[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS RESOLUTION WAS A SHAM

                                 ______


                          HON. DAVID E. SKAGGS

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 26, 1995

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, today, I cast a lonely vote. I was one of 
only five members of the House of Representatives to vote against a 
resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that legislation should 
be passed before the end of 1995 to raise the Social Security earnings 
limit.
  My vote against this resolution was not a signal of my position on 
the Social Security earnings limit--because that's not what this 
amendment was about. I voted against it to protest a cheap political 
stunt. It's the kind of stunt that makes people cynical about Members 
of Congress and the promises they make.
  The resolution passed today won't do anything to affect the Social 
Security earnings limit--the amount of money that seniors can earn 
before their Social Security benefits are reduced. It merely said that 
Congress thinks that such legislation should be passed this year.
  It's no coincidence that the Republicans brought this resolution 
before the House just moments before we were about to debate their 
comprehensive budget bill--a bill that failed to make good on their 
promise in the Contract With America to increase the earnings limit. 
What a political ploy. Rather than actually proposing to raise the 
earnings limit in their budget--in the one bill in which such a measure 
would be included--the Republicans came up with an empty promise in the 
form of a non-binding resolution. This was a cynical, ``CYA'' 
proposition.
  Games like this have got to end if we're serious about restoring 
Congress' credibility with the American people. If Congress wants to 
pass an increase in the Social Security earnings limit, Congress can do 
it straight away, with real legislation. But to do that, we'd have to 
find the approximately $12 billion that it would cost to do it.
  On just this point, an Associated Press story after the vote says 
that Republican Dennis Hastert; the sponsor of today's resolution, is 
still ``looking for spending cuts to offset the $12 billion cost but 
had not yet settled on a proposal.'' Isn't it quaint? It's hard to 
imagine a more transparent admission of political chicanery.
  It's easy to promise to spend money without making the hard choices 
about how to pay the bills. It's just this kind of attitude that has 
created the mountains of Federal debt, and public mistrust, that we're 
supposed to be addressing today.
  I look forward to the day when I'm not in such lonely company on 
votes like this.

                          ____________________