purposes of any constitutional
amendment requiring a balanced budget, the appropriate
committees of the House and the Senate shall report to their
respective Houses implementing legislation to achieve a
balanced budget without increasing the receipts or reducing
the disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund to achieve that goal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Flanagan] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are those who claim that adding a balanced budget
amendment to the U.S. Constitution would jeopardize Social Security
benefits. The truth is the other way around, failure to pass a balanced
budget amendment is what will harm Social Security.
It is the evergrowing Federal debt and interest payments that truly
threaten Social Security. The balanced budget amendment is a way to put
a halt to the spendthrift ways of Congress. Dr. Robert Myers, Social
Security's former chief actuary and deputy commissioner has given his
support to a balanced budget amendment as a means to protect Social
Security. Dr. Myers has stated the case clearly as to how the
Government's fiscal irresponsibility threatens Social Security. Dr.
Myers said:
In my opinion, the most serious threat to Social Security
is the federal government's fiscal irresponsibility. If we
continue to run federal deficits year after year, and if
interest payments continue to rise at an alarming rate, we
will face two dangerous possibilities. Either we will raid
the trust funds to pay for our current profligacy, or we will
print money, dishonestly inflating our way out of
indebtedness. Both cases would devastate the real value of
the Social Security Trust Funds.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jake Hansen, the vice president of government
affairs for the non profit organization, the Seniors Coalition,
recently elaborated on Dr. Myers' comments in a speech he gave to the
National Taxpayers Conference. Mr. Hansen's speech, entitled, ``The
Balanced Budget Amendment: Key to Saving Social Security,'' was
published in the January/February 1995 issue of the Senior Class, a
bimonthly publication of the Seniors Coalition.
But more to the point today, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the House floor
Concurrent Resolution 17, a resolution that places Members of Congress
clearly on record as being committed to fulfilling the promises of the
past when the Federal Government established Social Security.
Specifically, this resolution directs the Congress to leave the
Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund and the Federal
Disability trust fund alone when it is forced to comply with the
balanced budget amendment.
House Concurrent Resolution 17 is a straightforward resolution that
does two things: First, it directs the appropriate committees of the
House and Senate to report to their respective Chambers implementing
legislation to achieve a balanced budget amendment; and second, it
requires that in doing so, the committees shall not do anything to
increase Social Security taxes or reduce benefits to achieve that goal.
Mr. Speaker, what that means is that the budget cannot be balanced on
the backs of those currently paying Social Security taxes or on the
backs of those currently receiving Social Security benefits.
The majority leadership thought it appropriate to report my
resolution to the floor today before the House considers House Joint
Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. Their reasoning, with
which I completely agree, is that this resolution is necessary to fend
off attacks by the critics of a balanced budget who claim that somehow
proponents of a balanced budget amendment have secret plans to slash
Social Security. Mr. Speaker, this has no basis in fact. Most Members
of this body, including myself, have already been on record as pledging
to protect the retirement benefits of the elderly. My resolution simply
ensures that Members of Congress keep their Social Security protection
pledge.
As an original cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 1, I believe the
best
[[Page H620]] way to ensure retirement benefits are safe from the
budgetary ax, now and in the future, is for the Congress to pass and
the States to ratify a balanced budget amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, many of us, on this side of the aisle, felt that it was
necessary to bring forth this resolution as a way to offset the
incorrect claims of critics who portray proponents of the balanced
budget amendment in a false light. We were afraid that their fear
mongering about the balance budget amendment would disseminate into the
public as fact. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment
will be the first step toward guaranteeing the financial security of
American retirees.
Some Members of Congress support a version of the balanced budget
amendment which specifically carves out Social Security. This may be
smart politics on the surface, but it is certainly not sound public
policy.
Because Social Security is a program established by statute and not
referred to in the Constitution, amending that historic document to
provide an exclusion from balanced budget computations just creates an
opportunity for potential, future mischief. Since Congress possesses
the legislative authority to change statute, irresponsible lawmakers
could, at some point in the future, by-pass balanced budget
requirements by merely redefining future spending programs as, quote,
``Social Security.'' Under this loophole, Congress could evade its
responsibilities to balance the budget by making all manner and forms
of spending Social Security programs.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress do not have to meddle with the
Constitution in order to protect the Social Security trust funds.
Instead, they could support House Concurrent Resolution 17 and vote for
the balanced budget amendment. Mr. Speaker, I note that when I yield,
it is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1450
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is definitive proof that the Republicans
intend to cut Social Security. There is no question about it.
However, if they really wanted to exempt Social Security from the
balanced budget chopping block, they would have written that promise
into their constitutional amendment. They would make it explicit that
Social Security would not be cut. However, this resolution does no such
thing. In fact, the resolution before us is more remarkable for what it
does not do than what it does.
The Flanagan resolution does not exempt Social Security from the
chopping block. It does not bind the House to exempt Social Security.
It has no point of order to prevent cuts in Social Security. It does
not ask the President to sign legislation to say Social Security will
not be cut, and it does not impose sanctions if Social Security is cut.
It has no teeth to prevent Social Security from being cut.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this resolution to prevent
Social Security from being cut at all.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is nothing but one big, giant fig leaf,
one, big, giant fig leaf. It is one great big, trust me. All it says to
the seniors of America is ``Take our word for it, we won't slash Social
Security.''
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. Republicans have
proven time and again in the past that we cannot take their word on
Social Security.
During the 1980's two Republican Presidents tried to slash Social
Security and Medicare time and time again. In 1986, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] himself offered a bill to eliminate Social
Security as we know it. As recently as 2 weeks ago, Mr. Gingrich said
he expects Social Security to be on the table in 5 years.
In 1984 the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] called Social Security a
bad retirement, a rotten trick, and said it should be phased out over
time. Mr. Speaker, this is from a man who based his first campaign for
office on abolishing Social Security. This year, on the 27th of
September, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] said ``I
would never have created Social Security in the first place.''
This mind-set that I have just described has trickled down through
the Republican ranks. Social Security is not exempted from the
Republican balanced budget amendment. In fact, in the one chance, the
one chance that Republicans had to exempt Social Security in this
Congress, in the Committee on the Judiciary 1 week ago, every
Republican but one voted to keep Social Security on the chopping block.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they come here with this empty resolution and they
ask the American people to take their word for it. Mr. Speaker, I may
have been born at night, but I was not born last night. If Members
truly want to exempt Social Security, the language must be in the
amendment. It is that simple.
The way to do that is to support the Gephardt balanced budget
amendment. Unlike this resolution, the Gephardt amendment explicitly
takes Social Security off the table.
Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago Franklin Roosevelt made a solemn, a solemn
promise to the American people. He called Social Security a sacred
trust that must never, never be taken away.
The senior citizens of this country have given a lot to America. They
fought in our wars, they built our economy, they struggled to give us a
better life, and now many of them are struggling on $680 a month on
their Social Security check.
We are not going to let the other side balance this budget on their
backs. We are not going to let the other side pick their pockets to
fulfill this Contract. The American people are not going to be fooled
by this fig leaf.
I suspect all of us are going to support this meaningless amendment,
but the true test, the true test of whether we are serious about
protecting Social Security is whether or not we vote to make that
promise part of the constitutional amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, vote for this amendment, but do
not be fooled by a fig leaf, because the American people will know
where Members on the other side stand, and it will be in a few days.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and
his support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Ewing].
(Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Flanagan] for bringing it to our attention, and bringing it here to
this House.
It is important that the seniors in this country know that we are not
going to touch their Social Security with the balanced budget
amendment. Republicans have said this over and over again. I come to
the well today to say it again, because we hear so much rhetoric from
the other side which is totally inaccurate.
This says nothing about cutting Social Security. In fact, we have
proposed repealing the tax that the President and his party helped put
on the senior citizens last year.
There is no reason for Social Security to be touched to balance the
budget. We can easily balance the budget if we control spending. If we
would grow our spending only 3 percent a year, instead of 5.4 percent,
we could balance the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if most seniors know that in fact today the
deficit is really the greatest threat to their continued receipt of
Social Security. We are getting a surplus every year in the Social
Security fund, but we use it to apply to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, we have in the Social Security trust fund a giant drawer
full of IOU's from the Federal Government. We are going to need those
investments in the year 2013 to try and pay Social Security as it comes
due. It will not be there if we have these continued deficits.
Mr. Speaker, it is a cruel hoax on the American senior citizens to
continually bad-mouth the attempt to balance the budget as a way to cut
Social Security.
I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], I
reiterate that this is a good resolution. It states our
[[Page H621]] purpose. I thank the gentleman for bringing it to us.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we must consider four questions if this is
to be considered as a serious and compelling force to constitutionally
bar cuts in Social Security benefits.
First, is it true that Social Security is currently off budget?
Answer: Yes. In 1991 the Budget Enforcement Act did that.
Second, it is not true that the Balanced Budget Act puts the Social
Security trust fund back on budget? Answer: True, it does.
Third, is it not true that even with the Flanagan amendment, Congress
could subsequently raid the trust fund to balance the budget under the
Balanced Budget Act without penalty? Answer: True.
Is it not true that the only ironclad protection for the Social
Security trust fund is to write it into the balanced budget amendment,
into the text, that Social Security would not be counted as either
outlays or receipts?
Unless we do that, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is merely a
rhetorical exercise of stating good intentions that will lead us no
further along this compelling question, in the resolution of it, than
we were before this concurrent resolution was adopted.
Please, Mr. Speaker, let us wait for the Gephardt amendment that
would actually take care of this problem.
{time} 1500
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert]
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to rise in
support of this concurrent resolution. I have long been a supporter of
the balanced budget amendment. But one of the nagging concerns of some
of my constituents and myself has been Social Security.
Although the record of the Republican Party has clearly shown that we
have no intention of harming the Social Security program, it seems like
not everyone believes us. The passage of this resolution will show the
American people that we are serious when we say we are going to balance
the budget and we are not going to do it by robbing the Social Security
trust fund.
Mr. HASTERT. Here is what the resolution says:
``That, for the purposes of any constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced budget, the appropriate committees of
the House and the Senate shall report to their respective
Houses implementing legislation to achieve a balanced budget
without increasing the receipts or reducing the disbursements
of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and
the Federal Disability Trust Fund to achieve that goal.''
We also are not going to raise taxes to do it. That is the other part
of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget is a day-by-day, step-by-step
process. If we start today by trimming away useless and wasteful
programs, we are going to succeed in balancing the budget without
resorting to new taxes.
I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, for
offering this resolution. The American people have been demanding a
balanced budget amendment for a long time. When the House passes that
amendment this week, Americans will know that we do not need to raise
taxes and that we do not intend to cut Social Security.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the wonderful new
freshman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
(Mr. DOGGETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this resolution, it is a
little flimsy. It is a little short. It is only a sentence long. I do
not think it is big enough to cover what is happening with reference to
this resolution.
I thought it particularly curious to learn in the rather unyielding
remarks of my colleagues from Illinois that the majority leader had
suggested this resolution to guarantee that once again the Republicans
are not going to have their fingers in the social Security system, that
the majority leader was the one who inspired House Concurrent
Resolution 17.
For it was only a few months ago, on an important day in the history
of this country, September 27, 1994, when so many of our colleagues
were out smiling on the steps of the Capitol with their contract that
the majority leader was asked to take the pledge in public not to cut
people's Social Security to meet these promises that were made here on
the Capitol steps, and his response on public television September 27
was, ``No, I'm not going to make such a promise.''
The Republican Party has had a record of looking at the Social
Security system askance and this is simply a way to cover for what is
about to happen with the balanced budget amendment.
It was particularly unusual that--I think it is particularly curious
that a Republican Member, a freshman Member would come forward with a
commemorative resolution of this type, because this resolution will
have the same effect as some of the other resolutions that Republicans
have offered to this body.
I refer to National Quilting Day, Travel Agent Appreciation Day.
These are commemorative resolutions very much like this document. They
have absolutely the same effect. They will not allow for a point of
order to stand. They are purely political cover and not real protection
for those with Social Security.
You can tell how serious our colleagues are on the subject of
protecting Social Security because they did not even bother to print it
in TV Guide which we have learned to be the source of most of what we
know about the future of government in the United States today.
There are, of course, different versions of this resolution that may
come about. I understand the final copy will be on the finest parchment
in the land, will be read, interlined, will be in the archives of the
United States. Perhaps a copy will be available to mount on the wall of
the gentleman from Illinois to point to with everyone who has a Social
Security card in this country, that they will have protection as a
result of this resolution, a testament to the skill of his legislative
hand.
But I would suggest that today in America, there are other people out
there working with their hands. Men and women, many of whom have only a
Social Security check to look for. And those people and their hands are
left out of this resolution.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
(Mr. FUNDERBURK asked as was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support House Concurrent
Resolution 17 of my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan]
to help fulfill the promise of the Contract With America by pledging to
protect Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, the minority is at it again. Once again they are doing
their level best to scare senior citizens into thinking that
Republicans are out to destroy Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, that ploy did not work in November and it will not work
now.
Even though the American people have changed managers of this House,
the minority is still trying to use every available opportunity to make
Social Security a frightening wedge issue. It should be said again that
the Republican Party has taken Social Security off the table. The
budget can and will be balanced by the year 2002 without touching the
program most vital to our senior citizens.
The balanced budget amendment will protect Social Security because
there will be no more borrowing from the trust funds which truly
protect our Nation's retirees.
Compare that to what is happening now. Skyrocketing budget deficits
guarantee that the Government will continue to borrow from trust funds
to mask the deficit. Sooner or later we will have to begin paying back
the trillions we have borrowed. Every dollar we borrow further burdens
Medicare and other priority programs. Each time we borrow, the Congress
feels more of
[[Page H622]] an urge to raise working people's taxes to make up for
its fiscal irresponsibility.
While the other side talks a good game about protecting seniors, it
was their 1993 budget which imposed $25 billion in higher Social
Security taxes on senior citizens. Now they want to create more
mischief. If Social Security is excluded from budget calculations, it
means that Congress will have to raise payroll taxes and make serious
adjustments in Medicare and other senior programs to make up for the
shortfall.
Let there be no mistake. A balanced budget is the first step toward
guaranteeing the financial security of retirees. It puts a stop to
trust fund borrowing and stops the deficit explosion. The best way, Mr.
Speaker, to protect seniors and Social Security is to balance the
budget now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Flanagan resolution.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the wonderful
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, the item that we are discussing right now
is a concurrent resolution to protect Social Security. Yet as every
Member on this floor knows, this resolution is powerless if this body
decides to cut Social Security.
I also remember when many new Members were paying allegiance to the
contract that some of them did have a caveat, and that caveat was that
Social Security is off the table. That is because they realize that
Social Security is a contract with the American people. There are
benefits that the American people worked for week in and week out, and
they expect to collect on their retirement.
That means that the Congress does not have the right to balance the
budget at the expense of Social Security. Social Security did not bring
about this deficit and Social Security should not be used to eliminate
the deficit that we have before us and is so troublesome to all of us.
Let us protect Social Security. I think we all agree that that is a
good thing to do. But let us do it for real, and we will have an
opportunity later to, in this debate. But do not do it by a concurrent
resolution. No matter how good is sounds, it is powerless to protect
Social Security.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I want to salute the gentleman for the introduction of this
resolution and try to clarify apparently some misunderstandings about
where Republications are coming from. We appropriately have taken the
Social Security trust fund off budget and that is where it should
always reside. That does not mean it is a sacred trust, because we have
to remember that we have done this with other trust funds and we must
remember our Democratic colleagues slashed $56 billion out of Medicare
funding and we have got to remember our Democratic colleagues put that
tax increase on Social Security without a single Republican vote in
support of either of those two positions.
{time} 1510
So, we are going on record, we have made it clear where we are coming
from, and I simply want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], for introducing this resolution.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the dynamic
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last night, in an eloquent State of the
Union Address, President Clinton asked Americans to forge a new
covenant based on inalienable rights and solemn responsibilities.
The President urged Members of this body to work together to pass
welfare reform, tax relief, and reduce wasteful spending. He also
emphasized the need to balance the budget. We agree.
But, like the President, we're here to draw the line. We will not
balance the Federal budget on the backs of seniors. We will not cut
Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget.
Senior citizens built this country. They have worked hard, raised
families, fought wars, and forged strong communities. Our senior
citizens have lived up to their responsibilities. And, they have earned
the right of a decent and dignified retirement.
We need a leaner, not a meaner Government. That's where Democrats and
Republicans part company. While the Speaker has promised to spare
Social Security, the Republican balanced budget amendment shows Social
Security no mercy.
Instead, the Republicans have put forth the Flanagan fig leaf
resolution we now have before us. This resolution does nothing to
protect Social Security--it has no force of law. It does not ensure we
will achieve a balanced budget that does not attack Social Security,
because it does not guarantee a constitutional bar against cuts in
Social Security benefits. So the Social Security trust fund surplus
will still be used to mask the real size of the deficit.
The President was right last night. The final test of everything we
do should be a simple one: Is it good for the American people? All of
the American people. The Republican balanced budget amendment does not
pass that test, and our senior citizens will not be fooled by this
Flanagan fig leaf resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to make Social Security a wedge issue.
My Republican colleagues are trying to fool seniors into believing that
this resolution will protect their benefits. This resolution ought to
be called: Seniors beware, your benefits are in trouble.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time and for introducing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from the
other side of the aisle. One of the previous speakers was quite correct
to point out that before there was this contract there was enacted a
solemn contract with the American people that we call Social Security.
And I rise in strong support of the Flanagan resolution. In contrast
with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I cannot classify
this as a fig leaf, for I remember, though I was not a Member of this
body, in the 103d Congress, I remember a very clear record in that
Congress, when the former majority rose and struck down benefits for
seniors and taxed seniors' benefits, and strove to cut Medicare.
Friends, that is the real history of what has transpired, and this
resolution serves to guide us always, to make sure that we understand
the solemn commitment of the intergenerational contract with this
Nation's seniors.
Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. We saw terrible actions
in the last Congress. This Congress has a strong commitment to preserve
the rights of seniors.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
resolution under consideration. It represents, in my opinion, the worst
aspects of politics, even as we deliberate an issue as central to this
country as amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, what
we are considering is a fraud.
Mr. Speaker, I favor a balanced budget amendment with one essential
precondition and that is that the Social Security trust fund be placed
off limits, not used to bail out unrelated Government spending.
In words alone, both parties agree, all Members are saying Social
Security is off limits. Indeed, however, there are deep divisions
within this body. Some of us will only support a balanced budget
amendment if the Social Security trust fund, independent status of this
vital program is protected. Unfortunately, the majority opposes this
independent status.
If we all agree Social Security is off limits, let us get it in
writing. If we buy a car, we buy a house and promises are made, we get
them in writing. We get them in writing so that we can bind the
contract in the future.
That is why the balanced budget amendment test has to clearly protect
Social Security. It is the only way we
[[Page H623]] can bind this Congress, let alone a future Congress. The
resolution is despicable, because it pretends to put in writing a
Social Security commitment, but it does nothing, nothing at all. It is
not worth the paper it is written on.
This amendment is politics at its worst because what it says in
reality is you have a point on Social Security. You have every reason
to be concerned about Social Security, but we are not going to deal
with your problem. We will pass a meaningless resolution, we will
pretend to deal with your problem. It could just as well say we think
those of you who care about Social Security can be tricked. We can fool
you into thinking we have protected Social Security when we have done
nothing, nothing at all for your concerns.
Well, the people are not tricked by this resolution, Mr. Speaker. The
National Committee to Save Social Security, the second largest advocacy
group for seniors in the country, has called the Flanagan resolution
meaningless and they state, and I quote ``Seniors will not be fooled.''
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde, chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the 1 minute and I
congratulate him for this resolution. I would just suggest to my
friends who think this is a waste of time and the equivalent of a
commemorative resolution, that they vote ``no.'' They put their money
where their mouth is and vote ``no'' on this and send a message that
they are intellectually honest. You are not going to condemn it as a
nothing and then vote for it, surely.
As far as I am concerned, I am going to vote for it, because it is in
writing and when I vote that is my signature to the writing that says
we are not going to touch Social Security. That is a solemn promise. It
is an undertaking of mine that I would recommend my next opponent or
the next six of them call me to account on if I break my word.
This is something. This is a statement of policy for all of those who
sign it and for those who sign, know, it is a statement of their
policy.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Let me answer the prior speaker that was in the well.
The reason that it does not matter how anybody votes on this is
because this side of the aisle is going to go on and do the real thing.
We are really going to take Social Security off the chopping block.
Obviously, if Social Security were not on the chopping block, we would
not need this resolution at all. And we know that this little piece of
paper, this House Concurrent Resolution which is nothing more than what
we use to declare National Pickle Day, has exactly the same impetus as
National Pickle Day.
For those of us who have been around a long time, it took us a long
time to get Social Security out of the general budget. We got it out of
the general budget in 1991. And this resolution is a concession that
this balanced budget amendment puts it back in the whole thing for the
deficit. And that is, in other words, you would not need it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just have a higher regard for the
gentlewoman's vote than perhaps the gentlewoman does herself. When you
vote for this, you are making a statement you are not going to touch
Social Security. I believe you. I believe you.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I tell my chairman I not only am not not going to
vote for this resolution, I am going to do it; and I am going to go on
and vote for a real amendment that says we are not going to let any
constitutional amendment do it, because as a parent I know what this is
about. This is about the theory of Congressmen saying later on to
Social Security recipients, but the Constitution made me do it, and
they are hoping that the people will not figure out how the
Constitution made them do.
Today is the day we are voting on the amendment that will say that
the Constitution will make us do it and nothing will change that unless
we vote for a real amendment to that constitutional amendment that
takes Social Security out.
I hope all Members vote for the real thing. This is a play thing, and
let us be perfectly clear, we are just playing with a play thing.
{time} 1520
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the Members the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan] has 16 minutes remaining and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Flanagan resolution
and thank my colleague from Illinois for bringing this issue into the
balanced budget amendment debate in a productive manner.
The same special interests who have for years tied up the balanced
budget amendment debate are now resorting to scare tactics to try to
get older Americans on their side in opposition to the balanced budget
amendment. They have scared seniors in my district by saying that
balanced budgets will require cuts in their Social Security benefits,
cuts in their fixed incomes, and threaten their way of life.
But this is not true. In fact, the Seniors' Coalition, a national
organization, supports the balanced budget amendment, because they know
that spiraling deficits are the biggest threat to our national well-
being.
We can achieve a balance without touching Social Security. Our party
and our leadership are on record opposing cuts in Social Security--
opposing cuts--and so am I.
Now, passage of this resolution would do three things. First, it
would hold our feet to the fire in passing budgets under the balanced
budget amendment that do not use the Social Security trust funds to
mask the deficit or to raid those funds for other purposes, whether
increased spending or deficit reduction.
Second, it would force each Member of this House to go on record by
voting their intent to leave Social Security off the table once a
balanced budget is passed.
And, third, it would allow us to debate the merits of a balanced
budget amendment in this Chamber without restrictions from the
distortions our opponents would like to throw at us about how this is
all some evil attempt to steal someone's Social Security benefits. It
is not.
What better guarantee can we give older Americans and all Americans
that we have the political will and the strength of our convictions to
balance the Federal budget without affecting Social Security or raising
taxes than to pass this resolution first, then proceed to passing the
Barton version of the balanced budget amendment?
I respectfully urge your ``yes'' vote on both measures.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Tucker].
Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker, asked the appropriate and relevant
question: What better guarantee can we give our senior citizens that
Social Security will be taken off the table? This is not the better
guarantee, Mr. Speaker. The better guarantee is the Gephardt amendment
to the constitutional amendment.
Now, we understand that there are going to be many Members who are
going to vote for this to put their intent on the record. It is a
pledge, it is a promise or a note. But what we want to see, Mr.
Speaker, is for them to step up to the plate and them to really put
their intent into purposes and into effect; that is on the Gephardt
amendment which says we will have an amendment to the constitutional
amendment that will emphatically and unequivocally take Social Security
off the table.
They talk about their intent, Mr. Speaker. We have heard their
intent
[[Page H624]] flop back and forward. They said it was on the table,
they said it was off the table. Now it is time for them to put their
money where their mouth is.
They say the are the party of action and not the party of words. Let
us take action not on a mere symbolic commitment, not on a mere
symbolic one, Mr. Speaker, like the Flanagan amendment, but a real-
teeth amendment, enforceable amendment, like the Gephardt amendment.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is important that today we shed light on
the scare tactics that are being used by some in the political arena to
frighten America's senior citizens. Broadcasting false cuts in Social
Security, these fearmongers are needlessly scaring our society's most
vulnerable citizens by tying Congress' efforts of balancing the budget
to alleged efforts to cheat seniors out of their hard-earned Social
Security. This is inaccurate information purposely being delivered to
the elderly in an attempt to conjure up false images of bone-chilling
results at the cost of our American senior citizens.
These individuals who are painting the dark, inaccurate picture are
doing so in an attempt to confuse and scare America's senior citizens
of the reality, the true changes, that are taking place here on Capitol
Hill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the balanced budget amendment and
commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], of
the Land of Lincoln, the State of Illinois, for his initiative to put
everyone's name with an ``aye'' or a ``nay'' and put us all on the
record in saying whether or not we want to protect Social Security.
Republicans have made it clear that Social Security msut not be
touched as we work to balance the budget.
I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to join with
us in our commitment to America's senior citizens by voting to adopt
the Flanagan resolution to protect Social Security.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the wonderful
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for every opportunity I get to
protect Social Security.
But I want to do it with law, not with smoke and mirrors. Now, this
is a feel-good resolution. But, of course, it means nothing, absolutely
nothing.
Now, I like to do things that feel good, but I am paid to legislate.
If my colleagues want to protect Social Security, let them do something
real; let them vote for the three balanced budget amendments that
protect Social Security.
Let us, all of us, earn our pay, not just feel good.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time, and I commend him for bringing this important
resolution to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, with the Flanagan resolution we resolve that in our
efforts to bring fiscal responsibility to this institution we will not
balance the budget upon the backs of older Americans.
Let us not forget that America's older citizens have borne great
burdens for this country. It was my mother's generation who won World
War II. Their stout hearts crushed the twin evils of fascism and
communism and built a half century of prosperity at home. It is that
generation of older retired Americans we have to thank for advancing
this country to her rightful place of leadership in the world. They
have served this country valiantly and have planned their retirement
based on the Social Security system.
We shall not repay their sacrifices by threatening the incomes of
older Americans. The real party that wants to cut Social Security is
the party of Alice Rivlin, the Democratic Party.
The only plan to cut Social Security that came out in the last
election was in President Clinton's secret memo to drastically cut that
program. The Clinton administration's record is clear. They taxed
Social Security. No Republican voted for that. They cut Medicare. No
Republican voted for that.
Let us set the record straight: Democratic fearmongers are wrong.
This Republican Congress will never, never, never, vote to cut Social
Security benefits.
We can and will balance the budget without touching Social Security.
If my colleagues in the Democratic Party are sincere, they will quickly
vote unanimously to pass the Flanagan resolution and protect older
Americans and then pass the balanced budget amendment to protect the
country from runaway debt caused by 40 years of tax-and-spend policies.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has no more meaning and no
more use than side pockets on a cow. This is a fraud. This is a sham.
My Republican colleagues are suddenly concerned that the senior
citizens have discovered that nowhere in this amendment to the
Constitution which they are pushing is there any protection for senior
citizens on Social Security. So all of a sudden they come forward with
this wonderful document, but this document means nothing. It has no
more significance than the soup made from the shadow of a pigeon which
stood in place yesterday.
It affords no protection to the senior citizens of this country
whatsoever. It can be ignored at any time the Congress chooses. It has
no enacting clause. It has no force and effect on the rules of the
House or Senate.
{time} 1530
It has no constitutional meaning, it is absolutely nothing, it is a
sham, it is a fraud, it is nothing.
I will tell my Republican colleagues: You can run but you cannot
hide. And, you assuredly cannot hide behind this nonsensical piece of
hooey.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentleman, I do not know a politician
anywhere in America, not one, not one Democrat, not one Republican
anywhere in this House that wants to cut Social Security. The biggest
fig leaf is to have the distinguished Democratic whip come on the floor
and offer 4 minutes and 50 seconds of remarks speaking against the
resolution and then tell us he is going to support it. He does not want
to cut Social Security; I do not want to cut Social Security, no
Republican wants to cut Social Security. The gentlewoman from Colorado
does not, I know. Nobody does. So do not stand there, do not come to
the floor, do not accuse us of wanting to do that.
Help us pass the resolution.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
(Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is very revealing that
when my Republican friends feel strongly about the budget, they
enshrine their views in the Constitution. But when it comes to
protecting senior citizens, for the last half hour we have heard every
manner of argument as to why Social Security really does not need
constitutional protection.
I am of the view that on a bipartisan basis Social Security deserves
legally binding, constitutionally protected safety. Unfortunately, this
resolution does not do that.
Senior citizens deserve better, and on a bipartisan basis we should
make sure that it gets done.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I really appreciate what the gentleman was saying because he is
absolutely right. We all do not want to touch Social Security, and
there is one way we can guarantee it, and that is to vote for the
amendment that says in
[[Page H625]] the Constitution it is not on the chopping block. When it
comes to these resolutions, we have a statement from Mr. Clinger about
a prior resolution of this order, who said it was totally devoid of
substance and offered little more than a parliamentary parlor game.
That is what resolutions are, they are something that you hide behind
but they do not stop a budget knife.
So we may not want to touch it, but the budget knife can go ahead and
touch it unless we do the real thing.
I really thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for yielding and
for pointing that out because we want to make that point. We want to do
the real thing, and that is to protect Social Security with a
protecting amendment.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to this Congress in
November, I felt a tremendous sense of honor and pride to have the
opportunity to represent the many good people of Georgia's Eighth
District. I was excited to advance the contract that I made with the
people of my district, in particular the piece of legislation we will
take up today, the balanced budget amendment.
Poll after poll reflects the same truth, Mr. Speaker: The people want
this Congress to deal with the deficit, and they want us to pass a
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the American people elected a new leadership that will
take up the critical issues that will effect the type of change
demanded in every town hall and around every kitchen table in America.
Now that the former leadership is reduced to a minority status, they
have taken on a new strategy for killing the amendment: scare tactics.
It seems odd that the Democrats are such experts in telling the
American people and the new majority what programs it must cut to
balance the budget when it has been utterly incapable of doing so in
recent memory. I have a news flash for the old leadership: We can
balance the budget, and we will balance the budget. But make no mistake
about it, we will not sacrifice the future of our senior citizens to do
it.
I commend the gentleman from Illinois for offering this well-meaning
resolution as our way of assuring the elderly of our society that this
leadership will not renege on this Government's contract to provide for
seniors, one of whom is my mother, in their sunset years.
I would also like to personally take this opportunity to assure the
seniors that I represent, seniors in my home town of Moultrie, and in
towns like Cochran, Eastman, and Pearson that our Contract With America
is for real and that this balanced budget amendment is for real. We
will not turn our backs on the men and women who worked so hard to make
this country the greatest democracy the world has ever known, and so I
urge Members to adopt this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, let us send a message of assurance to seniors of this
great Nation.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the dynamic
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I offered a free standing substitute that would have
protected Social Security and would have met the argument that, ``Oh,
you could then call anything Social Security.''
I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules which would have
taken the Barton amendment and simply added language that said, ``When
you calculate whether or not there is a surplus or a deficit, you
exclude Social Security,'' and defined it to be an old age and
survivors program with payments.
So it was not open to that.
The Committee on Rules said ``No.'' I know now why they took Claude
Pepper's picture down. They did not want Claude Pepper looking on when
they killed an amendment that would have protected Social Security. But
then they had second thoughts. They came up with about as meaningless a
resolution as I have ever seen. Members keep saying, ``We don't want to
cut Social Security.'' But you are trying to pass a constitutional
amendment that will create an incentive to cut Social Security because
under the amendment being offered, if there is a deficit elsewhere, it
could be offset by a Social Security surplus.
We have had the Speaker of the House say that we must recalculate the
consumer price index so that it provides less. That is primarily a
means of reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security
recipients.
Put the two together.
The Speaker threatens the Bureau of Labor Standards and says, ``You
had better cut the CPI.'' The main fiscal impact of reducing the
consumer price index is to reduce the cost-of-living increase for
Social Security recipients, which then swells the surplus, which you
then, under your constitutional amendment, without our language, will
use to hold down that deficit.
So this piece of paper, being on Social Security and knowing that you
are going to create a constitutionally driven incentive to reduce
benefits to help with the surplus, is like being on the Lusitania and
getting word that the Titanic has just set sail to save you.
You have an entirely meaningless resolution, not binding on anybody,
that is supposed to offset a constitutionally created incentive that
people will have to cut Social Security.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Titanic speaker for his
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Bryant.]
(Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, in the debate over a balanced
budget amendment, we are hearing from the opposition a worn-out and
failed argument. They use it every time we try to bring spending under
control.
They are trying to prevent fiscal responsibility and change.
The opponents of a balanced budget amendment are now saying it will
cut into Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, that just is not true and is misleading.
Mr. Speaker, our budget can be balanced without touching Social
Security.
Social Security benefits will not be affected by a balanced budget
amendment. I would not support one if it did.
I do not want to hurt the 900,000 people in my State who benefit from
Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, we owe those who have paid their hard-earned dollars
into Social Security their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, for those out there who would like to vote for this, I
commend this resolution to my colleagues for their full support.
{time} 1540
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, Members, I thank the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, Members, all this rhetoric this afternoon would not be
necessary if, in fact, the Committee on Rules would have adopted the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] or my
amendment to the Barton bill which would provide an exclusion from
Social Security in the balanced budget amendment. So, all this talk of
protection and all the other rhetoric we are hearing, would not have
been necessary, but let me quote for my colleagues from some senior
citizen organizations which have written to us in the past couple of
days. Probably the most respected is the Association of Retired
Persons, AARP.
They indicated that the House Committee on the Judiciary voted to
keep Social Security on the table. To exclude it, according to its
chairman, would require us to make spending cuts more sweeping than
currently contemplated. This scare tactic is a quote from our chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is from a senior citizen
group who represents seniors throughout the country who received a news
release here from the National Committee to Preserve Social
[[Page H626]] Security. They indicate that this rule shows, and I
quote:
``This rule shows it's gimmicks as usual. Instead of allowing a
simple up and down vote on Social Security, the House instead will vote
on the meaningless Flanagan concurrent resolution. Seniors will not be
fooled.''
Here is a senior group indicating that.
Another senior group did a poll nationally, not of only seniors, but
of all Americans, and they indicated that a national poll shows that 80
percent of the voters want Social Security excluded from the balanced
budget amendment. So, these are people who are asking us to include it
as part of the balanced budget amendment and not this meaningless
resolution.
What is a sense-of-Congress resolution? As the gentlewoman from
Colorado indicated, the way that we made this pickle National Pickle
Week was to pass a resolution just like this. So the resolution we are
going to vote on shortly has the same effect as making this pickle
National Pickle Week.
The seniors will not be fooled. That is what the effect is.
Does this go into the statutes? No.
Does the President sign it? No.
I am reminded of the commercial of kids sitting around the table. The
leadership looked, and they found out they needed to have this
introduced, and they said, ``Let Mikey do it.''
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the Democrat side of the
aisle continue to engage in political maneuvering, but, Mr. Speaker,
the facts are very simple. For 25 years the Democrats could not or
would not balance our budget. For 25 years the Democrats played games
with America's books. For 25 years they recklessly placed Social
Security in jeopardy.
Well, at long last there is finally some good news because we
Republicans will stand firm for all of our people, especially our
seniors. Republicans will ensure we have a real balanced budget in
place and that Social Security will be soundly protected. We are not
going to play games and flap at the jaw like the Democrats who could
not produce in 25 years.
I say to my colleagues, ``Work with us, and watch us do it right
before your eyes now, in real time, so that all of our people,
especially our seniors, folks like my mom and dad who are counting on
Social Security, will say, `Thank goodness we have a new Republican
majority'.''
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
(Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the House
Concurrent Resolution 17 and congratulate the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Flanagan] for raising this important issue.
The folks in my district have been frightened by some interest groups
into believing that the balancing of the Federal budget will mean cuts
in Social Security benefits. Social Security actually takes in more
taxes than it pays out in benefits. The real threat to the future of
the Social Security system is the annual budget deficits of $200
billion.
As long as the Federal Government continues to fund wasteful and
inefficient programs, the Social Security trust fund, which had a
surplus of over $50 billion in 1994, will continue to fund wasteful
projects. The best way to protect the trust fund is to restrain deficit
spending and to balance the Federal budget.
This legislation before us makes it clear that the Congress cannot
touch Social Security benefits as it makes the tough decisions to cut
programs and balance the budget. Our job, my colleagues, is to support
this resolution.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. English].
(Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
resolution offered by my colleague from Illinois.
During my campaign, Mr. Speaker, I promised the voters in my district
that I would work to balance the Federal budget. The new reform
Congress has an unprecedented opportunity to put a decisive end, once
and for all, to the Government's unlimited power to spend and borrow.
It is time we apply to the Federal budget the common discipline of the
family budget. I have yet to meet a single individual in my district
who does not agree that Government spending is out of control and that
something needs to be done about it.
We actually hear Members of this body who will argue that a balanced
budget amendment is a dangerous idea. How do they justify this
argument? They will prey on the vulnerabilities of the voters. They
will say that those in favor of this amendment will balance the budget
at the expense of older Americans by cutting Social Security. This is
simply nonsense.
We need to streamline Government in areas which have been abused,
inflated and mismanaged before even considering sacrificing a fragile
vital program like Social Security. At a time when some are talking
about a new covenant we should signal our clear intent to honor our
social contract with those who have participated in and contributed to
the Social Security system.
I support this amendment.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
offered by my neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].
Before we recess tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, this body should pass a
strong balanced budget amendment. Passage of the Flanagan resolution
will help ensure the balanced budget amendment meets its goal of
protecting senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is our enormous national debt that places Social
Security at tremendous risk, not a balanced budget amendment. It is the
trust fund behind that debt that allows Congress to mask the true size
of that debt, and big spenders in Congress are too often tempted to dip
into these critical reserves to fund their big government initiatives.
This resolution makes clear that Congress will work toward a balanced
budget amendment that ultimately protects, not endangers, American
senior citizens.
I join my colleagues in supporting this resolution to ensure that the
budget will not be balanced on the backs of seniors, and it will ensure
that future retirees will have Social Security.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is a trust. This is a trust we
have with the American people.
In talking to a person in my district who worked in a simple, hard-
working job; he asked if he would be able to have the confidence that
Social Security exists when he retired. Mr. Speaker, I think it is most
important that we uncover the coverup. We really need to talk about
bipartisanship. We can get to the bottom of this by supporting the
Gephardt-Bonior Social Security protection.
Mr. Speaker, it is so very important that we acknowledge that this
could be easily repealed. Mr. Speaker, let us support the Gephardt-
Bonior amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], our distinguished Democrat
leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1550
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Flanagan resolution, to defend one of the greatest acts of Government
that this Nation has ever known, the Social Security Act. Social
Security needs to be defended, because Republican Members of the House
are pushing a balanced budget amendment that could open the
[[Page H627]] floodgates to devastating cuts in this program.
Let us be clear about what is at stake: Social Security is not just
another line on a spreadsheet. It is not just a poker chip to be
bargained away while Republicans renegotiate their faulty contract.
Social Security is every American's guarantee of dignity and decency
and security in their golden years.
That is why this party, the Democratic Party, fought to create it 60
years ago. And now, six decades later, it is incomprehensible that an
elderly American would die in poverty. That is our contract with the
American people, a contract not forged in a focus group, but on the
bedrock of decency and humanity that has always been at the heart of
this country.
For years now we have been saying let us balance the Federal budget.
Let us pass a constitutional amendment even to do it. But let us not
balance our books on the backs of the senior citizens of this country.
The fact is Social Security pays its way. And if we try to use it to
close the deficit, we threaten the program's very solvency and
integrity.
When we ask Republicans what gets cut, who gets hurt, they squirm in
their seats. When we say promise us you will not cut Social Security,
they say trust us. They give us the Flanagan resolution, a nonbinding,
noncommittal, and in my view, nonsensical fig leaf that promises
nothing and accomplishes nothing.
We can do this. We can defeat this see-through resolution and include
an amendment that will truly exempt Social Security. If we want to pass
a resolution, if Social Security is so important that we need this
resolution, why would we not put this in the Constitution? If it is
important enough to say in the Constitution we are going to balance the
budget, let us put into the Constitution we will not balance the budget
on the backs of the senior citizens of this country.
Do not vote for a fig leaf. Do not vote for a see-through resolution.
Vote for the real thing. Vote for the Gephardt amendment and put the
exemption in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments for and
against this resolution and, in my opinion, the proponents have won the
day. I see no reason why anyone would object to this piece of
legislation which states in a loud and clear voice, that the Social
Security trust fund is off limits when complying with the balance
budget amendment.
My resolution, along with House Joint Resolution 1, the Barton-Hyde-
Tate balanced budget amendment, are important first steps in
guaranteeing that the retirement benefits of the elderly are preserved
and protected.
Mr. Speaker, never-ending deficit spending compels Congress to keep
piling more annual budget deficits on top of the current $4.6 trillion
national debt. Consequently, the Government must continue to borrow
from the Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund and Federal
disability insurance trust fund. If that trend continues through 2013--
the year Social Security benefit payments are projected to exceed what
the system collects in payroll taxes--Congress then will have to decide
what benefits will be reduced or which payroll taxes are raised.
Mr. Speaker, we must stem that tide now and affirmatively state that
these trust funds will be held harmless in budget balancing
considerations.
The only way Congress can keep its promises to the American people,
including Social Security, Medicare, student financial aid, and a whole
host of other Federal programs, is for the Congress to balance the
budget. House Joint Resolution 1 will do just that, and House
Concurrent Resolution 17 will help ensure that senior citizens will not
have to be sacrificed to obtain deficit reduction.
The important thing is that we protect Social Security against being
altered solely for the purpose of balancing the budget. And that's
exactly what this resolution does.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support my resolution, as
well as the Barton-Hyde-Tate balanced budget amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of protecting Social
Security, but I would like Rhode Island's senior citizens to realize
that the Flanagan resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 17, is weak,
nonbinding, and political cover.
Supposedly, House Concurrent Resolution 17 puts the Congress on
record as opposing cuts in Social Security to achieve a balanced
budget. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Unfortunately, House Concurrent Resolution 17 is the same kind of
nonbinding resolution that was used in past Congresses to commemorate
``National Pizza Week''--concurrent resolutions are not law and they
certainly do not supersede the Constitution of the United States.
If Members truly want to protect Social Security from the cuts needed
to achieve a balanced budget, they should vote for the Wise, Gephardt,
Owens, or Conyers versions of the balanced budget amendments. These
proposals would really protect Social Security because they would
prohibit Social Security cuts under the Constitution.
Indeed, if resolutions and laws are enough to protect Social
Security, why aren't they sufficient to force Congress to balance the
budget. As a wise person once said, ``what's good for the goose is good
for the gander.''
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Flanagan resolution, but more
importantly I will support those versions of the balanced budget
amendment which provide constitutional protection for Social Security.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as one who has protected the
fiscal integrity of Social Security Program as vigorously as any Member
in this House, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
Social Security is a self-financing program where the payroll taxes
paid by employees and employers go into a separate, actuarially sound
trust fund and can only be use to pay retirement benefits to retired
and disabled workers and their families. The Social Security trust
funds cannot be used to provide for our national security, to pay for
health care, or to build roads or bridges or anything else--except--
Social Security. They can only be used to pay the benefits promised to
retired workers.
This resolution expresses the sense of this Congress that in
implementing a constitutional amendment providing for a balanced
Federal budget, the Social Security Program and trust fund should be
off limits. It reaffirms what I have long said and supported that in
reducing the Federal budget deficit we should look to cutting spending
in those areas which are driving our Nation deeper into debt. That
certainly is not the Social Security trust fund which actually runs an
annual surplus, last year which totaled $61 billion.
The passage of this legislation prior to the general debate on the
balanced budget amendment reaffirms our commitment to protect our
Nation's Social Security recipients from attempts to balance the
Federal budget at their expense. Instead, with the passage of the
balance budget amendment, Congress will be forced to make the tough
choices to reduce Government spending, the kind of votes I have made
time after time in this House,
instead of succumbing to the temptation to raid the Social Security
trust funds.
As a Member who probably represents more Social Security
beneficiaries than any Member of this House, I am well aware of the
tactics that have been used by those who want to kill the balanced
budget amendment by scaring older Americans into believing that it will
have a severe impact on the Social Security program. As I said time
after time, I believe a balanced budget amendment actually ensures the
financial security of the Social Security trust fund and benefits for
current and future retirees.
Without the fiscal discipline imposed by a balanced budget amendment,
Congress will allow the national debt to continue its upward spiral,
driving our Nation deeper into debt as the annual interest payment to
finance our deficit spending continues to be the fastest growing
component of the Federal budget.
These rising interest payments, estimated to be $339.1 billion in the
current fiscal year, coupled with the past inability of Congress to set
fiscal priorities and make the tough decisions about which programs to
fund and which programs to eliminate, are the real threat to older
Americans, not the balanced budget amendment.
Rather than cast the tough votes to cut spending and reduce the reach
of the Federal Government required to get our fiscal house in order,
Congress has continued to spend now and worry about the deficit later.
The day of reckoning, however, that I have long warned about has
arrived as our Nation faces a rising mortgage payment on our Nation's
debt. The discipline imposed on Congress by a balanced budget amendment
will force the House and
[[Page H628]] Senate to once and for all eliminate those programs our
Government can no longer afford, to permanently reduce spending and
bring the Federal budget into balance. This relieves the future threat
to the Social Security Program because Congress will wean the Federal
Government off American tax dollars by cutting spending on programs,
rather than by cutting Social Security benefits or raising Social
Security payroll taxes.
There are those who say that the balanced budget amendment should
include a reference to the Social Security trust fund. Just the
opposite is true, however. By writing into the Constitution an
exemption for the Social Security Program, Congress will leave a
loophole to shelter a whole host of other programs for scrutiny.
Congress could later move program after program under the veil of the
Social Security trust fund to provide protection from the reach of the
balanced budget amendment. In the end, the fiscal integrity and
independence of the Social Security Program would be violated, not
protected. Equally important, Congress would once again avoid casting
the tough votes on those programs that are the cause for our rising
national debt.
s the founder and chairman of the bipartisan Social Security Caucus,
I have long led the battle to preserve the long-term financial
stability of the Social Security trust fund and ensure that the
promised retirement benefits will be available to current and future
generations of American workers. A constitutional amendment to require
a balanced Federal budget will remove any incentives for Congress to
tamper with Social Security benefits, by finally forcing Congress to
make the tough decisions required to address the threat posed to all of
us by an ever-increasing national debt. Social Security is not the
cause of our Nation's growing debt. It certainly should not be and will
not be a part of the solution as long as this Member serves in the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation today to reaffirm the
commitment of this Congress to protect the Social Security Program
while at the same time taking definitive action to eliminate Federal
deficit spending with the enactment of a balanced budget constitutional
amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the legal effect of the
resolution in front of us. Is it binding?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. FATTAH. I am trying to understand the distinction between a
concurrent resolution as it is presently before the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 44, the
previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412,
nays 18, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 40]
YEAS--412
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--18
Clay
Dingell
Fattah
Gephardt
Geren
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Moran
Murtha
Pelosi
Poshard
Scott
Skaggs
Stenholm
Tucker
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Williams
NOT VOTING--4
Bishop
Fields (LA)
Thornton
Torricelli
{time} 1613
Mr. MORAN and Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________