[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.
  

                          ____________________