[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1197-H1200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE SOCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEE ACT
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 355, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2924) to guarantee the timely payment of Social Security
benefits in March 1996, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text at H.R. 2924 is as follows:
H.R. 2924
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TIMELY PAYMENT OF MARCH 1996 SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS GUARANTEED.
(a) Findings.--
(1) Congress intends to pass an increase in the public debt
limit before March 1, 1996.
(2) In the interim, social security beneficiaries should be
assured that social security benefits will be paid on a
timely basis in March 1996.
(b) Guarantee of Social Security Benefit Payments.--In
addition to any other authority provided by law, the
Secretary of the Treasury may issue under chapter 31 of title
31, United States Code, obligations of the United States
before March 1, 1996, in an amount equal to the monthly
insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social
Security Act in March 1996.
(c) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--
(1) In general.--Obligations issued under subsection (b)
shall not be taken into account in applying the limitation in
section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
(2) Termination of exemption--Paragraph (1) shall cease to
apply on the earlier of--
(A) the date of the enactment of the first increase in the
limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, United States
Code, after the date of the enactment of this Act, or
(B) March 15, 1996.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Pursuant to House Resolution
355, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2924, the bill now under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the debate we are entering into today really should not
have to occur at all.
Our Nation is a great nation. We are financially sound, and our
credit is secure. We always have, and we always will pay our bills on
time and in full.
Regardless of the occasional wrangling that goes on between the White
House and the Congress, we have always found a way to protect the full
faith and credit of the United States of
[[Page H1198]]
America, and this year will be no different. Republicans in Congress
have pledged that we will take action to raise the debt limit prior to
March 1. We will fulfill our responsibility, and I am confident that
the President will fulfill his by signing the legislation that will
come before the end of this month.
That is why I deeply regret President Clinton and his advisers have
fanned the political flames of fear by raising the specter that Social
Security checks will not go out as a result of the current debate.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is designed to protect America's
seniors from the scare campaign President Clinton and his allies have
been waging for political purposes. The Social Security checks will go
out, and everyone knows it. The President is wrong to scare senior
citizens, and he should not use them as pawns in this budget debate.
But in an effort to reassure our seniors, this bill will give them a
guarantee that they will get their checks no matter what President
Clinton does. With the passage of this bill, President Clinton has no
excuse not to send out Social Security checks. Seniors have worked all
of their lives and have already paid for their Social Security checks.
The Social Security fund contains their money. Seniors deserve peace of
mind, and this bill gives it to them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to debate this bill. I do not see where
there is any need to debate what is going on here when the whole world
knows exactly what it is.
This has nothing to do with protecting the full faith and credit of
the United States of America.
The majority party has seen fit to select who they want to protect,
so this week it is the Social Security beneficiaries. Who knows, three
weeks from now it may be the widows, those that are left behind from
our veterans or those that are disabled. Who knows how they want to
issue their compassion?
The only question we should have to vote on is whether this Congress
is prepared to pass a clean long-term debt ceiling bill. The majority,
without consultation, without compromise, have decided themselves that
the only thing they want to do is to extend it for a couple of weeks to
protect the Social Security beneficiaries. I hope, Mr. Speaker, and
Members of the other side, that over this so-called break when we
should be here working that you might decide that you want to extend
that compassion to each and every American who deserves not only their
check but deserves to know that the full faith and credit of the United
States of America will stand tall, notwithstanding the fact that there
is a serious disagreement between both sides of the aisle on what our
policy should be. This should be clean.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, with the understanding and agreement that we
have had with the minority, I have no further speakers, but I will
close and will yield myself the balance of my time with that
understanding.
Mr. Speaker, the individuals that the gentleman from New York just
referred to will also have their checks protected by this legislation.
Let that be understood.
But this debate is really not about Social Security, and it is not
about default. It is about our Nation's debt. Our debt stands at over
$4.9 trillion and growing.
For a family of 4, their share is $72,000, increasing each week by
$89, each month by $383, and each year by $4,594. Sometime, someday,
someone has to pay this debt, and that someone is today's younger
workers, their children, and their children's children.
What do the Democrats want to do with this debt problem? They want us
to respond by sending more debt to our children. It is business as
usual. They want us to pass a so-called clean debt limit.
Most of them do not support a balanced budget, and they want to
borrow our Nation's way into deeper debt and eventual bankruptcy and
default, and that is why we believe it is highly appropriate to attach
to the 1995 debt limit bill legislation that puts a down payment on
deficit reduction and tax relief.
Their strategy is borrow, default and blame Republicans. Democrats
used the 1993 debt limit bill to pass the largest tax increase in
history, an increase even President Clinton admitted was ``too much.''
The Democrats think it is OK to pass tax hikes on debt limit bills, but
they oppose reducing spending, shrinking the Federal Government, and
leaving more money in the taxpayers' pockets as a part of the 1995 debt
limit bill.
{time} 2000
Republicans believe that there is nothing clean, Mr. Speaker, about
leaving more debt to our children. It is wrong to give our children
more debt, and if the President's State of the Union speech was more
than idle words, he will agree with our plan to put a reasonable and
responsible down payment on the deficit, on the debt limit bill later
this month.
We have kept in this House of Representatives every promise we made
to the American people, and today we can assure them we will pass a
debt limit bill before the first of March. We need to pass this bill
now to assure and guarantee to senior citizens that their Social
Security checks will go out.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in support of H.R. 2924, the
Social Security Guarantee Act. As Congress continues to negotiate with
the administration on how to balance the budget if is imperative that
we ensure that Social Security benefits will be paid on time.
It is not right that our Nation's seniors be held hostage to any
partisan bickering and the failure of the administration to come
forward with a credible, workable balanced budget. Instead, Congress
should be doing all it can to ensure that our seniors receive their
Social Security checks on time. As many of us know, their Social
Security check is all some of our seniors have to help pay for their
food and shelter.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support this important
measure.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of Treasury has
repeatedly warned of the impending collapse of our financial system if
Republicans did not give up on their quest for a balanced budget and
simply increase the debt limit. His lack of credibility is now
established.
His recent statements about not having enough cash to make retirement
payments on March 1 is again designed to put political pressure on the
Congress in hopes that Congress will abandon the balanced budget and
allow the addition of more debt to the trillions that our children will
be responsible for.
This bill will ensure that Social Security payments must be made on
March 1. It does not add to the debt, but it does allow Treasury to
overcome a timing problem that they have created by their claim that
they cannot manage the cash of this country.
Under normal circumstances Treasury would sell bonds a few days
before benefit payments are due with a settlement date the same as the
benefit payment date. Then the trust fund is disinvested and the debt
limit has returned to what it was. Because we are at the debt limit
Treasury cannot use this normal procedure.
Because the Social Security Trust is void of any cash, Treasury must
sell securities to make benefit payments that come due. This bill will
allow these securities to be sold outside the debt limit, then as the
benefit payments are met the trust fund securities will be redeemed.
The securities which were sold will then come under the debt limit, so
by March 15, when all benefit checks have been paid, the debt will be
the same as it was before.
Congress makes the decision about what the pattern of debt will be in
the future. The current Congress, however, no longer directly controls
the amount of spending that will occur in the near future. This is
because of the growth of entitlement programs. In 1955, nearly nine-
tenths of the Federal budget was discretionary programs. Today only
about one-third of the budget is discretionary. Congress can only alter
the spending pattern to match its wishes with regard to the time path
of debt by amending statutes which authorize the entitlement programs.
Although it is true through budget reconciliation Congress does
authorize mandatory spending, and can thus make changes, Congress
recently offered such legislation under the guise of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1995. This legislation was vetoed by the President.
Unlike an appropriations bill, which if vetoed results in no spending
and no additional debt, a veto of a reconciliation bill, or changes in
mandatory spending through
[[Page H1199]]
new authorizing legislation, results in continued spending under the
old programs. The results is that, in the case of mandatory spending,
Congress cannot affect a change and alter the time path of debt without
the consent of the President, unless it has a two-thirds majority to
override the President's veto.
Due to the inextricable link between the entitlement programs and the
future debt of the Federal Government, there is an inextricable link
between the budget bills and the debt limit. To argue that the debt
limit is not to be tied into the budget process is to miss this vital
point. Congress's last hold on its authority to borrow money under
article 1, section 8 is the debt limit. Because the amount of debt that
will be needed in the future is directly related to the amount of
spending that will occur, the authority to borrow under section 8 is
tied directly to Congress' authority to spend under article 1, section
9. It is quite appropriate to link budget bills to debt limit
increases.
Historically, this has been the case. Indeed, with the decrease in
the share of the budget that is accounted for by discretionary
spending, the linkage has become ever closer. In 1993, H.R. 2264 raised
the debt limit in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which included
a tax increase of $250 billion.
In 1990, the debt limit increase incorporated the Omnibus
Reconciliation Act of 1990, which also included large tax increases.
In 1987 and 1985 the debt limit increases were included in the debate
over Gramm-Rudman I and II. In recent years, a clean permanent increase
in the debt limit simply doesn't occur.
Thomas Jefferson: I place economy among the first and most important
of Republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be
feared.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to
support the passage of a clean debt limit extension bill. The American
people must clearly understand why this is so critical. If the Congress
fails to pass the measure before the first of March, the Government
will not be able to pay its bills.
For the first time in history, Social Security and Veterans' benefits
checks could bounce, citizens' tax refunds could be withheld, those
doing business with the Government could not be paid including
hospitals, and mortgage payments could increase.
With so much work left to be done on critical pieces of legislation--
especially the debt limit, I strongly urge my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle not to recess. This irresponsible approach to the
management of the Government must end. The Republicans' politically
contrived shutdown of the Federal Government has already cost the
country over $1.5 billion. This did not reduce the deficit, it
increased the deficit. Such blatant waste must not be tolerated.
The GOP majority in Congress is continuing to recklessly and
needlessly place the country's economic future and seniors', veterans',
and children's quality of life and standard of living at risk in order
to give a tax break to the rich.
This hostile takeover must end. We would not tolerate such threats to
our economy, our national security, and our children's future from our
foreign colleagues, and the American people must not tolerate political
tactics that could lead to economic ruin from our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, the House must not adjourn. We are 4 months into the
1996 fiscal year, and it is now time to start action on the fiscal year
1997 budget, yet action is still pending on 5 of the 13 fiscal year
1996 appropriations bills.
I strongly urge my colleagues to stop holding the American people
hostage, put an end to operating the Government on piecemeal continuing
resolutions--pass a clean debt limit extension bill, and complete
action on the remaining fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, we choose not to respond, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Pursuant to House Resolution
355, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the aye appeared to have it.
Mr. ARCHER. 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 396,
nays 0, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 30]
YEAS--396
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
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
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
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
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--37
Baker (LA)
Becerra
Berman
Bevill
Bryant (TX)
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Chapman
Diaz-Balart
Ewing
Filner
Gallegly
Gibbons
Green
[[Page H1200]]
Hoekstra
Jacobs
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lewis (CA)
Manton
Martinez
Meehan
Meyers
Mfume
Moakley
Packard
Peterson (FL)
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Sanders
Sanford
Seastrand
Shaw
Solomon
Wilson
{time} 2018
Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________