[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 50 (Wednesday, April 29, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2478-H2510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1998

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 410 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 410

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3546) to provide for 
     a national dialogue on Social Security and to establish the 
     Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform. 
     The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, which shall be equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) a further 
     amendment printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to 
     clause 6 of rule XXIII, if offered by Representative Rangel 
     of New York or his designee, which shall be considered as 
     read and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 410 is a modified closed rule providing 
for the consideration in the House of H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue 
on Social Security Act of 1998. The purpose of this legislation is to 
provide for a national dialogue on Social Security and to establish a 
very important bipartisan panel to design a long-range solution for 
Social Security.
  The rule provides for 3 hours of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides for the 
consideration of an amendment printed in the Congressional Record, if 
offered by the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which 
shall be considered as read and debatable for 1 hour equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I welcome this discussion on Social Security. I think it 
is an issue of vital importance not only to America's seniors but to 
all Americans. Social Security is not only a cherished program, it is 
perhaps the most popularly supported as well as vital of government 
programs.
  I wish to remind my colleagues that we are debating legislation to 
create a national dialogue on this issue, but we are not at this time 
proposing actual changes in the Social Security system. Because of 
this, I am of the belief that 3 hours of debate on the bill, plus 1 
hour on this rule, in other words, 4 hours of debate on this issue, is 
more than enough time to debate this important issue.
  This is not a controversial piece of legislation. If the minority 
wishes to amend this bill, they will have two opportunities to do so, 
as I have stated, with an amendment which is printed in the 
Congressional Record already. And, additionally, they could attempt to 
do so with a motion to recommit with instructions.
  We were given, Mr. Speaker, some good news with Tuesday's annual 
report of the board of trustees of the Social Security program: The 
board's projection that we will have 3 more years than originally 
anticipated before Social Security pays out more in benefits than it 
receives in payroll taxes. That is encouraging data. However, I think 
that it drives home the point that we need to work together as a Nation 
on a bipartisan basis, putting aside partisan politics, to create a 
stable, a long-term, thoughtful and effective solution to the 
retirement security system in the United States.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support H.R. 3546, the 
National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998. I congratulate the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the

[[Page H2479]]

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for his hard work on this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule and has 3 
hours of general debate but only one amendment; and that amendment is 
only allowed if it is printed in the Congressional Record.
  Now, I think it is ironic that a bill that is going to begin an 
inclusive national discussion on changes to a core government program 
should itself be discussed under a closed exclusive rule.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, some say that Ways and Means bills are always considered under 
closed rules, but this bill does not amend the Tax Code, trade policy, 
Medicare, or even Social Security itself. It just sets up a procedure 
for discussion.
  Apparently its proponents believe that this procedure is so perfect 
and so delicate that to allow debate on any alternatives would endanger 
its goals and its very survival. That rigidity does not bode too well 
for the process that hopes to build a national consensus.
  Now, this bill is going to establish a national dialogue on Social 
Security. It is going to be led by two facilitators, advised by a 
dialogue council composed of 36 members. The facilitators will conduct 
the dialogue through the regional meetings, through the Internet, 
communications, and other methods. Now, after the two facilitators and 
the 36 members get through, then there will be an eight-member 
bipartisan panel coming from somewhere recommending long-term changes.
  Now, I am perplexed as to why we are taking this up because this 
dialogue is already under way. It is not in such a bureaucratic form. 
And one of the things that I do not know, as a member of the Committee 
on Rules that presented this rule on the floor, is what kind of budget 
all these facilitators and other people, dialogue coordinators, are 
going to require. And it seems a shame to do it because the American 
Association of Retired Persons and the Concord Coalition are already 
doing it. They are conducting a series of forums around the Nation to 
accomplish this very goal of a national dialogue. And the President is 
participating in these forums, as are Americans in all walks of life. 
So what we are doing is duplicating what is already being done with 
government money.
  So there we are. To insist that the Congress establish a parallel 
process seems to be a case of simply not wanting to play in the 
President's sandbox. I have to agree with the administration that this 
national dialogue process is duplicative and unnecessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, this rule. This bill should be 
considered under an open rule with the House able to freely amend the 
legislation to keep the portions that it considers useful and to scrap 
those that are not. The Congress of the United States has been 
described, as long as I have been alive, as the greatest deliberative 
body on earth, and yet the two rules that we have put forth today have 
literally no deliberation of any sort. They are simply put out for an 
up or down vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) from our side 
had asked for time to speak. I do not see him here at this time. I saw 
previously the chairman from the Committee on Ways and Means. We are 
more than ready to commence when the other side wishes the 3 hours of 
general debate that we have incorporated into the rule provided by the 
rule on this issue.
  And as I have stated, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, will be here 
throughout that entire period to answer any questions on the 
legislation that distinguished Members from the other side of the aisle 
may have.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, since we have 3 hours debate, and it appears 
as though my colleague does not have anyone to engage in it, maybe I 
can ask him some questions about the rule, and we could notify the 
Members through television.
  Does this resolution that sets up this committee, does it provide 
anything about the solvency of Social Security? Are they given 
directions as relates to that?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman 
knows, that is not a question on the rule, that is a question on the 
Commission set up by the legislation that is brought to the floor on 
the rule.
  If the gentleman says he has a question on the rule, I will be glad 
to answer it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I am 
just asking does the rule give any direction at all to the 
Commissioners being set up in terms of the Social Security system?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No, the rule does not.
  Mr. RANGEL. There is no direction as to what they study?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Not under the rule, no.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me ask my colleague, what does the rule state? What 
does the rule have to do with this Commission?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The rule brings this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. RANGEL. I had really thought that my colleagues that sit on the 
Committee on Rules understood substantively what would be in the bill 
so that when they bring it to the floor, the people have a better 
understanding as to whether they want the bill to come out in the first 
place.
  So I am asking, can my colleague discuss the bill that my colleagues 
are asking us to rule on at all?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, we can certainly attempt to discuss the 
substantive legislation that that rule is bringing forward.
  Mr. RANGEL. Good.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. But I would not attempt to even pretend that I am as 
expert on the substantive legislation as the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, who will be in control of the 3 hours of debating 
time that we provide under the rule for the House on the substantive 
legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. I am only talking about this 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And for the gentleman to understand the rule that is 
bringing this legislation to the floor, we have 1 hour.
  Mr. RANGEL. But the legislation that is coming to the floor, does it 
allow for Members of Congress to be appointed to the Commission?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. There is certainly input from Members of Congress to 
be in the process of the appointment of the Commission. But I may say, 
if the gentleman would permit, that the Commission and this process, 
this process that is created by the substantive legislation was worked 
on for significant number of time with much effort by many members of 
this committee of this House, especially members of the committee that 
the distinguished gentleman from New York is a member of, the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. So is my colleague saying that Members of Congress should 
be appointed to this Commission?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. This Commission provides for input from the 
Congress.
  Mr. RANGEL. But, I mean, could a Member serve on the Commission at 
all?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Members of Congress may be appointed to the 
Commission. But as I say, I would not dare to even pretend that I am as 
expert on the process of the Commission itself as the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or, quite frankly, of 
anyone who, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, has been 
working for a long period of time on the substantive legislation that 
we bring to the floor today.
  I do know that we bring it to the floor with an hour of debate on the 
rule

[[Page H2480]]

and with 3 hours of debate on the substantive legislation. And even 
though I am more than confident that the distinguished gentleman from 
New York is very well aware of the details of the legislation, if the 
gentleman has any questions, I know that I know the gentleman knows by 
working day in and day out with the chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means that the questions would be answered within the 3 hours.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, if the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means is on the floor, there is no question he will be able to 
answer the questions that have been discussed and debated in the full 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  I had thought, though, that this exchange might encourage people to 
vote for or against the rule. But since the gentleman would rather 
yield to the chairman of the committee, then I would thank the 
gentleman for this exchange.

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Certainly. And any other questions, I would be 
willing to attempt to answer them. But the chairman is here, and the 3 
hours will be controlled by the chairman on the substantive measure 
that we brought to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding.
  Make no mistake, there is no substantive legislation before the House 
of Representatives on the issue of Social Security today. This is our 
regular biennial election year dodge of a tough issue.
  We had a Commission on Social Security. They were deeply divided, but 
they came up with reams of data and alternatives and voted among 
themselves.
  Any Member of Congress who sits here today who cannot go home to his 
or her constituents and tell them what they think should be done to 
make Social Security as a viable program for the next century does not 
deserve to sit in this body.
  What we are trying to do, or what the majority is trying to do here 
today is hide their real opinions, the radical breakup of Social 
Security, which we never wanted, and privatize the proposals to make 
Wall Street rich, turn it into 200 million IRAs, and let people rise or 
fall with the stock market. God, think of the billions of dollars in 
commission that could be made under that proposal.
  Well, I think that is wrong. I support a much more modest proposal. 
Take the money we are stealing from Social Security on an annual basis. 
Social Security will collect $80 billion more this year than it needs 
to pay benefits. That money is supposed to go in a Trust Fund. It does 
not. It is being borrowed and replaced by IOUs.
  Take that money and invest it in real assets like a number of other 
retirement programs do around the country. Do not let Congress spend 
it. Do not replace it with IOUs. Do not let them give it away in a tax 
cut for the wealthy. Put that money in real investments to begin to 
take care of the baby boom in the next century. That is only one 
alternative, and it was one that was put forward by the last 
Commission.
  We do not need another Commission. But, truthfully, the White House 
is dodging, too. They have got this staged debate going on between the 
Concord Coalition and AARP around the country. Who anointed those 
groups as the gurus or the seers to get us to a very difficult solution 
on Social Security?
  It is up to this body, the United States House of Representatives, to 
put forward some solutions. Stop dodging. Yeah, this is a tough issue, 
but make our views known. Go home and campaign on them. If they really 
believe Americans want to destroy Social Security and set up 200 
million IRAs and roll the dice, then go home and campaign on that. And 
I do not think I will see them next year.
  But if they have other solutions, let those be known to their 
constituents. Sponsor legislation. Introduce legislation. Go home and 
make their views known to their constituents. Do not hide behind 
another phoney commission so just after the election they can try and 
jam through an unpopular proposal which destroys the integrity of 
Social Security under the guise of saying, ``Hey, it was not my idea. 
The Commission told us we had to do this,'' and it is all we have got 
before us.
  This is a bad bill. It is a limited bill. It is amazing to me that we 
are having a debate with so little interest about a program so vital on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Stark).
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle today will 
present this bill for debate to assure the public that this Congress is 
working in the spirit of our limited floor schedule on long-term 
policies such as saving Social Security for our children.
  I rather suspect that the children they talk about preserving Social 
Security for are being used as a shield in this debate because of a 
frontal assault that Republicans have been using on so many will not 
work.
  It is a good idea to have a dialogue. I think we should start opening 
the dialogue with the majority leader's remarks, and I quote the 
majority leader's remarks, in saying that Social Security ``should be 
phased out. Eventually we will be able to phase the government programs 
out and phase private programs in.''
  The Speaker's think tank, the Progressive and Freedom Foundation, 
that preserves I do not know what for all Americans, says, ``There is 
an even more important moral question raised by the government's role 
as chief provider in old age. It sends an un-American message that it 
is not your responsibility to take care of yourself.'' Basically, the 
Speaker is suggesting that Social Security is un-American.
  That is a good place to start this dialogue. It is time for the 
public, quotes the Speaker's think tank, to take back from government 
responsibility for their futures, including their retirements.
  What will we do about the hard-working Americans who happen to become 
disabled or those who die early leaving their children with no means of 
support? And what about the 30 percent of Social Security beneficiaries 
who are elderly women whose wages never were at a livable level and 
never enabled them to save for their retirement years? Let us enter 
into a dialogue with that and see what my Republican colleagues would 
do.
  It is a long-range problem. It could be solved with a 1 percent 
increase in taxes for all time. I applaud efforts to work on long-term 
solutions that would really apply and benefit our children, but I am 
cynical that this Republican leadership will do the right thing on 
Social Security, even for kids.
  Look at their track record. They have repeatedly failed to face the 
tough issues that threaten our children because of their refusal to 
ruffle the feathers of the rich political constituencies that they 
serve.
  Where is the Republican leadership on providing managed care 
safeguards that our children will get the health care from HMOs that 
their parents have paid for, except denial for reasonable claims? Where 
is the Republican leadership when they have realized that 230 Members 
of this House support the managed care reform bill, but the leadership 
fails to bring it to this body? Are they going to appoint a commission 
for that?
  What about global warming? That is a long-range problem. We have not 
heard a peep out of the Republicans on that. Protecting our world 
environment is as crucial an effort for our children as saving Social 
Security. There may not be an environment for these children to live 
in.

                              {time}  1515

  What about rules to assure that Congress is no longer tainted by 
illegal campaign contributions? The Republicans have amongst them a 
criminal, a convicted criminal who has been sentenced to serve in this 
House in the Republican Party. Now, that is creative judicial 
sentencing. It may be the worst sentence that anybody has ever been 
dealt in the history of the Federal judiciary.
  But what are the Republicans doing to clean up the criminals in their 
own

[[Page H2481]]

ranks and lead us to an improved campaign finance reform? Nothing. Is 
that not a long-range problem that we ought to be concerned about? The 
leadership says they want to preserve all kinds of things for the 
future, but they ignore them. Is this just one more issue of benign 
neglect?
  Are they for cutting funds, as we sit here, for housing the poor? 
Yes, they are in a proposed supplemental. Are they refusing food stamps 
for legal immigrants? Yes, they are. Are they refusing to provide the 
funds necessary to enforce the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance bill? 
They are indeed. If there was ever an industry that needs oversight, it 
is the insurance industry.
  And what are they doing to look at Prudential's $3 billion of 
restitution to its customers for fraudulent sales practices? Is it that 
same Prudential that they want to take over and manage Social Security 
under privatization? I certainly hope not.
  I surmise the leadership is up to more of the same pattern. Their 
attempts to preserve Social Security are merely an attempt to dissuade 
the public from our facing the tough issues of the future. Has the 
responsibility and self-reliance mantra erased any trace of human 
kindness and of responsibility for the less fortunate in our society? I 
think that the opening dialogue of the Republicans says that that is 
their position.
  I challenge the Republicans to face up to all the issues that affect 
our children, including Social Security, and let us work to resolve 
them. Let us see this Congress produce some legislation that does some 
good for the Americans instead of deflecting the real true issues by 
referring them to a commission.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle present this bill today 
for debate to assure the public that this Congress is working--in spite 
of our limited floor schedule this year--on long-term problems such as 
saving Social Security for our children.
  Are the children being used as a shield in this debate because a 
frontal assault on Social Security won't work?
  As you all remember, the Speaker's comments on Medicare didn't go 
over very well. Who could forget the Speaker's comments that Medicare 
should wither on the vine? And the Majority Leader's remarks that 
Medicare was ``a program he would have no part of in a free world.''
  Let's just hope that Americans do become involved in the Social 
Security debate because, left to this leadership, there would be no 
Social Security program left.
  The Majority Leader's position on Social Security is clear. He's been 
consistent since his first campaign for the House in 1984 in the 
position that Social Security ``should be phased out . . . eventually 
we would be able to phase the government programs out and phase the 
private programs in.''
  The Speaker's think tank, the Progressive and Freedom Foundation, 
also promotes some unequivocal views on Social Security. According to a 
February, 1995 newsletter, the Speaker's foundation is advocating for 
the complete and immediate elimination of Social Security on moral 
grounds that it is un-American:

       There is an even more important moral question raised by 
     the government's role as chief provider in old-age. It sends 
     the unAmerican message that is not your responsibility to 
     take care of yourself.
       It is time for the public to take back from government 
     responsibility for their futures, including their 
     retirements. And public policy should encourage the historic 
     American virtues of hard work and frugality. Now, not in 
     several decades, is the time to make this change.

  What of those hard-working Americans who happen to become disabled, 
or those who die early leaving their children with no means of support?
  What about the elderly women whose wages never were at a livable rate 
to enable them to save for their retirement years?
  What would become of them under the leadership's plan to privatize 
Social Security?
  The leadership would have the public believe that Social Security is 
in perilous condition and in need of being totally redesigned. We know 
better. Social Security will be solvent through the year 2032. A 
payroll tax increase of 1% could alleviate the demographic strain that 
we predict for that time. But rather than talk about this or any other 
option to strengthen the program, we debate today another commission to 
do the work of this Congress. And the leadership claims it promotes 
this bill for the children.
  I applaud all efforts to work on long-term solutions that would 
really benefit our children. But I am cynical that this leadership will 
do the right thing on Social Security, even for the kids. Just look at 
their track record. They have repeatedly failed to face the tough 
issues that threaten our children because of their refusal to ruffle 
the feathers of their political constituencies to get the job done.
  For example, where has this leadership done to provide healthcare for 
all children. What better example of a current need with long-term 
implications for both individuals and our economy than finding a way to 
cover the 45 million Americans--many millions of them children--who 
have no insurance and are not receiving the care they need. Millions of 
kids have no preventive healthcare or treatment of small problems, like 
ear infections, before they grow to major problems, like hearing loss.

  Is this House leadership willing to face their NFIB supporters and 
the insurance industry on that one--for the kids?
  Where is this leadership on providing managed care safeguards so that 
our children will get the healthcare from HMOs that their parents have 
paid for instead of denial after denial for reasonable claims made? The 
leadership is aware that 230 Members of this House support the lead 
managed care reform bill but the leadership fails to bring the measure 
up for a vote because of objections from business and the insurance 
lobbyists. Kids matter, but not as much as campaign contributions.
  How about global warming? Protecting our world environment is a 
critical concern for today's children and their children but is this 
House leadership willing to buck their major corporate supporters to do 
the right thing on the environment? Experience tells us they won't--not 
even for our children.
  What about this leadership taking action on rules to assure this 
Congress is not totally tainted by money? Isn't preserving a clean U.S. 
Congress key to assuring a ``government of the people by the people for 
the people'' for our children? Yet this House leadership has made a 
mockery of House consideration of campaign finance reform and has not 
even censured their colleague who plead guilty to criminal campaign 
violations. His sentence requires that he stay in Washington so that he 
can vote instead of serving time in a federal penitentiary. What 
message does this send to our kids about public service in Washington, 
DC?
  The leadership says they want to take this bill up today to preserve 
Social Security for our kids but they ignore our children's need for 
quality education. This leadership's action is not just benign 
neglect--they are promoting policies right now that will hurt our 
children in our emergency supplemental: cutting funds to provide 
housing for poor families; refusing to provide food stamp benefits to 
legal immigrants families; refusing to provide the funds needed to 
enforce Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance bill which passed this House 
by vote of 421 to 2. If ever there is an industry that needs oversight, 
it is the insurance industry. Prudential's $3 billion restitution to 
its customers for fraudulent sales practices is proof of that!
  This leadership won't even provide the funds to pay our UN debt to 
work for world peace for all children.
  In light of this pattern, I surmise that what the leadership is up to 
is more of the same pattern. Their attempts to ``preserve'' Social 
Security by establishing individual accounts are nothing more than a 
gift of hundreds of billions of dollars in business to Wall Street. 
That even tops the $50 billion tax break for the tobacco companies that 
the leadership attempted last year.
  Just as the public wouldn't let them get away with the tobacco tax 
break, I'm counting on the public to see through their rhetoric this 
time because the facts on Social Security are clear: it's been a 
resounding success.
  Although privatization of Social Security is the topic de jour in 
America, we have an example of an safety net that has worked--and 
worked well--for over 60 years. We should focus on maintaining it's 
solvency past 2032, not dismantling the program.
  Social Security replaces about 40 percent of pre-retirement wages for 
average earner, 57 percent for low-earner and 27 percent for a high-
earner. By design, it cushions those who have fewer resources to save. 
In 1996, Social Security lifted 11.7 million elderly people out of 
poverty.
  Two-thirds of elderly receive most of their income from Social 
Security. Without Social Security, one-half of older Americans would 
live in poverty.

[[Page H2482]]

  In addition to the elderly, 3.5 million non-elderly adults and 
800,000 children were lifted out of poverty by Social Security in 1996.
  Its mandatory nature assures that all workers start their retirement 
nest egg with their first paycheck and increase their savings amounts 
automatically as their wages increase. Its social insurance component 
shields families from a wage earner's untimely death or disability, and 
subsidizes the lowest paid wage earners with the earnings of others.
  Social Security works because it is more than a savings account for 
individuals--it is a commitment that our society make to its members 
that there will be a safety net for workers and their families in the 
event of their disability or death during wage earnings years.
  Individual accounts take care of those who are sophisticated enough 
to invest their funds well; they leave the low wage folks, the 
unsophisticated, the disabled, the widows with young children out in 
the cold. Is that what America is about?
  Has the ``responsibility and self-reliance'' mantra erased any trace 
of collective responsibility for the less fortunate in our society? I 
think not.
  I challenge the leadership to face up to all the issues that effect 
our children, including Social Security, and to work to resolve these 
issues.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding me this time. I am here to talk about Social Security 
today. I want to rise in support of the rule as well as this 
legislation, H.R. 3546, legislation which will create a national 
dialogue on Social Security, an important effort and frankly what 
should be a bipartisan effort.
  Over the last 3 years that I have had the privilege of representing 
the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, clearly one of the 
most diverse districts in Illinois, city, suburbs and country, I have 
heard a pretty clear message from the folks back home when it comes to 
Social Security. One of the most clear messages that I have heard is 
that as we work to solve the long-term challenges of Social Security, 
we need to work in a bipartisan way.
  We also need to work to honor the contract of Social Security, not 
just for today's seniors but for every generation, the children and 
grandchildren of those who are currently collecting Social Security, 
frankly people like my mom and dad, my Aunt Mary, my Aunt Eileen, my 
Uncle Jack, my Uncle Bob, their wives and families. Social Security is 
pretty important. Frankly, it is going to require a team effort and a 
bipartisan effort.
  Just a few weeks ago, a few of us participated in a national dialogue 
with President Clinton in a bipartisan effort to solve the challenges 
facing Social Security. The President hosted a town meeting in Kansas 
City and he asked five of us to participate in a satellite hookup with 
town meetings back in our own districts.
  There was a very clear message at the South Holland home for retirees 
in South Holland, Illinois, in the south suburbs of Chicago. Three 
hundred seniors were gathered there. They were thrilled that they were 
going to have an opportunity to communicate directly with the President 
of the United States, even though he was not there personally, it was 
via a satellite hookup. But they had a pretty clear message when it 
came to Social Security.
  They said, ``Number one is, Mr. President, let's keep the politics 
out of Social Security. If we're going to solve Social Security's 
challenges, Republicans and Democrats need to work together. For those 
who wish to demagogue and those who wish to play politics, just tell 
them to be quiet and work together and to work in a bipartisan way. 
Because Social Security is not a Democrat program, it is not a 
Republican program. Social Security belongs to the folks back home, the 
people who pay the bills and work hard. We want Social Security solved 
in a bipartisan way.''
  One other very clear point that the seniors at the Holland home in 
South Holland, Illinois also made when we communicated with the 
President in our bipartisan dialogue on the future of Social Security 
is that the seniors refuse to support a tax increase on their children 
and grandchildren to save Social Security. Clearly that was a loud 
message: No more taxes on their children, no more taxes on working 
Americans to fix Social Security. Let us do a better job of managing 
the program, because there is a lot out there, and we can do a better 
job.
  That is why this legislation is so important. We are putting in place 
in the statutes a mechanism, a bipartisan commission made up equally of 
Republicans, equally of Democrats, which will help solve the problem.
  In closing, I just want to say this legislation is so important 
because this legislation to establish a national dialogue on Social 
Security lays out the basic rules: Solving Social Security must be a 
bipartisan effort. Republicans and Democrats should work together.
  Every American should be part of this dialogue. Every American has so 
much at stake. Every American should be part of the process. Let us 
keep the politics out of Social Security. Let us pass this rule. Let us 
pass this legislation.
  Let me close by saluting the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) for their good work in 
keeping this a bipartisan effort.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if I could just take a second to talk 
about taking politics out. Only two of these eight Members are going to 
be appointed by Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I agree with a great 
deal of what the gentleman from Illinois just said, particularly that 
we need a bipartisan approach as we tackle this most important of 
issues to the people we represent across the country.
  That is why I am forced to rise against the rule. In fact, having a 
closed rule that shuts out the minority, or for that matter Members of 
the majority, from offering an amendment that might make the process 
even better than proposed is itself a partisan majority heavy-handed 
tactic that unfortunately has this debate unfold today in perhaps a 
less constructive way than might otherwise have been the course.
  We are already in a national debate on Social Security. I think 
already we have clearly identified the core commitments in the program 
that have to be continued no matter what: The survivor benefit, so that 
in the untimely death of a breadwinner there continues to be Social 
Security support for the spouse and children. The disability benefit, 
so that if you get incapacitated and cannot work, you will have income, 
you will be able to live. And, thirdly, the retirement benefit that 
will pay on an absolutely guaranteed dependable basis just as long as 
you may live. Those core assurances are in the program, are what make 
this program our greatest program, and they must remain no matter what.
  The President, I think, has done us a lot of good in kicking off this 
national period of discussion on Social Security. He has had the first 
meeting, as was mentioned, in Kansas City just a few weeks ago.
  One amendment that I would have offered to the bill regarding the 
commission advanced by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
is its report date. It reports in February of 1999. It slows up the 
ability of the next Congress, in my opinion, to get at the Social 
Security issue in a constructive, bipartisan way. I wish we could 
debate that date, that reporting date this afternoon. Under the closed 
rule, we will not be able to.
  One thing that will come out late in the debate on the bill that I 
think will add significant value to this legislation is offered in the 
motion to recommit opportunity that I will be offering. This motion to 
recommit will ensure that every penny of surplus is held until 
comprehensive resolution of the Social Security reforms is completed. 
The President said it first and he said it best when he said save 
Social Security first relative to the surplus. I think it is imperative 
that the House, every Member of the House, goes on record this 
afternoon in pledging their commitment that all of the surplus is held 
to save Social Security first. That will be the motion to recommit I 
will be offering later.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Just a point of clarification based on the statement made by 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New

[[Page H2483]]

York when she pointed out, she stated that there was a difference in 
amounts of Republicans and Democrats on this panel.
  If we look at section 203 of the legislation, it states four shall be 
appointed by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the 
Senate, two by the President and two by the minority in the House and 
in the Senate. So it is four and four. I just wanted to point that out.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to hear all of 
the debate, but for those who think that we are on the verge of being 
able to deal meaningfully with Social Security, I think some of the 
comments that have been made down here on the House floor by a couple 
of folks who were being very partisan really brings to mind, for the 
people in this House who are watching this debate, the difficulty in at 
the end of the day being able to solve some of the biggest problems we 
have with Social Security.
  The purpose of this commission which the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning), and I want to praise him for his leadership, he has been 
working on this a long time, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) who 
obviously has great interest in Social Security and addressed it as 
long as, I think, 10 or 15 years ago, back when he was young, and I 
want to thank the two of them for allowing me to be part of this effort 
to create this commission, it is designed to do one thing, and that is 
to inform the public about what the circumstances are on Social 
Security.
  My wife and I were on vacation, I guess it was about 2 weeks ago. We 
were down in Naples, Florida, and I picked up a newspaper. We had had 
all this talk about all the different plans that had been laid out on 
Social Security, and the poll that was in the newspaper in Naples, 
Florida, indicated only about 15 percent of our senior citizens knew 
that there was even any discussion about Social Security. I think it is 
very positive that a number of Members of both the House and the Senate 
have agreed to discuss this issue, but that is like discussing it in a 
vacuum until we are able to engage the entire country.
  Now, the young people of this country are very sensitive about us 
getting something done. I would urge them for the 500 millionth time to 
go to the polls and vote, so that when you have an opinion, someone 
will pay attention to you. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), there has been some constant mantra of which I have been part 
that says there are more young people who believe in seeing a UFO than 
a Social Security check. I said, ``That's right, but there are probably 
more Martians who will land on Earth than young people who will vote.'' 
That is why young people much of the time are not listened to.
  I want to praise the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and all the people who have engaged 
in this discussion on behalf of the younger generation who believe that 
they will not get anything.
  In terms of our senior citizens, we have to recognize the fact that 
there are many senior citizens who have come to depend on Social 
Security as necessary for their well-being, and the message we want to 
deliver to our seniors today is, ``We are going to live up to our word, 
you will be protected,'' and those closest to Social Security will be.
  But if we get to the nub of the problem, it is actually fairly 
simple. We have a lot of people who are getting benefits and who are 
about to get benefits, but we have even more people who are working in 
order to pay those benefits. Some people argue that what we ought to do 
is to allow people to take some of their payments off the table.
  The issue is, if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) 
decides to take his money off the table and put it in a savings account 
for himself, how does his mother get her payments? See, that is the 
trick. The trick is how do you do the transition to making sure that 
Mom and Dad get their benefits and those who are close to getting their 
benefits get theirs, while at the same time making sure that the 
gentleman from Florida is going to be able to have his benefits?
  Now, here is the other rub. Lincoln needs to get his benefits, and 
there are a lot of Lincolns. I am in his category. I am a baby boomer. 
I am going to retire, Lincoln is going to retire, all the baby boomers 
up here; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is going to retire. 
There are a whole heck of a lot of us but there are not as many young 
people to be able to support us.
  So the answer is, we have got to figure out a way so the gentleman 
from Florida and the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) can get their benefits by earning more on our 
payments, on our investments. We have got to be able to earn more, 
because we cannot tell our kids to work around the clock to give us our 
program.

                              {time}  1530

  So we are going to have to change Social Security, not privatize it. 
We do not want anybody going their own way. There is going to be some 
basic program, but we clearly want to give people more control over 
their own resources.
  Now I have a program that we can get started this year, and it would 
divide up the surplus so that every American who currently pays Social 
Security taxes would get a piece of that surplus and that we could 
invest it the same way Federal employees do. It would be separate, it 
would be removed from Social Security but will do a couple of things: 
would make us comfortable with the notion that being able to be in 
investments like Federal employees are means we will be able to have 
higher earnings; secondly, it will make us more comfortable with this 
change; thirdly, it will protect our senior citizens; and, fourthly, 
really it will keep the politicians from spending the surplus. We ought 
to do this now, but in light of all the controversy we got to be 
talking across America. Everybody has to understand what is at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know the wonderful thing about the 
public? And this is not rhetoric, I believe it. The people of our 
country are the most selfless people on the face of the earth, and once 
they understand the challenge they are willing to dig in and confront 
whatever concerns they have and resolve things for the best interests 
of America.
  And no one generation wants to take from another. In fact, in this 
debate we could have a win-win-win. If the budget surplus can continue 
to grow, if the economy can continue to be strong, to a large degree we 
may be able to solve that transition problem without any root canal. We 
do not know yet.
  So that is why we need, however, to enter into discussions. We need 
to enter into discussions with all Americans so that every single 
American who breathes air, who is at one time or another in their life 
going to be either paying into Social Security or getting out of Social 
Security, understands exactly what the deal is so that we as a Nation 
can move together.
  Social Security is very unique. It is like the flag. It is like apple 
pie. It is a piece and part of America. We need to move it into the 
21st century by giving people more control but, at the same time, 
reassuring everyone that the system will be there, that it will be 
sound and that we will have the courage to make the long-term update to 
improve it, to enhance it so that every American can be secure in their 
senior years.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great piece of legislation to pass. It 
should not be a Republican-Democrat fight. It is an effort to try to 
move all America forward together.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how I feel about this dialogue 
commission, to be honest with my colleagues. We want a dialogue that 
will be great, will network, will interact, all the other buzz words. 
Clearly, it is important to have discussions taking place about Social 
Security.
  The first premise ought to be Social Security and Medicare are to be 
protected at all costs and that we are going to guarantee that Social 
Security is going to continue to be there. Certainly a program where 
two-thirds of the beneficiaries report that it is their bulk of their 
retirement income is vital to this country.
  But this discussion also is important, yes, for senior citizens who 
are covered

[[Page H2484]]

by Social Security, and, yes, for the workers who are paying into 
Social Security so that Social Security will be there when they in turn 
retire, but it is important for young people as well. Because Social 
Security is how young people keep their independence because they do 
not have to take care of their parents and their grandparents like they 
did 75 and 100 years ago. Social Security and Medicare do that.
  So I hope that this looks at all the options, but I hope in this 3-
hour discussion we are about to have that some of my colleagues in the 
Republican leadership could answer some questions for me. Because the 
commission is important, but, as I recall, the commission has a report 
date of some time in 1999, and yet I just heard the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, a very powerful person in the leadership, talk 
about bringing a bill. He would like to bring something to the floor 
this year. And I have heard others in the Republican leadership talk 
about bringing proposals to the floor this year.
  Well, certainly in a program that is as vital as Social Security I 
would hope that we are going to truly study this, rather than rush 
something through in a session that is to last 40 days and will greatly 
impact millions of beneficiaries both today and in the future.
  I look at the privatization proposals. Sounds attractive. I love to 
be able to make sure that we could continue investing in equities and 
have it grow at the present rate.
  But look at what the Social Security Commission previously reported. 
One of these proposals will cost $2 trillion, $2 trillion to cover 
transition costs as we pay off present beneficiaries, as we guarantee 
benefits will be there at some scales, some level for future 
beneficiaries, $2 trillion added to the deficit at a time we have a 
surplus.
  That is why I happen to believe that certainly during the lifetime of 
this dialogue commission that what we have got going is that we support 
what President Clinton said, put the budget surplus into Social 
Security and we save Social Security first.
  I do hope that some will come to the floor and ease my mind on what 
the legislative schedule is going to be on Social Security this year. 
All of us want to work on Social Security in a responsible way, but I 
do not want to be seeing this Congress trying to pass something, 
particularly trying to pass something before its own commission that it 
created comes back. What is the purpose? What is the point?
  So, Mr. Speaker, that is something I think we ought to be looking at.
  In terms of privatization, there are a number of questions that have 
to be asked. Hopefully, this can begin that process.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a healthy dialogue that 
we have here today.
  As my colleagues know, the very first time I heard of Social Security 
problems was when I first came in Congress. A group came to me and 
said, ``Hey, Duke, do you know anything about the notch?'' And 
everybody that is in this body knows about the notch babies and the 
problems that it has precluded for most of us.
  Also, I do not believe that Social Security was ever meant to be a 
retirement system, but for many people, and not so many in my district 
as we have in other districts, but many of them, especially in our 
lower income, Social Security is all they have, and I think it would be 
healthy to look at a dialogue in which we enable people to have more 
than Social Security.
  I thought it was wrong in 1993 when the President increased the tax 
on Social Security because I think we do things backward in this 
country. I think we tax annuities for savings. I think we ought to give 
an incentive for taxing annuities, for, excuse me, for saving for our 
chronologically gifted years and one's time.
  We tax work. I think we should not tax work, but we ought to give 
incentive to work.
  But if we look, we ought to have a national dialogue in which we can 
allow people to plan not only for retirement, to protect the Social 
Security. And the first thing we did is say, ``Keep your hands off the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Because any time you run in a deficit, then 
you have to put an IOU into that account and draw it back. And the only 
way you can ever replace it is when you have a surplus like we may have 
coming up, which really isn't a surplus because we use those accounts 
to balance the budget,'' and that is wrong, too, I think.
  But, yes, we ought to save Social Security and protect it as it is, 
but the dialog should be, how can we make it better?
  With the gift of compound interest, instead of ending up with one's 
investment of, say, like $175,000, one can end up with almost a million 
dollars. They can draw $60,000 a year just on the interest. I mean, 
that is worth. And I am not saying that is the way to do it, but is 
that not worth a dialogue with our chronologically gifted folks, with 
the baby boomers and with the pre-baby boomers to see if we can give 
them more than just what we have given? It is not enough, and too many 
people are on a fixed income.
  I thank my colleagues for engaging in the dialogue and on the issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, as one that is going to leave this place 
shortly, I certainly hope that we find some way to shore up Social 
Security. But I would like to not correct one thing but make a comment 
about what my colleague from California said, about in 1993 when we 
passed a budget and we added some tax we counted 85 percent of Social 
Security, but it was just for a certain group. And I would remind the 
gentleman it was Ronald Reagan who had it at 50 percent, so that 
everybody has a little bit culpability there. But I think we ought to 
be very careful when we start talking about Social Security.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong for either President 
to increase, and my whole point is let us not tax annuities in savings, 
let us give incentive.
  Mr. HEFNER. Okay. Is that all?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, we better be very careful in Social 
Security. Now we are talking about people's Social Security being 
taxed.
  Now the people in my district, the majority of them that count on 
Social Security are not people that pay any tax. These are people that 
worked in textile mills for 40 or 50 years and their husband and wife 
worked for 40 years and retired on $18 a month pension from their jobs. 
So they have to count, absolutely count, on Social Security and 
Medicare for their survival. That is the reason they get so upset.
  Now I do not have any problems with talking about something to make, 
where people can make an investment in a private account of whatever, 
but we do not talk about Social Security as it really is. And at my age 
I have people in my district and relatives that when their families had 
a catastrophe in their early lives and they had small children and one 
of the spouses had no skills, could not work, Social Security comes in 
and they get some benefits until these kids finish school. That is an 
insurance policy.
  Nobody ever talks much about the benefits of Social Security, and 
people could not go out and buy that protection for what they pay into 
Social Security, and that is what it was set up for.
  So before we start fiddling too much in privatization of Social 
Security, we better be sure what we are doing. Because there is an 
awful lot of people, some 40 million people out there, senior citizens, 
that enjoy some independence because of Social Security and Medicare, 
and it would be an absolute travesty for us to do anything that causes 
them any more turmoil in their life.
  I think Social Security was one of the greatest things that we have 
ever established in this country. And the Chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget talked about a budget surplus, and I would just remind the 
House that in 1993 we passed, without a single Republican vote, a 
package adding such people as Mr. Greenspan, certainly not a liberal 
economist, and people have given credit for that, for this economy 
staying on track for all these years and for interest rates to be low, 
that enable us to get to this balanced budget and to have a surplus.

[[Page H2485]]

  But, in my view, when we owe $2 or $3 or $4 trillion, we do not have 
a surplus, and it does not take but just a small downturn in this 
economy for this so-called surplus to turn into a real deficit again.
  So we best be very careful what we do and how we proceed on Social 
Security, because it is so violent to all of our forefathers.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  I hope everybody might be as excited as I am about moving ahead with 
a solution to Social Security. I introduced my first Social Security 
bill when I arrived in 1993 and then three years ago in the 104th 
session and again last year I introduced H.R. 3082 and H.R. 3560, the 
only bills, by the way, that have been scored by the Social Security 
Administration to keep Social Security solvent for the next 75 years.
  It seems to me that, as we develop a national dialogue, as we inform 
the American people of what the situation is, there are about four or 
five things that we need as our guidelines: number one, the solution 
needs to be bipartisan; number two, we keep every possible solution on 
the table so that we can evaluate all of them. No. 3, that we do not 
reduce the benefit for current or near term retirees. Four, that any 
proposal for investment contain a ``safety net'' of guaranteed minimum 
benefits. And finally, that we do not play politics with this important 
issue. The danger that I see in an election year is the demagoguing of 
particular solution.

                              {time}  1545

  I will fight the demagoguing of solutions by Republicans or 
Democrats. Let us keep everything on the table as we develop this 
national dialogue over the next ten months.
  Mr. Speaker, I have given over 200 speeches in my district, around 
the State of Michigan and around the country on Social Security. I 
still find many people that believe if Congress would keep their hands 
out of the Social Security Trust Fund, that everything would be okay.
  In that Trust Fund is about $600 billion; $600 billion in relation to 
what we spend every year on Social Security would last about a year and 
7 months. Even so, we have to make sure that we pay it back; and we 
stop using the extra money coming in to the Trust Fund to mask the 
deficit.
  Let us save all the unified budget surplus for Social Security. But 
again the actuaries at Social Security today estimated that using all 
of the surpluses for the next eighteen years would solve less than 20% 
of the problem. Social Security solvency is a very serious problem with 
an estimated actuarial debt or unfunded mandate of $3 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the fact that we are going to bring 
this issue to light talking about facts not fiction. Current and future 
retirees deserve our honesty.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, each time we return to our respective districts, I think 
there is one consistent question that is raised by young and old alike, 
and that is, what is going on with Social Security. In fact, at a 
recent meeting with my retired teachers, they not only asked what is 
going on with Social Security, but because they are peculiarly in a 
State like Texas, they were concerned about not getting Social Security 
because of the unique teacher retirement system.
  They also asked about PSAs, personal savings accounts, and I frankly 
told them that the one thing that I would be concerned about any sort 
of program that would siphon off dollars is for those seniors who 
depend solely upon Social Security. I think this particular chart that 
says Social Security is the most important source of income from the 
elderly shows that of any other source, 40 percent of the elderly's 
income, our moms and dads, is from Social Security.
  So certainly today's discussion is important. I do not think, 
however, a closed rule is the right direction to go, because yes, we 
have 3 hours, but I do not think we have the openness for opportunity 
for different approaches to this particular legislation.
  It is clearly true that the board of trustees for Social Security has 
projected that on an average over the next 75 years, its expenditure 
will exceed income by 17 percent. However, we have just gotten a bit of 
good news because we now know that it will be solvent until 2032. But 
Social Security is important, and although the President has already 
gone forward with the beginnings of a dialogue that he announced in 
Kansas City, I think it is important that Congress join it.
  But let it be said that the President has already started this 
process of dialogue. It is important, however, that we not use this 
legislation to bicker and to generate confusion, because what we need 
most of all is the coming together of a variety of points. The previous 
speaker already indicated how many legislative initiatives he has 
offered. How many other Members can rise on the floor of the House and 
talk about efforts that they have engaged in to save Social Security? 
There will come a point where we will not have to or cannot stand any 
more making efforts to save Social Security, we will actually have to 
start saving Social Security. When we hit a crisis and 40 percent of 
our senior citizen population no longer has the income to survive, then 
we will realize that talk was truly cheap.
  On the personal savings account, I do not think we should start 
fixing Social Security until we know what the problems are with Social 
Security, other than the fact that it is moving toward insolvency. I do 
not know if PSAs are the way. Certainly many are inquiring about PSAs, 
but if it cripples the Social Security system, then that is not the way 
to go.
  The Social Security system, when it started, was a curious vehicle. 
We have found, however, that it has been the saving source of keeping 
many of our senior citizens away from the brink of poverty. Therefore, 
we must look at it as the sacredness that it is. I believe that these 
discussions can go forward if they go forward collaboratively and 
cooperatively, because all of us will be challenged to save Social 
Security for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to make comment on H.R. 3546, a bill that would 
begin a National Dialogue on Social Security. The need for a dialogue 
is evidenced by the fact that the Board of Trustees for the Social 
Security has projected that on average over the next 75 years its 
expenditures will exceed its income by 17% and that by 2032 its trust 
funds will be depleted.
  Because of this projected shortfall it is important that this 
Congress and this Administration does all that they can to prepare this 
government to meet the challenge of providing retirement benefits to 
seniors in the next century.
  We know that the projected income rates for the Old Age, Survivors 
and Disability Insurance Social Security ``trust funds'' will be 13.33 
percent with a projected cost to the Social Security Trust Funds of 
15.52 percent leaving a 2.19 percent shortfall over the next 75 years.
  This bill creates an eight-member bipartisan panel to recommend long-
range changes to keep Social Security from going bankrupt, and directs 
the president and Congress to convene a national dialogue on the future 
of Social Security with help from members of private public interest 
groups.
  There are those who say that there is no need to face the issue now, 
given the uncertainty of long-range forecasting. While others believe 
that the longer corrective action is delayed, the more drastic it will 
need to be. Although the 1996 Social Security Advisory Council, which 
issued a report on how to deal with the problem, was unable to agree on 
a specific plan, one of the issues its members did agree upon was that 
the sooner action was taken the better.
  There are some concerns with the approach in this bill. This bill has 
the potential of duplicating the current national discussion about the 
future of Social Security which the President began in Kansas City and 
will continue through the end of 1998. This puts the process set up in 
the bill in competition with the process already underway.
  What we do today may aid in the long term solvency of Social 
Security, but we must act in a timely and thoughtful manner. The bill 
directs that the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader would 
appoint four members of the commission while two will be appointed

[[Page H2486]]

by the president, and two by the House and Senate Minority Leaders. The 
bill requires the commission to report its legislative and 
administrative recommendations to Congress and the White House by 
February 1, 1999.
  This bill has the potential of involving each Congressional District 
represented in this body. The bill requires each member of the 
Congress, ``to the extent practicable,'' to develop, with grassroots 
organizations and other constituency groups within the member's 
district, ongoing systems of communication through the Internet and 
other electronic capabilities to assure the widest possible degree of 
receipt of public opinion.
  I look forward to our continuing this dialogue on Social Security.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time 
remaining on both sides of the aisle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago that those of us here in this 
House were laboring under what I would like to say was a little bit of 
an illusion. There was a time when we thought it was really our job to 
solve all of the problems that were facing our Nation. Perhaps even 
worse, we thought we knew how to solve all the problems facing our 
Nation, and that if we just came up with the solution and got the votes 
for it, all of those problems will be solved. And I dare say, there are 
some people in this House who still believe that today.
  But the fact is what this bill is about is a totally different 
approach, because what this bill is designed to do is to create the 
largest public debate in our Nation's history about how we should 
handle a particular problem. It is not designed for Washington, D.C., 
to teach everybody else what to do, it is designed for Washington, 
D.C., to learn in as many ways as we can what the people around the 
country think and what solutions they might have in mind for us for 
ways to fix this problem. It is a much different approach, it is a much 
better approach, and if we take it seriously, we will come up with a 
much better solution to our country's problems.
  One of the things I am particularly pleased about in this bill is 
that it uses some new tools that we have not had in the past that are 
now at our disposal to find out what people think and what people know 
about some of these problems. Let me just go through a few of these, 
because I think probably even some of our fellow Members are not aware 
of them.
  Number one, we are going to create a national Web site for every 
citizen with access to a computer can then hook into this Web site and 
learn a lot of different things. One of the things that they will be 
able to do is to put their Social Security number or some financial 
information in a little interactive program and find out what their own 
personal retirement situation will look like under various proposals 
that we are adopting. They would be able to figure out how much they 
would have under the current Social Security system. They would be able 
to figure out how much they would have under competing proposals, about 
how different things would work. They will be able to gain a much 
better understanding about the issues that we are talking about than 
they would in any other way. I think that is a positive thing.
  A couple of the other tools that we are going to have available at 
our disposal, we will have the ability to have moderated chat rooms so 
people can participate by computer in discussions of these issues. We 
will have a national town hall meeting on one or more occasions where 
people can tie in by modem and have a discussion of the issues. We will 
have an ability for them to go through an exercise on their computer so 
they can see what the impact on the Federal budget would be of taking 
one approach or another. So I think there are lots of things that we 
are going to learn from this process.
  Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at the process that this 
bill proposes. I think if we take it seriously, if we are open to it, 
if we really do listen to what the American people tell us about this 
process, we will come up with a much better solution than we otherwise 
would have had.
  So I congratulate the authors of this bill on putting this together, 
and I urge the House to pass it, and the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is such a critically 
important program to every American that it ought to be examined from 
time to time, and we periodically ought to do whatever may be necessary 
to strengthen it to make sure that it continues to last.
  This Democratic program, the invention of Franklin Roosevelt, has 
served several generations of Americans extremely well, and it will 
continue to do so so long as we nourish the economic conditions that 
are necessary to sustain it.
  We learned something very important about Social Security just today. 
We learned that Social Security is directly tied to the national 
economy. When the economy is growing and doing well, when it is growing 
at a rate of 2\1/2\ percent or greater, Social Security does well. When 
we tighten up the economy in the ways that the Federal Reserve Board 
has attempted to do, for example, in some recent years, then we 
threaten Social Security as we threaten other public programs and 
threaten the economic health of all Americans as well.
  So the first lesson that we ought to dictate to any commission that 
ought to be examining Social Security, and parenthetically let me say I 
am a little bit wary about these Social Security Commissions because 
the last one we had headed up by the now Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve did not do very much to save Social Security, and in some ways 
it weakened it. But that aside, when we examine Social Security, we 
ought to do so in a way that recognizes the symbiotic relationship 
between Social Security and the national economy. Having an economy 
that is based upon low interest rates, interest rates now are too high, 
the Federal Reserve should lower them, is not a good thing. A national 
economy that is growing at 2.5 to 3 percent will be an economy that has 
a strong Social Security system.
  There are people here in this House who from time to time have raised 
issues that would not have strengthened Social Security, but would 
have, in fact, weakened it. We know that there have been discussions by 
the leadership on the other side to phase out Social Security, to raise 
the level of retirement age, to reduce the level of benefits as 
inflation increases over the years. Those things ought to be avoided.
  Social Security is a strong system. What it needs is a strong 
economy. We need to be investing appropriately in the right kind of 
education for the next generation to make sure that they are capable of 
holding the kinds of jobs that provide the right kinds of salaries that 
will allow the economy to continue to grow.
  So the first thing that we have to recognize is what we were told in 
the news that was released today. A strong economy is essential to the 
maintenance of the Social Security system. If we want the Social 
Security system to remain strong, it will do so, and we need to make 
sure that the economy is strong, and with a strong economy, Social 
Security will remain strong as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because it 
is unnecessary, costly, and may be designed to lead the Congress to 
take more radical steps than are necessary to fix the relatively small 
and manageable problem facing Social Security.
  Yesterday, the Social Security trustees revised their economic 
projections to show that Social Security is actually in better shape 
than they thought. The Trust Fund will be solvent through the year 
2029. The trustees pushed back the projected insolvency date by 3 years 
and included other corrections to their extremely low projections of 
the past. In fact, the trustees yesterday admitted that there would be 
almost $1

[[Page H2487]]

trillion more money in the system in 2020 than they said there would be 
last year, and they admitted that the long-term shortfall in the system 
is less than 2.2 percent of taxable payroll.
  These revisions, however, are still overly pessimistic because they 
do not include the latest adjustments to the Consumer Price Index. They 
assume a long-term growth rate of only 1.3 percent, despite recent 
growth rates averaging 3 percent and 3.8 percent last year, and they 
assume that unemployment can never be below 6 percent, even though it 
has been about 4.5 percent for the last couple of years.
  So not only is the problem facing Social Security small and 
manageable, but it is even smaller and more manageable than the 
trustees admit. It appears that the shortfall can be dealt with without 
raising the retirement age, without cutting benefits, and without 
radically changing the system with risky privatization schemes.
  While I respect the desire to create a bipartisan body to help devise 
a comprehensive solution, I do not think we need a new blue ribbon 
commission to come between the American people and its elected 
representatives, after the last one we had 2 years ago. A national 
dialogue is already under way. We should let the system work, have the 
appropriate hearings and markups, and listen to our constituents, not 
some artificial panel of experts.
  I also have more than a little suspicion that the unstated purpose of 
this resolution is to create a commission that will give an official 
blessing to the real and, I believe, pernicious and destructive goal of 
the exercise: Privatizing the Social Security system and shifting all 
of the risk from the government's budget to the shoulders of 
individuals, again risking abject poverty in old age.

                              {time}  1600

  I hope that this is not the case. I hope that what is coming here is 
not a step to whipping up hysteria based on the false notion that the 
Social Security system is in imminent crisis, that it is going 
bankrupt, then hiding behind a commission and coming out with a radical 
scheme to destabilize the whole system.
  Mr. Speaker, we should have faith that the ongoing debate will yield 
the information we need to forge sound legislation to enable Social 
Security to meet the challenges of the next century. We should also 
take steps to ensure the debate starts with a sound assessment of the 
problems facing Social Security, a small, manageable problem; a problem 
of less than 2.2 percent of taxable payroll; a problem that can be 
solved without shifting the risks from the budget of the Government of 
the United States to the shoulders of individuals and can be solved 
without increasing the retirement age, without reducing COLAs and 
without reducing benefits. It can be solved in fairly easy ways that we 
do not see in the public debate. I distrust the composition of the 
commission.
  One final thing: It is an outrage, when we are facing a shortfall in 
the Social Security system, this bill calls for financing the 
commission by taking money away from the trust fund and giving it to 
the commission. Leave the money in the trust fund for the 
beneficiaries.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule and 
in favor of House Resolution 3546.
  Yesterday the board of trustees of the Social Security program issued 
a report stating that the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted 
by the year 2032. Mr. Speaker, we have heard all sorts of anecdotes 
that younger Americans believe they have less of a chance of cashing a 
Social Security check than they do of seeing aliens land on earth. 
These stories are somewhat humorous, but they foreshadow an impending 
crisis that is anything but funny.
  We as a Congress can no longer afford to sit on our hands. We owe it 
to this generation and the next to secure our Social Security system 
and enhance retirement opportunities. Further, Americans must be 
encouraged to save and invest in their own retirement. That is why 
Congress should continue taking steps to provide individuals with more 
savings and investment opportunities.
  In the meantime, Americans want to discuss the flaws within the 
current Social Security system and the options that exist for 
maintaining its solvency. House Resolution 3546 is vital to ensuring 
that all Americans have a voice in the upcoming debate.
  In the midst of this national discussion, Congress will be expected 
to make exciting decisions to strengthen Social Security. The ideas of 
our constituents, both young and old, will help us make the right 
decisions for all of us.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and 
House Resolution 3546.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that some Members on the other 
side of the aisle have questioned the fairness of the rule with which 
we bring forth this legislation, when an amendment was authorized by 
the rule as long as it was preprinted in the Record, an amendment was 
authorized by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, 
and no such amendment appears in the Congressional Record. I think that 
speaks for itself.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a fair rule. The underlying legislation is 
important to the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 410, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3546) to provide for a national dialogue on Social 
Security and to establish the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range 
Social Security Reform, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The bill is considered read 
for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3546 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3546

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Dialogue on Social 
     Security Act of 1998''.
             TITLE I--NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL DIALOGUE.

       As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President, the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate shall 
     jointly convene a National Dialogue on the old-age, 
     survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of 
     the Social Security Act. The purpose of the National Dialogue 
     shall be to engage, by means of regional conferences and 
     national Internet exchanges, the American public in 
     understanding the current program, the problems it faces, and 
     the need to find solutions that will be workable for all 
     generations and to generate comments, suggestions, and 
     recommendations from the citizens for social security reform.

     SEC. 102. FACILITATORS.

       The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101 
     shall operate under the administration and coordination of 
     two Facilitators, one of whom shall be appointed by the 
     President and one of whom shall be appointed jointly by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate. The Facilitators shall be appointed 
     within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
     The Facilitators shall be appointed from among individuals 
     known for their integrity, impartiality, and good judgment, 
     who are, by reason of their education, experience, and 
     attainments, exceptionally qualified to perform the duties of 
     such office. The Facilitators may serve until termination of 
     the National Dialogue under section 108.

     SEC. 103. PLANS FOR NATIONAL DIALOGUE.

       After consultation with the President, the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, the Facilitators shall transmit the final plans for 
     the development and operations of the National Dialogue to 
     the President and each House of the Congress not later than 
     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 104. DIALOGUE COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment and Duties.--There is established a 
     Dialogue Council. It shall be the duty of the Dialogue 
     Council to advise the Facilitators in the development and 
     operations of the National Dialogue.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Dialogue Council shall be composed of 
     36 of the individuals nominated pursuant to paragraph (2), of 
     whom--
       (A) 9 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives,

[[Page H2488]]

       (B) 9 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, and
       (C) 18 shall be appointed by the President.

     To the extent practicable, the members shall include both men 
     and women and shall be selected so as to ensure that 
     individuals born before 1946, individuals born in or after 
     1946 and before 1961, and individuals born in or after 1961 
     are equally represented within the membership.
       (2) Nominations.--Individuals shall be appointed under 
     paragraph (1) from a group of 54 individuals, consisting of 
     individuals nominated in sets of 3 each, respectively, by 
     each of the following 18 private organizations:
       (A) the American Association of Retired Persons;
       (B) the United Seniors Association;
       (C) the AFL-CIO;
       (D) the National Hispanic Council on Aging;
       (E) the Older Women's League;
       (F) the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans;
       (G) the Cato Institute;
       (H) the Employee Benefit Research Institute;
       (I) Americans Discuss Social Security;
       (J) the Third Millennium;
       (K) the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce;
       (L) Americans for Hope, Growth, and Opportunity;
       (M) the National Federation of Independent Businesses;
       (N) the Concord Coalition;
       (O) the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged;
       (P) the Campaign for America's Future;
       (Q) the Heritage Foundation; and
       (R) the Brookings Institution.
       (c) Administration.--The Dialogue Council shall meet at the 
     call of the Facilitators. The Dialogue Council shall not be 
     subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the 
     Council shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by 
     reason of their service on the Council (other than any 
     private funding of costs pursuant to section 105).
       (d) Termination.--The Dialogue Council shall terminate upon 
     the termination of the National Dialogue under section 108.

     SEC. 105. PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

       The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101 
     shall operate by means of sponsorship by private, nonpartisan 
     organizations of conferences which shall be convened in 
     localities across the Nation, which shall be geographically 
     representative of the Nation as a whole, and which shall 
     provide for participation which is representative of all age 
     groups in the population. The Facilitators shall encourage 
     and coordinate the sponsorship by such organizations of the 
     National Dialogue and shall ensure that all costs relating to 
     the functions of the Facilitators and the Dialogue Council 
     under sections 104 and 107 and not referred to in section 109 
     are borne by such organizations or, as appropriate, by other 
     private contributions.

     SEC. 106. CONSTITUENCY INPUT.

       (a) In General.--In order to assure that the widest 
     possible degree of opinion is received by Members of Congress 
     regarding the future of the old-age, survivors, and 
     disability insurance program under title II of the Social 
     Security Act, each Member shall, to the extent practicable, 
     and as soon as possible after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, develop with grassroots organizations and other 
     constituency groups within the Member's district ongoing 
     systems of communication through the use of the Internet and 
     other available electronic capabilities. Such groups shall 
     include, but not be limited to, key opinion leaders, 
     journalists, business representatives, union members, and 
     students of all age groups.
       (b) Internet Dialogue Coordination.--
       (1) Internet dialogue coordinator.--The Facilitators shall 
     appoint an Internet Dialogue Coordinator who shall assist 
     Members of Congress in establishing systems of communication 
     in their Congressional districts as required under subsection 
     (a). In carrying out the Coordinator's duties, the 
     Coordinator shall--
       (A) assist Members' offices in establishing local websites, 
     moderated chat rooms, and threaded newsgroups,
       (B) assist Members in coordinating a national electronic 
     town hall meeting on the future of social security,
       (C) advise Members regarding the most effective 
     technological means for reaching out to constituent groups 
     for purposes of this section, and
       (D) work with other Internet-oriented groups to broaden the 
     reach of Internet capability for purposes of this section.
       (2) Internet advisory board.--
       (A) Establishment.--There is established an Internet 
     Advisory Board. It shall be the duty of the Board to advise 
     the Internet Dialogue Coordinator in the most appropriate and 
     effective means of employing the Internet under this section.
       (B) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 3 members 
     appointed by the Facilitators from among individuals 
     recognized for their expertise relating to the Internet.
       (C) Administration.--The Board shall meet at the call of 
     the Internet Dialogue Coordinator. The Board shall not be 
     subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the 
     Board shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by reason 
     of their service on the Board, except that any member of the 
     Board who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government shall receive travel expenses and per diem 
     in lieu of subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and 
     5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (D) Termination.--The Board shall terminate upon the 
     termination of the National Dialogue under section 108.
       (c) Reports.--The Internet Dialogue Coordinator shall 
     periodically report in writing to the Facilitators the 
     results of the systems of communication established pursuant 
     to this section.

     SEC. 107. REPORTS.

       From time to time during the National Dialogue, the 
     Facilitators shall catalog, summarize, and submit in writing 
     to the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security 
     Reform the comments, suggestions, and recommendations 
     generated by the participants in conferences conducted and 
     constituent input received from Members' offices under the 
     National Dialogue.

     SEC. 108. TERMINATION.

       The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101 
     shall terminate January 1, 1999.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated, from amounts 
     otherwise available in the general fund of the Treasury, such 
     sums as are necessary to provide for the compensation of the 
     Facilitators and to carry out the provisions of section 
     106.
 TITLE II--BIPARTISAN PANEL TO DESIGN LONG-RANGE SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL.

       There is established a panel to be known as the Bipartisan 
     Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform (in this 
     title referred to as the ``Panel'').

     SEC. 202. DUTIES OF PANEL.

         The Panel shall design a single set of legislative and 
     administrative recommendations for long-range reforms for 
     restoring the solvency of the social security system and 
     maintaining retirement income security in the United States.

     SEC. 203. MEMBERSHIP OF THE PANEL.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Panel shall be composed of 
     eight members, of whom--
       (1) four shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate,
       (2) two shall be appointed by the President, and
       (3) two shall be appointed jointly by the Minority Leader 
     of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of 
     the Senate.

     The members of the Panel shall consist of individuals who are 
     of recognized standing and distinction, who can represent the 
     multiple generations who have a stake in the viability of the 
     system, and who possess a demonstrated capacity to discharge 
     the duties imposed on the Panel. At least one of the members 
     shall be appointed from individuals representing the 
     interests of employees, and at least one of the members shall 
     be appointed from individuals representing the interests of 
     employers.
       (b) Co-Chairs.--The officials referred to in paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) of subsection (a) shall designate two of the 
     members of the Panel to serve as Co-Chairs of the Panel, who 
     shall jointly chair the Panel, determine its duties, and 
     supervise its staff.
       (c) Terms of Appointment.--The members of the Panel shall 
     serve for the life of the Panel.
       (d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Panel shall not affect the 
     power of the remaining members to execute the duties of the 
     Panel, but any such vacancy shall be filled in the same 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.

     SEC. 204. PROCEDURES.

       (a) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet at the call of its Co-
     Chairs or a majority of its members.
       (b) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of 5 members of the 
     Panel, except that a lesser number may conduct a hearing 
     under subsection (c).
       (c) Hearings and Other Activities.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out its duties, the Panel may hold such hearings and 
     undertake such other activities as the Panel determines to be 
     necessary to carry out its duties. Meetings held in order to 
     conduct fact finding, as determined by the Co-Chairs, shall 
     be open to the public. Meetings held in order to develop 
     policy, as determined by the Co-Chairs, may be held in 
     executive session, notwithstanding the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act and any other provision of law.
       (d) Obtaining Information.--Upon request of the Panel, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security and the head of any other 
     agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall 
     furnish information deemed necessary by the Panel to enable 
     it to carry out its duties.

     SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Compensation.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     members of the Panel shall receive no additional pay, 
     allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the 
     Panel.
       (b) Travel Expenses and Per Diem.--Each member of the Panel 
     who is not a present Member of the Congress and who is not 
     otherwise an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall receive travel expenses and per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Staff and Support Services.--
       (1) Staff director.--
       (A) Appointment.--The Panel shall appoint a staff director 
     of the Panel.

[[Page H2489]]

       (B) Compensation.--The staff director shall be paid at a 
     rate not to exceed the rate established for level III of the 
     Executive Schedule.
       (2) Staff.--The Panel shall appoint such additional 
     personnel as the Panel determines to be necessary.
       (3) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff 
     director and other members of the staff of the Panel shall be 
     appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and shall be paid without regard to the provisions 
     of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (4) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Panel, the staff director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (d) Contract Authority.--The Panel may contract with and 
     compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     items and services, without regard to section 3709 of the 
     Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
       (e) Physical Facilities.--The Architect of the Capitol, in 
     consultation with the appropriate entities in the legislative 
     branch, shall locate and provide suitable office space for 
     the operation of the Panel on a reimbursable basis. The 
     facilities shall serve as the headquarters of the Panel and 
     shall include all necessary equipment and incidentals 
     required for the proper functioning of the Panel.
       (f) Detail of Federal Employees.--Upon the request of the 
     Panel, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to 
     the Panel to assist the Panel in carrying out its duties.
       (g) Use of Mails.--The Panel may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be 
     considered a commission of Congress as described in section 
     3215 of title 39, United States Code.
       (h) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Panel, the Architect of the Capitol shall provide to the 
     Panel on a reimbursable basis such administrative support 
     services as the Panel may request.
       (i) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing 
     and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from 
     the Government Printing Office, the Panel shall be deemed to 
     be a committee of the Congress.

     SEC. 206. REPORT.

       Not later than February 1, 1999, the Panel shall submit to 
     the President, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives, and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate a report which shall contain a detailed statement of 
     the findings and conclusions of the Panel, including the set 
     of recommendations required under section 202. The report 
     shall include only those recommendations of the Panel that 
     receive the approval of at least 6 members of the Panel, 
     including both Co-Chairs.

     SEC. 207. TERMINATION.

       The Panel shall terminate March 31, 1999.

     SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated from the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, but not to 
     exceed $2,000,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 410, the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendments printed in House Report 105-498, is adopted.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
modified by the amendments printed in House Report 105-498, is as 
follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Dialogue on Social 
     Security Act of 1998''.
             TITLE I--NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL DIALOGUE.

       As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President, the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate shall 
     jointly convene a National Dialogue on the old-age, 
     survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of 
     the Social Security Act. The purpose of the National Dialogue 
     shall be to engage, by means of regional conferences and 
     national Internet exchanges, the American public in 
     understanding the current program, the problems it faces, and 
     the need to find solutions that will be workable for all 
     generations and to generate comments, suggestions, and 
     recommendations from the citizens for social security reform.

     SEC. 102. FACILITATORS.

       The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101 
     shall operate under the administration and coordination of 
     two Facilitators, one of whom shall be appointed by the 
     President, in consultation with the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, and one of whom shall be appointed jointly by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate. The Facilitators shall be appointed 
     within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
     The Facilitators shall be appointed from among individuals 
     known for their integrity, impartiality, and good judgment, 
     who are, by reason of their education, experience, and 
     attainments, exceptionally qualified to perform the duties of 
     such office. The Facilitators may serve until termination of 
     the National Dialogue under section 108.

     SEC. 103. PLANS FOR NATIONAL DIALOGUE.

       After consultation with the President, the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate, the Facilitators shall 
     transmit the final plans for the development and operations 
     of the National Dialogue to the President and each House of 
     the Congress not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 104. DIALOGUE COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment and Duties.--There is established a 
     Dialogue Council. It shall be the duty of the Dialogue 
     Council to advise the Facilitators in the development and 
     operations of, and to promote nationwide participation in the 
     National Dialogue.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Dialogue Council shall be composed of 
     36 of the individuals nominated pursuant to paragraph (2), of 
     whom--
       (A) 9 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives,
       (B) 4 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives,
       (C) 9 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate,
       (D) 4 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, and
       (E) 10 shall be appointed by the President.
     To the extent practicable, the members shall include both men 
     and women and shall be selected so as to ensure that 
     individuals born before 1946, individuals born in or after 
     1946 and before 1961, and individuals born in or after 1961 
     are equally represented within the membership.
       (2) Nominations.--Individuals shall be appointed under 
     paragraph (1) from a group of 54 individuals, consisting of 
     individuals nominated in sets of 2 each, respectively, by 
     each of the following 27 private organizations:
       (A) American Association of Retired Persons;
       (B) United Seniors Association;
       (C) American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
     Organizations;
       (D) The National Hispanic Council on Aging;
       (E) The Older Women's League;
       (F) Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans;
       (G) Cato Institute;
       (H) Employee Benefit Research Institute;
       (I) Americans Discuss Social Security;
       (J) Third Millennium;
       (K) The U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce;
       (L) Americans for Hope, Growth, and Opportunity;
       (M) National Federation of Independent Businesses;
       (N) The Concord Coalition;
       (O) National Caucus and Center on Black Aged;
       (P) Campaign for America's Future;
       (Q) The Heritage Foundation;
       (R) The Brookings Institution;
       (S) The 2030 Center;
       (T) National Council of Senior Citizens;
       (U) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities;
       (V) National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
     Medicare;
       (W) United States Chamber of Commerce;
       (X) Pension Rights Center;
       (Y) Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities and
       (Z) National Association of Manufacturers; and
       (AA) National Association for the Self-Employed.
       (c) Administration.--The Dialogue Council shall meet at the 
     call of the Facilitators. The Dialogue Council shall be 
     subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the 
     Council shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by 
     reason of their service on the Council (other than any 
     private funding of costs pursuant to section 105).
       (d) Termination.--The Dialogue Council shall terminate upon 
     the termination of the National Dialogue under section 108.

     SEC. 105. PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

       The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101 
     shall operate by means of sponsorship by private, nonpartisan 
     organizations of conferences which shall be convened in 
     localities across the Nation, which shall be geographically 
     representative of the Nation as a whole, and which shall 
     provide for participation which is representative of all age 
     groups in the population. The Facilitators shall encourage 
     and coordinate the sponsorship by such organizations of the 
     National Dialogue and shall ensure that all costs relating to 
     the functions of the Facilitators and the Dialogue Council 
     under sections 104 and 107 and not referred to in section 109 
     are borne by such organizations or, as appropriate, by other 
     private contributions. The source and amounts of 
     contributions made pursuant to this section shall be made 
     available to the public.

     SEC. 106. CONSTITUENCY INPUT.

       (a) In General.--In order to assure that the widest 
     possible degree of opinion is received by Members of Congress 
     regarding the future of the old-age, survivors, and 
     disability insurance program under title II of the Social 
     Security Act, each Member may, in connection with the 
     National Dialogue, develop with grassroots organizations and 
     other constituency groups within the Member's district 
     ongoing systems of communication through the use of the 
     Internet and other available electronic capabilities. Such 
     groups include, but are not limited to, key opinion leaders, 
     journalists, business representatives, union members, and 
     students of all age groups.

[[Page H2490]]

       (b) Internet Dialogue Coordination.--
       (1) Internet dialogue coordinator.--The Facilitators shall 
     appoint an Internet Dialogue Coordinator who shall assist 
     Members of Congress in establishing systems of communication 
     as described in subsection (a). In carrying out the 
     Coordinator's duties, the Coordinator shall--
       (A) establish a national dialogue web site,
       (B) assist Members' offices in establishing connections to 
     the national dialogue web site, which may include, but is not 
     limited to, personal financial planning, Federal budget 
     impact exercises, ongoing public opinion tallies regarding 
     legislative proposals, moderated chat rooms, and threaded 
     newsgroups.
       (C) assist Members in coordinating a national electronic 
     town hall meeting on the future of social security,
       (D) advise Members regarding the most effective 
     technological means for reaching out to constituent groups 
     for purposes of this section, and
       (E) work with other Internet-oriented groups to broaden the 
     reach of Internet capability for purposes of this section.
       (2) Internet advisory board.--
       (A) Establishment.--There is established an Internet 
     Advisory Board. It shall be the duty of the Board to advise 
     the Internet Dialogue Coordinator in the most appropriate and 
     effective means of employing the Internet under this section.
       (B) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 3 members 
     appointed by the Facilitators from among individuals 
     recognized for their expertise relating to the Internet.
       (C) Administration.--The Board shall meet at the call of 
     the Internet Dialogue Coordinator. The Board shall be subject 
     to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the Board 
     shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     their service on the Board, except that any member of the 
     Board who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government shall receive travel expenses and per diem 
     in lieu of subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and 
     5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Reports.--The Internet Dialogue Coordinator shall 
     periodically report in writing to the Facilitators the 
     results of the systems of communication established pursuant 
     to this section.
       (d) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall 
     terminate upon the termination of the National Dialogue under 
     section 108.

     SEC. 107. REPORTS.

       From time to time during the National Dialogue, the 
     Facilitators shall catalog, summarize, and submit in writing 
     to the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security 
     Reform the comments, suggestions, and recommendations 
     generated by the participants in conferences conducted and 
     constituent input received from Members' offices under the 
     National Dialogue.

     SEC. 108. TERMINATION.

       The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101 
     shall terminate January 1, 1999.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated, from amounts 
     otherwise available in the general fund of the Treasury, such 
     sums as are necessary to provide for the compensation of the 
     Facilitators and to carry out the provisions of section 106.
 TITLE II--BIPARTISAN PANEL TO DESIGN LONG-RANGE SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL.

       There is established a panel to be known as the Bipartisan 
     Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform (in this 
     title referred to as the ``Panel'').

     SEC. 202. DUTIES OF PANEL.

         The Panel shall design a single set of legislative and 
     administrative recommendations for long-range reforms for 
     restoring the solvency of the social security system and 
     maintaining retirement income security in the United States.

     SEC. 203. MEMBERSHIP OF THE PANEL.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Panel shall be composed of 
     eight members, of whom--
       (1) four shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate,
       (2) two shall be appointed by the President, and
       (3) two shall be appointed jointly by the Minority Leader 
     of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of 
     the Senate.

     The members of the Panel shall consist of individuals who are 
     of recognized standing and distinction, who can represent the 
     multiple generations who have a stake in the viability of the 
     system, and who possess a demonstrated capacity to discharge 
     the duties imposed on the Panel. At least one of the members 
     shall be appointed from individuals representing the 
     interests of employees, and at least one of the members shall 
     be appointed from individuals representing the interests of 
     employers.
       (b) Co-Chairs.--The officials referred to in paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) of subsection (a) shall designate two of the 
     members of the Panel to serve as Co-Chairs of the Panel, who 
     shall jointly chair the Panel, determine its duties, and 
     supervise its staff.
       (c) Terms of Appointment.--The members of the Panel shall 
     serve for the life of the Panel.
       (d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Panel shall not affect the 
     power of the remaining members to execute the duties of the 
     Panel, but any such vacancy shall be filled in the same 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.

     SEC. 204. PROCEDURES.

       (a) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet at the call of its Co-
     Chairs or a majority of its members.
       (b) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of 5 members of the 
     Panel, except that a lesser number may conduct a hearing 
     under subsection (c).
       (c) Hearings and Other Activities.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out its duties, the Panel may hold such hearings and 
     undertake such other activities as the Panel determines to be 
     necessary to carry out its duties. Meetings held by the Panel 
     shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act.
       (d) Obtaining Information.--Upon request of the Panel, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security and the head of any other 
     agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall 
     furnish information deemed necessary by the Panel to enable 
     it to carry out its duties.

     SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Compensation.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     members of the Panel shall receive no additional pay, 
     allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the 
     Panel.
       (b) Travel Expenses and per Diem.--Each member of the Panel 
     who is not a present Member of the Congress and who is not 
     otherwise an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall receive travel expenses and per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Staff and Support Services.--
       (1) Staff director.--
       (A) Appointment.--The Panel shall appoint a staff director 
     of the Panel.
       (B) Compensation.--The staff director shall be paid at a 
     rate not to exceed the rate established for level III of the 
     Executive Schedule.
       (2) Staff.--The Panel shall appoint such additional 
     personnel as the Panel determines to be necessary.
       (3) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff 
     director and other members of the staff of the Panel shall be 
     appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and shall be paid without regard to the provisions 
     of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (4) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Panel, the staff director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (d) Contract Authority.--The Panel may contract with and 
     compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     items and services, without regard to section 3709 of the 
     Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
       (e) Physical Facilities.--The Architect of the Capitol, in 
     consultation with the appropriate entities in the legislative 
     branch, shall locate and provide suitable office space for 
     the operation of the Panel on a reimbursable basis. The 
     facilities shall serve as the headquarters of the Panel and 
     shall include all necessary equipment and incidentals 
     required for the proper functioning of the Panel.
       (f) Detail of Federal Employees.--Upon the request of the 
     Panel, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to 
     the Panel to assist the Panel in carrying out its duties.
       (g) Use of Mails.--The Panel may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be 
     considered a commission of Congress as described in section 
     3215 of title 39, United States Code.
       (h) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Panel, the Architect of the Capitol shall provide to the 
     Panel on a reimbursable basis such administrative support 
     services as the Panel may request.
       (i) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing 
     and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from 
     the Government Printing Office, the Panel shall be deemed to 
     be a committee of the Congress.

     SEC. 206. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 1, 1999, the Panel 
     shall submit to the President, the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate a report which shall contain a detailed 
     statement of the findings and conclusions of the Panel, 
     including the set of recommendations required under section 
     202. The report shall include only those recommendations of 
     the Panel that receive the approval of at least 6 members of 
     the Panel, including both Co-Chairs.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, pending the report of the Panel under subsection (a), 
     the Federal unified budget surplus should be dedicated to 
     reducing the Federal debt held by the public, increasing the 
     retirement income security of individuals and insuring the 
     solvency of the social security system.

     SEC. 207. TERMINATION.

       The Panel shall terminate March 31, 1999.

     SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated from the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, but not to 
     exceed $2,000,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Archer) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) each 
will control 1 hour and 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 
on the bill, H.R. 3546, and to include extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?

[[Page H2491]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to yield back 30 minutes 
of my time, but before I do so I would like to inquire of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) whether the minority would 
do the same thing.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will yield back 30 
minutes of our time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 30 minutes of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for tens of millions of Americans, Social Security has 
been a wonderful success. It has been for my father and for my mother. 
Written in 1935, Social Security has protected our seniors, has reduced 
poverty and strengthened our families. If ever there was a Depression-
era program we can be proud of, Social Security is it.
  But Social Security faces a long-term crisis. To solve it, 
politicians in Washington must begin now to work together and we must 
put partisanship aside. We are all in this together, from the 117-year-
old Sara Knauss of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reportedly the oldest 
living American, to little Chase Amanda Brockman who was born today at 
12:30 p.m. in Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas.
  As we proceed, we must do two things. We must honor our commitments 
to today's seniors and we must protect young people so that Social 
Security works for them as well.
  The Congressional Research Service has analyzed for retirees this 
year the amount of time it takes to recover the value of their taxes 
paid plus interest. The information demonstrates that Social Security 
has been a fabulous program for those who have retired to date.
  But for baby boomers and for everyone younger, Social Security is no 
longer a fair deal. For average earners who retired in 1980, they got 
back their retirement portion of their Social Security taxes and their 
employer's share of the taxes plus interest compounded during their 
work life when they turned 68, and that has got to be a good deal. 
Three years and they had recovered everything that had been paid in 
plus interest.
  But what is it today? Today, a retiree at 65 years of age, making 
$25,000 a year, will have to live until they are 80 years old before 
they get their money back. For most people, that is still not a bad 
deal.
  But I am afraid the good deal ends right around this year. For tens 
of millions of working people younger than 65, Social Security's 
problems have already begun. Average earning 48-year-olds will have to 
live to 89 years of age to get their money back. Average 38-year-olds 
will have to make it to 91.
  If Americans are younger than that, Social Security's message seems 
to be, ``Be sure to eat well and get plenty of exercise, because you 
will have to live into your hundreds get a fair return on your Social 
Security money that has been taken out of your paycheck.''
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot raise taxes to solve this problem because 
someone making more than $65,000 a year can really forget about it. 48-
year-olds making $65,000, the maximum taxable wage base, will have to 
reach 104 years old to get their money back, and 38-year-olds will have 
to live to 117 years of age.
  Now there is more to Social Security than money. There is family 
security, family protection and peace of mind. However, each generation 
must be treated fairly and that is the challenge that we face. That is 
why today I urge the House to pass my plan to create a bipartisan panel 
to save Social Security.
  The time has come to rise above partisan politics and put the needs 
of the Nation first. Without a commission, I am absolutely certain that 
politicians will once again start fighting over Social Security as has 
always been the case in the past, and we will not get the job done. We 
must remove politics from Social Security, and that is what my plan 
does.
  Mr. Speaker, my plan creates an eight-member panel comprised of four 
Democrats and four Republicans. It is small and its timetable is short. 
Its recommendations are due back to the Congress by February 1, 1999. 
My plan also creates a bipartisan national dialogue to engage the 
American people as we listen to their ideas on how to save this vital 
program.
  Saving Social Security is too important for any one party or any one 
branch of government to use it as a forum for gaining political 
advantage. The American people have never retreated from a crisis, and 
we must not do so in this issue. Our task is to solve this problem so 
that when little Chase Amanda grows up and starts working, she will 
never even know Social Security was in crisis.
  When it comes to Social Security, I suspect the American people are 
well ahead of us. We now must catch up with the people and do it in a 
bipartisan spirit, remembering that young people have grandparents they 
love and senior citizens have grandchildren that they adore. I know 
because I have 13 of them myself. Mr. Speaker, we are in this together.
  Let me add one more point. This week we received letters from both 
the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, and the Concord 
Coalition, strongly endorsing this bill. They are very much at the 
front line on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit these letters for the Record:


                                                         AARP,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 1998.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Archer: AARP believes that a national 
     dialogue on Social Security is essential to building 
     consensus around changes to address the program's long-term 
     financial challenge. As the national dialogue on Social 
     Security proceeds, the American people need to understand how 
     Social Security fits into an overall framework of income 
     security, what the solvency options are, and how these 
     options will affect them and their families.
       Accordingly, AARP is very pleased that the Committee on 
     Ways and Means has reported H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue 
     on Social Security Act. This legislation can help the 
     American people work through the necessary tradeoffs that can 
     enhance economic security and restore the Social Security 
     program's long-term solvency.
       While our elected officials engage in a dialogue with the 
     American people, the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range 
     Social Security Reform called for under H.R. 3546 can 
     evaluate options and suggest a course of action. Of course, 
     whatever the panel proposes must still be debated and 
     approved by Congress and the President. This would allow 
     policy makers and interested parties an opportunity to 
     evaluate and respond to the panel's recommendations. In the 
     final analysis, elected officials, not a commission, must 
     bear the ultimate responsibility.
       AARP believes dialogue, debate, and a comprehensive 
     analysis of Social Security solvency proposals are necessary 
     components of good public policy-making for this important 
     family protection program. If we act sooner, rather than 
     later, the changes we adopt will be more moderate and those 
     affected will have more time to adjust their plans. AARP 
     looks forward to working with you and other members of 
     Congress on a bipartisan basis to promote this national 
     dialogue.
           Sincerely,
     Horace B. Deets.
                                  ____

                                             The Concord Coalition


                                            Citizens' Council,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 1998.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Archer: The Concord Coalition strongly 
     supports the bill, H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social 
     Security Act of 1998, that your Committee reported favorably 
     last week.
       The Social Security program, as currently structured, faces 
     serious problems when the baby boom generation begins 
     retiring only a decade from now. It is urgent that solutions 
     be put in place as soon as possible to address these 
     problems, rather than postponing action. The earlier we act, 
     the more gradually changes can be phased in and the more 
     advance warning will be given to people who are working today 
     so that they can understand the impact of these changes and 
     plan for their own retirement security. Retired citizens, 
     working age Americans and today's youth all will be better 
     off if action is taken soon.
       Based on our experience hosting meetings around the nation 
     on this issue, we are convinced that if the American people 
     are armed with the facts and given the opportunity for honest 
     dialogue, they will reach decisions that are fair to people 
     of all ages and income groups. Your bill to stimulate such 
     honest dialogue and engage a broad range of citizens across 
     the nation is the right step at the right time. In order to 
     prepare our nation's citizens for the kind of changes 
     required to put Social Security on a sound footing through 
     the next century, they need to hear what the issues are and 
     the pros and cons of various options. We applaud your bill 
     for advancing such a balanced, bipartisan dialogue.

[[Page H2492]]

       We are pleased that your bill recognizes that next year, 
     1999, is the idea window of opportunity for enacting Social 
     Security reforms. Your bill offers a framework for moving 
     toward a legislative consensus on what these reforms should 
     be.
       The Concord Coalition looks forward to working with you to 
     implement the provisions of H.R. 3546.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Martha Phillips,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what this is not about. This 
is not about the ultimate plan to save Social Security. This is not 
about how we can get partisan political advantage by launching into a 
debate amongst ourselves, as has happened so often in the past.
  This is how we chart a course that gives us the best chance to rise 
above politics and to be able to truly save Social Security. We will 
hear many, many other comments made today that have nothing to do with 
this bill because people want to make one comment or another comment 
about their view on Social Security.
  We should come together today to establish a vehicle that gives this 
country the best hope, the best chance to rise above partisan politics 
and to save Social Security. I would dare say that those of my 
colleagues who have, I think sincerely and genuinely, said we should 
dig into this ourselves, we do not need another commission, where is 
their plan? Has any one of them introduced a comprehensive plan to save 
Social Security? I will tell my colleagues they have not because they 
understand the politics. I would hope that they would not attempt to 
gain some type of political advantage out of this debate rather than 
joining in today and giving us our best hope.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inquire, was the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) going to yield back 30 minutes as the 
majority has?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I will.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York yields back 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say, ``Shame, Mr. Chairman, to think that politics 
would be brought into this debate.'' Why, I am just shocked and 
overwhelmed that the majority would even mention politics in the 
dialogue on such a sensitive subject.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we could not even begin to 
deal with the question of Social Security unless it is done in a 
bipartisan way, no more than we can deal with the question of our 
complex income tax system unless it is done in a bipartisan way. The 
problem that we are facing is that the Republicans are operating like a 
parliamentary body and we do not talk to each other and discuss how we 
can resolve some of these very sensitive issues.
  Let us take this dialogue that we are talking about today. Members of 
the minority only asked the question that before we do anything, can we 
say that our first commitment with the surplus is to use it to make the 
Social Security solvent? Why, that is as bipartisan as it can get. All 
of America wants to make certain that before we explore different ways 
in order to assure people pensions, that at least this system is 
solvent.
  Of course, that brings about a lot of partisan debate and we try to 
overcome that.

                              {time}  1615

  But certainly, even though many of us in the minority did not truly 
believe that there was need for another group to have dialogue since 
the President already had established a biparty commission, in the 
interest of bipartisanship, I would like to join with the chairman of 
the committee, and let us have another commission, and let us expand 
the dialogue.
  But to suggest that it is possible to bring politics into the debate, 
why, my God, we almost resolved the question of income tax increases 
the other day in a request from the majority to ask for a supermajority 
in order to increase taxes. Why just today we tackled the serious drug 
problem that we had by saying that we were banning funding for needles. 
I mean, that is substantive, and we are moving the ball forward.
  When this year has ended, the majority will be asked: What did you do 
on Social Security? I am certain that the majority would be able to 
say, we started dialogue.
  I just hope one thing before we attempt to even talk as though we are 
partisan is that, when they ask, what have you done with the tax 
system, the one that we are pulling up by the roots, the one that we 
are sunsetting, the one that we are bringing in the postal card 
substitute, when we ask this bipartisan Congress, what are we doing 
about taxes, we will be able to say, we are establishing dialogue, 
because that is going to be my answer.
  I have been in the minority for 3 years. I know how the chairman 
feels so strongly about this complex system that was compounded in the 
last tax bill. The gentleman and I know we have to get rid of it.
  We have had 3 years of dialogue, 3 years of the majority of the 
Republicans, 3 years that they have the votes in the committee, 3 years 
that they have the votes in the House, 3 years that they have the votes 
on the Senate Committee on Finance, 3 years as they have the votes on 
the Senate floor to improve this tax system.
  If Members feel nearly as strongly about this Social Security mess as 
the majority has about the Nation's tax system, my God, the gentleman 
from Texas and I both will be retired by the time we deal with it. You 
are only going to stay for another couple of years, and I do not know 
how long I will be here as chairman, but regardless of what the 
politics of this are going to be, it would seem that we ought to start 
now in a bipartisan way and say that we do not want this dialogue to go 
on as long as we have had for the tax bill.
  Let the dialogue begin, but let us put a timetable so Americans would 
know that this Congress, in a bipartisan way, is going to tackle the 
serious problem. Before we go to Las Vegas or Wall Street or wherever 
we think where we can get a high return on the investment, let us make 
certain that the idea of Franklin Roosevelt is protected; and that is, 
we have a sound Social Security system, and we are going to use the 
surplus to do that.
  Now, if that is not done, then the surplus is going to be used for an 
income tax cut, or they are going to just raise tobacco tax on this 
industry that has done very little to anybody and just raise their 
taxes for another income tax cut. The gentleman and I do not like that 
because we are both against tax increases.
  So here is another way we can be bipartisan, to give up how we raise 
the revenue and how we use them. I do not know how my colleagues want 
to use the surplus. I know the Committee on the Budget chairman does 
not want to use it for a tax cut.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is a man after my own heart. 
When he says a tax cut, he means $150 billion. That is no slice of 
bologna. That is big time. When he says, where are we going to get the 
money, he is not going to the surplus, he is going to spending programs 
so that we all will know, that those who get the cut will know where 
the cut came from. That is the way we do business in a bipartisan way.
  Here we are with Social Security, and we have a surplus. The 
President said, let us not get partisan with this. Take the surplus, 
attach it to Social Security, and then let us get on and see how we can 
do the rest of the people's work.
  Let me join with the chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways 
and Means. Let this be the first shot toward bipartisanism. Let us all 
say openly that the surplus is going to be used to shore up this 
system. Let us tell this Commission this is what we expect them to do. 
Let us give them a date to report back.
  I wish we could do it before the election, but this is too serious a 
thing, I think, to be involved with elections. We will wait until after 
the elections. But let us put a timetable on this Commission, because 
we do not know who is going to be appointed, and we want them to be as 
nonpartisan as my colleagues and I in their deliberation.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for raising the question, for taking 
politics out of that, and give me the opportunity to join with him.

[[Page H2493]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Kennelly).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman of 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) will control the balance of the time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, since its inception, Social Security has 
been a real success story, providing retirement income security for 
seniors and desperately needed survivor and disability benefits for 
those who have been stricken by the death of a loved one or smitten by 
an incapacitating illness or accident.
  However, as the board of trustees reminded us yesterday, the future 
is not so bright for this vital program. We know Social Security faces 
real challenges over the long run. It has been told before, but by the 
year 2013, the program outlays will exceed its income, and Social 
Security will have to rely on the rest of the government to make good 
on their promise to secure Social Security trust funds.
  By the year 2032, the surplus will be gone, and the program will only 
be able to pay about 75 percent of the benefits committed. We cannot 
allow that to happen.
  During this Congress, the Subcommittee on Social Security, which I 
chair, is conducting a series of hearings on the future of Social 
Security for this generation and the next. We have had many hearings 
and will hold many more throughout the year. We are working on a 
bipartisan basis to explore all sides and all options for Social 
Security reform.

  Fixing this vital program is not going to be easy. Social Security 
programs are complex and far-reaching. Even minor changes will have 
major intended and unintended effects over time. It will not be an easy 
issue to resolve.
  I am glad that the President has brought Social Security to the 
forefront. His leadership on this issue is of vital importance. But 
when it comes time, it is going to be the Congress of the United 
States, starting with the Committee on Ways and Means, that will have 
to do the heavy lifting and actually begin the work of the American 
people.
  In the meantime, when it comes right down to it, we have to get this 
conversation started. We all need to be talking about what the future 
of Social Security is, what is going to take place, and what it is 
going to look like.
  The legislation we are considering today gets people talking through 
a national dialogue on Social Security. That is a very good beginning. 
At the same time, we need a panel of experts to help us reconcile what 
Americans want to see done and what can be done to fix Social Security 
once and for all.
  Election years often see more than their fair share of partisan 
bickering. Social Security is far too important to get tied up in 
partisan politics. We must act now. We must work together. This 
legislation is a way to do it. Make no mistake about it, we have a 
golden opportunity this year to do something. The alligators are not 
snapping at our ankles right now. We have a balanced budget for the 
first time in 30 years, and we have budget surpluses instead of nagging 
deficits. Medicare is at least safe for 13 more years. Welfare has been 
reformed, and it seems to be working.
  Right now, we have a golden opportunity to focus on Social Security 
and get the train rolling, get Congress firmly on the track for reform 
before we face a crisis. Let us do it in the next 5 to 7 years when we 
have the opportunity with growing surpluses. This is the bill to do it.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes good ideas, but they are postscript 
for what is already happening. For example, the legislation calls for a 
national dialogue on Social Security, but there are already several 
reputable organizations convening nonpartisan meetings across the 
country to discuss the future of Social Security. The President, 
Members of Congress from both parties, and thousands of American 
citizens have already attended some of these informative sessions.
  Let me give just one example. The Pew Charitable Trusts are spending 
$12.5 million to establish a nationwide nonpartisan grassroots 
discussion of the future of Social Security. To date, more than 3,000 
Americans in 15 States have participated in their seminars.
  The other purpose of this bill is to establish a commission to 
develop suggestions on maintaining Social Security solvency. But, 
again, Congress has already received three recommendations for Social 
Security reform from the last Commission that was appointed.
  If we really want to do something to protect Social Security's long-
range solvency, we should do what the President has asked us to do, 
save the budget surplus for Social Security. Saving the budget surplus 
will ensure that we have the necessary resources to protect a 
retirement program that millions of Americans depend upon.
  Some have suggested we should use the budget surplus instead for a 
new system of private accounts. My response to that is we should keep 
an old promise before we make new ones. The bill before us today takes 
at least a half a step towards acknowledging that principle by 
expressing the sense of Congress that the budget surplus should be 
dedicated to ensuring the solvency of the Social Security system, 
increasing retirement income security, and paying down the Federal 
debt. We should strengthen that language so that there is absolutely no 
doubt on what we intend to do with the budget surplus of Social 
Security.
  I know that some have expressed confusion over what this means when 
we talk about saving Social Security. The concept is actually very 
simple. If we allocate current and future budget surpluses for other 
purposes, those resources will not be there for Social Security. The 
President has, therefore, asked us to save the budget surplus today so 
we can save Social Security in the future.
  What happens to the budget surplus before we agree on a plan to 
protect Social Security, we might then ask? The answer is easy: It will 
help pay down the Federal debt.
  Let me remind my colleagues that reducing the Federal debt will have 
a direct and positive impact on our ability to meet our obligations of 
Social Security. Paying down the debt will, not only spur economic 
growth, but it will reduce the amount the government pays in interest, 
which is now 15 percent of all government spending, last year totaling 
$244 billion.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1 billion 
decrease in the debt today could reduce the government interest 
payments over the next 10 years by $773 million. This statistic clearly 
illustrates that paying today's debt will help us meet our obligations 
of tomorrow's retirees. So once again, I urge my colleagues to support 
the President's pledge, save Social Security first.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support for H.R. 3546, 
the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998.
  This bill would initiate the national dialogue on the future of 
Social Security by way of face-to-face discussion and electronic means, 
including town hall meetings, Internet chat rooms. In addition to 
nationwide suggestions, H.R. 3546 would also establish a bipartisan 
panel of eight members appointed by Congress and the President, and 
these would be equally divided between the two political parties.

                              {time}  1630

  After a year of study, the panel would present a singular set of 
recommendations to the Congress and the President, and this would have 
to be done by February of 1999. Inclusion of ideas from average 
citizens, seasoned experts and lawmakers makes this truly a national 
dialogue.
  It is time for both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to 
unite in an effort to save this most important retirement system: 
Social Security. The economic well-being of our Nation's seniors has 
been politicized for far too long. Everyone agrees on the

[[Page H2494]]

importance of finding a long-term solution to the question of Social 
Security's solvency, and H.R. 3546 is a critical step towards 
developing this solution. To engage in a national discussion of the 
possible solutions for Social Security is to put the national interest 
above political interest.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to tackle this monumental issue before it is too 
late. When the Social Security System was first initiated in 1935, 
there were 16 workers per retiree. Today, that number has dropped 
sharply to only 3.3 workers per retiree. By the year 2040, fewer than 2 
workers will be supporting each retiree. Congress has the obligation to 
secure the future of Social Security, not just for the present senior 
but also for our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren. 
It is time to put aside political differences and work together for the 
future of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and the majority of us 
in both parties in supporting this important legislation, and I 
congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Kennelly) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for 
working together to bring this legislation to the floor.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, a national dialogue on Social Security is definitely in 
the best interest of the people of this country. I congratulate 
President Clinton for his leadership in bringing this issue to the 
forefront of the American people.
  It is also important that we operate in a bipartisan manner. This 
resolution forwards that bipartisan effort, and I support it. However, 
I am disappointed there was not more bipartisanship in the creation of 
this resolution and closer working with the White House.
  The dialogue has already begun. In Kansas City on April the 7th, we 
had a national dialogue started by President Clinton on the future of 
Social Security and ensuring its long-term solvency. I was pleased that 
I was able to have a hookup with that national dialogue in the Third 
Congressional District of Maryland, in Columbia, Maryland. It was a 
good discussion. Let me share with my colleagues some of the facts that 
came out as a result of that town hall meeting.
  The surplus we are enjoying in our budget, we would not have a 
surplus but for the fact the Social Security System has a cash surplus. 
That has produced the surplus in our budget. It would be irresponsible 
for us to use that surplus for anything other than ensuring the long-
term solvency of Social Security.
  There are some who are suggesting that we use that to set up 
individual savings accounts, taking the money outside the Social 
Security System. That would do nothing to protect and improve the long-
term solvency of the Social Security System.
  There are others who are suggesting we should use it for tax cuts. 
Again, that would not improve the long-term solvency of the Social 
Security System.
  The President is right. We should all make a commitment that the 
surplus be reserved for Social Security solvency.
  Yes, there are dramatic demographic changes in this Nation. We are 
getting older. But the Social Security System is safe today. The recent 
trustee report indicates that the solvency is now even 3 years longer 
than we thought, to the year 2032. So there is no panic within the 
Social Security System.
  We do have a problem in the savings ratios of this Nation. Of the big 
industrial seven nations, we have the lowest private savings ratios; 
and we need to do something about that. So the objective, I would hope, 
of any proposal to deal with Social Security would be, first, to 
protect the Social Security recipients, those that are retired or near 
retirement. They cannot change their security issues. They need the 
Social Security System and the full benefits under that system.
  But we also need to increase private savings. After all, there are 
three legs to retirement security, Social Security, private retirement 
and savings; and we need to do a better job on private savings and 
retirement. Along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), I have 
authored legislation that has been enacted into law that will encourage 
private savings, and we will be authoring legislation again in this 
Congress to try to improve private savings and retirement. That is 
important. We are considering that on a bipartisan basis, and I urge my 
colleagues to support us in that effort.
  We also must ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security 
System. If we follow those objectives, we will be serving in the best 
interest of the people of this Nation, and I hope that the dialogue 
will begin and protect the Social Security System.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and I rise 
to strongly support his legislation and that endorsed by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer).
  I also want to say that I strongly agree with the comments of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who preceded me, regarding the 
need to increase private savings of both the IRA-type savings, private 
savings of individuals, and savings through the employer, through 
pension plans, profit-sharing plans, 401(k)s and so on.
  Social Security is a little more controversial than the two legs, and 
that is why this commission is so important. But they all work 
together. Commissions are not always the best way to handle policy 
dilemmas, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes the Congress uses them too often. 
There are plenty of commission reports that are collecting dust 
somewhere in this Capitol.
  But I have to tell my colleagues, if the commission structure, goals 
and membership are clearly thought out, which is the case here, both 
with the national dialogue and the commission, then on very tough 
political issues, commissions can work and work well.
  I speak from personal experience. Until about a year ago, I was 
cochairman of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. We 
approached this on not just a bipartisan but a nonpartisan basis. We 
brought in outside expertise, which I think is key. The other 
cochairman was Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat from Nebraska. Charles 
Grassley, a Republican, and Bill Coyne, a Democrat, also served on the 
panel.
  Congress created the IRS commission basically to get at the vexing 
problems of the IRS and try to do it in a nonpolitical context. Another 
issue like Social Security, IRS can be quite political. We also wanted 
to bring in outside expertise, which I think is key, and we did so.
  In our case, commission members included information technology 
executives. It included small business advocates, taxpayer advocates, 
former commissioners, State tax administrators and so on.
  We rolled up our sleeves and we spent about 15 months really looking 
into the problems in a nonpartisan way. We finished on time, under 
budget and produced a solid report that then became legislation; and, 
within 4 months of our report, the legislation had passed the House on 
a strong, bipartisan basis.
  I think it is a pretty good model, and I see that same model being 
replicated here because of the way this commission and dialogue has 
been structured.
  The key is to rise above politics and solve a very tough problem. 
Again, commissions are not always the best solutions for every big 
issue that faces this Congress, but I think in this case this 
commission is properly structured to take a hard look at it with 
outside expertise in a balanced and bipartisan manner.
  And I think on this politically explosive issue, Social Security, it 
is not only the best way to go, I think, frankly, it is the only way to 
go. It is the only way we will solve the problem for future 
generations.
  I have my 6-year-old with me today. He asked what we were debating 
about a little while ago. I said, we are debating about your future and 
whether when you are retired you will have something there for you. And 
that is so important, that it is necessary for us to take this step in 
order to take it out of politics, in order to get with a time frame the 
kind of consensus we need to

[[Page H2495]]

move forward on a bipartisan basis on this program.
  So I stand today to again urge support on both sides of the aisle on 
this process. The tough questions are still in front of us, but we need 
to get started on it, and this is the important big step.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding me this time.
  In this Chamber there is a tendency to toss around mind-numbing 
statistics, and in the best of debates that occur here we attempt 
oftentimes to convince each other through the use of abstraction. But 
the truth is that there is one point that must be emphasized today 
above all else, and that has been the success of Mr. Roosevelt's 
experiment offered to the American people in 1935.
  There are millions of people watching right now, at this very moment 
across this country, this debate, who enjoy the benefits of Social 
Security. We should fully acknowledge that Social Security 
fundamentally changed the way seniors across this Nation have lived out 
some of the best years of their lives.
  So it was not an abstraction, Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton 
almost exactly 3 months ago walked into this Chamber and in his State 
of the Union address said, ``Let's fix Social Security first.''
  Now, I know there is a tendency to think that that is some catchy 
political slogan, but I must disagree. Because saving Social Security 
first is a generational promise that must be continued into the next 
century. Fortunately, due to the President's budget in 1993 and the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, we are showing a surplus for the first 
time in many years. But we should use that surplus to buy down the debt 
and to save Social Security first. Social Security remains the lifeline 
of support for many Americans as they grow older, and our obligation is 
to strengthen that lifeline.
  Now, I know there is talk in this Chamber about offering personal 
savings accounts. Let us examine that. There can be no harm from a 
thorough examination. But let us not forget the goal of community that 
Social Security offers and generational obligation that it compels from 
all of us.
  President Clinton had it right: Let us have a dialogue. And the 
dialogue, indeed, has already started. Even yesterday, as we reviewed 
new numbers, we know that there will have to be fundamental 
examinations of Social Security in the coming years.
  But, most importantly, let us point out that retirement savings is a 
three-legged stool and the three legs are private savings, pension and 
Social Security, understanding that almost 40 percent of retirement 
income for most Americans comes from Social Security. We want to 
encourage people certainly to take more responsibility for their 
retirement but again not to forget the essential element of Social 
Security, and that is the interlocking notion of community.
  Our society has changed in the workplace dramatically, and I know it 
is common for individuals to change jobs many times over. That makes it 
more important now than ever to address the issue of pension 
portability. Social Security should be addressed this year, and pension 
portability should be enacted this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) 
for taking up this debate once again.
  Mr. BUNNING. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  In my district in western Pennsylvania, most working families and 
retirees depend on Social Security as the keystone of their retirement 
security. These families are clearly at risk because of the grim shadow 
of looming bankruptcy that has fallen on Social Security, casting doubt 
on its long-term viability.
  The collapse of Social Security is not immediate, but it is 
inevitable without major changes in the program, changes that will 
become more draconian the longer they are postponed. We in Congress 
have a fundamental responsibility to move quickly and decisively, free 
of cant and partisanship, to place Social Security on a sound financial 
footing.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3546, legislation to 
establish a national dialogue on Social Security and a bipartisan panel 
to design long-term Social Security reform.
  Under this legislation, a national dialogue would be convened to 
engage the American public through regional conferences and through 
national internet exchanges in understanding the current program, the 
problems it faces and the need to find solutions that will be workable 
for all generations.
  In addition, a bipartisan panel would be created to design a single 
package of long-range Social Security reforms to restore the solvency 
of the system and maintain retirement income security.
  The process of Social Security reform created in this bill is the 
best hope to yield, through engagement of the American public, a 
solution which restores the long-term viability of the Social Security 
retirement system in a manner beneficial to every generation and every 
class.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill as the first step on the path 
of fulfilling our obligation as trustees and custodians of a system 
that has literally transformed the face of poverty among older 
Americans.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democratic 
President, worked with a Democratic Congress to create a Democratic 
program to help retired workers, Social Security. For 60 years, the 
Social Security system that Democrats created has provided retirement 
security to hundreds of millions of Americans.
  Social Security is founded on a simple principle: Every worker 
contributes to and is part of a common system. We all pay into this 
system together; and when we retire, we all receive benefits together. 
For 60 years, Social Security has provided peace of mind to millions of 
workers and retirees. We must not destroy this peace of mind. We must 
not destroy the sense of common good created by Social Security.
  Providing a privatized Social Security system would destroy this 
trust. It would take security out of Social Security. Do not believe 
the fearmongers who tell us that Social Security would not be there for 
us. They want to end Social Security as we know it. The enemies of 
Social Security will have us believe that the problems are too big. But 
the sky is not falling. We can fix Social Security without destroying 
our covenant with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because I believe we must 
first save Social Security, but I would not support efforts to 
privatize Social Security. I will not support efforts to destroy the 
peace of mind Social Security provides millions of retirees and 
millions of our workers.
  As a Democrat, I will remain true to the Democratic legacy of Social 
Security, the legacy of people coming together as one to provide a 
basic livable pension for every American no matter how rich, how poor, 
how young, or how old. I will fight efforts to divide the rich from the 
poor and parents from their children.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats will fight to save Social Security first 
because Social Security is a sacred trust with the American people, and 
we must never, ever betray this trust with the American people. Protect 
Social Security first.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  John Milton wrote, ``Time is a subtle thief of youth.'' Well, we are 
running out of time on devising a plan to save Social Security, and the 
failure to salvage a broken system is robbing our youth of hope. 
Whether one is a recent college graduate or a baby boomer, like

[[Page H2496]]

me, all Americans are caught in the system of retirement with few 
choices, and it is not a healthy future.
  Working Americans are paying into Social Security monthly to a total 
of $484 billion for this year alone. The cost in paying benefits to 
retirees right now totals $382 billion. This leaves $102 billion to put 
away for the retirement of the baby boomers and generation X. This 
money should be managed like a retirement account or personal trust 
fund. People expect Social Security to be a national retirement savings 
account. That is the way it should be. Save for the retirement of those 
paying into the system.
  We have to reject the President's plan to spend all but a handful of 
that, call it the surplus, and say he is going to take 8 to $10 billion 
and invest it in saving Social Security.
  The Treasury said today that there might be 3 more years in the life 
of Social Security. Three years? Well, this sounds very, very good for 
those on Social Security now, and maybe even a few of us older baby 
boomers. But we have three generations of Americans, my children, my 
grandchildren, who have put money into that account, and they expect to 
have something for their future.
  Where are the leaders that are going to stand up and say, we have a 
surplus of $100 billion a year, money that should go to the future? 
Where are the leaders that are going to say, this surplus is really 
enough to stabilize for the next two generations of Social Security 
accounts? Where are the leaders?
  I hope that this Commission will recommend that this Congress stop 
taking $100 billion a year out of Social Security and that they will 
invest all this in the future of retirement.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. I have been listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker, with 
interest. And it is clear that we have to move ahead with Social 
Security.
  In a sense, the horse is already out of the barn. This bill calls for 
a national dialogue, and that is already started. The President and the 
Vice President started it on a bipartisan basis. There has been a very 
effective meeting already, and others are being held under the auspices 
of a foundation. So that dialogue is under way. No one should think 
that it has not started.
  But I will vote for this bill because it will keep the conversation 
going. For those of us who have been working so hard these years to 
secure Social Security, I do not think we need to have another vote 
that says we care. That is so clear. Maybe some want that vote and will 
join them. But for those of us who have been fighting all these years 
to make sure Social Security is secure, we say, whatever needs to be 
fixed, fix it. Do not break the system. Look to the future, but do not 
forget what is true today and what has been true in the past.
  And what is true today is that the Social Security system is 
essentially the economic foundation for a majority of the people who 
are retired, as has been discussed. But I think this has to be very 
much remembered. In this country, close to 70 percent of seniors have 
incomes of less than $25,000 a year, and 46 percent have incomes of 
less than $15,000. In Michigan, that figure is even higher. One 
estimate is that 85 percent have incomes of $25,000 or less, and 70 
percent have incomes of $15,000 or less. So they are asking us, look to 
the future, but do not ruin the present.
  Those of us who work for fiscal responsibility should be proud of 
that. We have a surplus. If it had not been for our vote, there would 
not be this. This surplus would not exist, though, without the inflow 
from Social Security. And the lesson from those two points is this: Now 
we have time to fix Social Security for the long term because of the 
surplus, but let us use those funds because the surplus is in large 
measure because of Social Security, so use it for that purpose. And any 
other programs, whether they are tax cuts or other programs, should not 
be financed out of this surplus. Save and ensure Social Security first.
  So let us move ahead. I am in favor of flexibility, of looking at new 
alternatives, at looking at new ways to finance the retirement of 
people. As we do it, let us remember our sacred obligation. We have an 
obligation for the future. We also have an obligation to those who are 
paying in that we not undermine Social Security as they near 
retirement.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act.
  In 1949, when my father entered the work force, people could look at 
their paychecks, see their Social Security taxes withheld, and feel 
sure that the money would be waiting for them when they turned 65.
  When my daughter Jessica signs up for her first job in a year at age 
16, and I can assure my colleagues her mother and I will help her find 
a part-time job, the amount that she sees deducted from her paycheck 
from Social Security will not only be higher than 1949, but it will not 
necessarily be waiting for her in about 50 years. In fact, for those of 
us under the age of 50, we may not be receiving anything until the age 
67 or older.
  Now some say that we have, basically, three options: Raise taxes, cut 
benefits, or reform the system. One of the causes of our present 
problems is that high taxes do not allow individuals to save and 
supplement their pensions and Social Security savings as was originally 
meant to be done.
  There has been talk of adjusting the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, 
so as not to overstate inflation. This would make Social Security COLAs 
smaller. However, it is unfair to reduce benefits to current retirees.
  Personally, I am partial to the idea of supplementing, let me repeat 
that, supplementing our Social Security benefits by allowing 
individuals to invest for themselves. We should create individual 
savings accounts that allow individuals to increase retirement incomes 
by investing a portion of their payroll taxes in the market. These 
would be a mandatory savings account that could not be drawn on until 
retirement.
  A good first step in finding a solution like a personal Social 
Security account would be to pass this legislation, establish a 
bipartisan panel to study long-term Social Security reform, and report 
their findings to Congress no later than February 1, 1999.
  We should put aside our bipartisan politics and do what is right for 
the American people. We must make sure that Social Security is there.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the efforts to 
ensure Social Security remains viable for the next generation, for our 
children, and for our grandchildren.
  I have met with various constituents, and they agree that we need to 
make some tough decisions that are before us to assure the viability of 
Social Security for future generations. I support the creation of a 
bipartisan commission, but I would caution those efforts in terms of 
privatization, and I would caution my colleagues and remind them in 
terms of the S&L scandals that occurred during the 1980s, where their 
pension funds could be depleted.
  I would urge the House leadership to also work closely with President 
Clinton on ongoing initiatives on Social Security. And I commend the 
President for his leadership on moving forward in ensuring the security 
of Social Security. With all the past borrowing from the Social 
Security Trust Fund, we need to ensure that our baby boomers and 
subsequent generations are assured access to Social Security.
  I would ask that, as the Commission moves, that we look first, number 
one, to the existing senior citizens that are there now to make sure 
that they receive what they deserve; secondly, that as we move beyond 
the year 2012, and the baby boomers start reaching that area, that we 
assure that generation that they will have also access to Social 
Security. And thirdly, for the youngsters that are now beginning to 
pay, those that are 20, 30 years old, we need to assure with that piece 
of legislation that would become in terms of

[[Page H2497]]

the recommendations that they also will have access as they move 
forward in the next generation.
  Future generations rightfully worry that they will not be able to 
have fair returns on their Social Security, so it is up to us to make 
sure that we take those populations into consideration. We can help 
assure that Social Security be ensured for the next few generations.
  We also need to remember and recognize the fact that Social Security 
is there for the disabled and the blind, and we need to remember that 
and be cautious with that, because that has also helped half of our 
senior citizens out of poverty because of Social Security.
  So I want to urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit 
this bill so we can add firm language that would reserve any surplus to 
also help fix Social Security.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it 
makes sense, and it is an idea that simply grows and expands and 
fertilizes a debate on saving Social Security that is already taking 
place in this House.
  I would suggest that that is a bipartisan debate that is beginning to 
take place. If we look at, for instance, what John Kerry, Democrat on 
the Senate side, has said about maybe we ought to look at ways of 
updating Social Security and taking that 10 percent and making sure 
that that 10 percent tax goes into something that actually builds 
wealth, versus what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) pointed 
out earlier which is the case for a young 40-year-old, you have to live 
until you are 89 to get all your Social Security benefits back, or if 
you are a 30-year-old you have to live until you are 91 to get all 
those benefits back, that is the beginning of a bipartisan debate.
  Another thing that says to me this is a bipartisan debate is that Pat 
Moynihan, a great guardian of Social Security over the years, has said 
why do we not look at the possibility of letting individuals redirect 2 
percent of their payroll tax and put it into their own personal savings 
account that again begins to build wealth.
  On the Republican side we look at what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) has said, ``Why don't we look at the surplus and make sure that 
Washington can't spend the money by rebating that surplus back to FICA 
taxpayers so that they could begin their own personal savings 
account.''
  Or we have a bill that says why do we not give people below the age 
of 65 simply the option of redirecting a large portion of their payroll 
tax into their own personal savings account. Or what Nick Smith or Rick 
Santorum or Judd Gregg or Rod Grams, a whole long list of Republicans 
have out there.
  What this bill does is put those ideas in a bag and allows people to 
shake those ideas around for a year and then see which ideas make sense 
as we go forward in this debate. I would say most of all this debate is 
simply a debate about the American dream, because the American dream is 
tied to ending a lifetime of work with something other than just 
memories to show for it. Yet in our system, based on what the trustees 
have said, is that if we do nothing to address this problem, people 
will be paying 10 percent of what they earn every day and every week 
and every month into a system that does not build wealth for them.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for her leadership and her work as the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security. She has done a 
great job with this and has worked very hard. We should all thank her 
for the time that she has spent on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this bill, not because I think 
that we need more commissions, because we do not, and not because there 
is an immediate Social Security crisis, because there is not. But I do 
support the concept of a dialogue on Social Security.
  However, we need to remember that the current debate stands in stark 
contrast to the debate which led to the 1983 Social Security amendments 
when the trust funds could finance benefits for only a short time. If 
we are going to begin a national dialogue, it needs to start on a solid 
base of information about Social Security and its financial condition.
  I have been troubled that there are various groups and some Members 
that have been scaring some seniors and spreading inaccurate horror 
stories on the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. I would like 
to state for the record there is no immediate crisis. In fact, I would 
like to quote a headline in today's St. Pete Times, Outlook for Social 
Security Brightens. Let us face it, it is because we have a strong 
economy and people are working and inflation is at the lowest level in 
decades.
  We do, however, need to address the Social Security Trust Fund 
shortfall which is expected to occur in 2032, three years later than 
previously expected, and even at that the trust fund will still cover 
nearly 75 percent of the benefits. In the Committee on Ways and Means 
hearing on the measure, Senator Bob Dole agreed that we now have time 
to do this in a deliberative way and get it done in a bipartisan 
manner. I could not agree more.
  I am going to support this bill because I believe it is important to 
try to reach out to all interested parties and bring them into the 
discussion. Many often forgot that Social Security also provides 
disability protection. The bill as previously written failed to take 
into account the views of the more than 4 million disabled workers and 
their 1.7 million dependents receiving Social Security.
  That is why during the committee markup of this measure I introduced 
an amendment to add to the dialogue council the Consortium for Citizens 
with Disabilities, bringing the total number of groups to 25. I would 
like at this time to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their support of this 
amendment.
  I would like to stress, however, that the legislation duplicates many 
of the efforts that are already under way. We all know that groups have 
already been meeting throughout the country to address the future of 
Social Security. I look forward to the continued dialogue.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I too want to speak in support of this because, as was 
noted earlier, this is not a Republican issue, this is not a Democrat 
issue, this is an American issue. This is a problem that we have to 
deal with.
  It is one in my State of South Dakota that is particularly important 
because we have probably as high of an over-65 population as any State 
in the country. It also includes my mother and father who depend very 
heavily upon this important program, and it is one in which I think we 
agree we have to look at how we can save this program and also improve 
it for the next generation.
  Frankly, I credit the committee with launching this debate because in 
fact it does say something about Washington actually dealing with a 
long-term issue. Rather than waiting until the horse is out of the 
barn, which is the way that this city oftentimes addresses issues, we 
are looking down the road at what we can do at this particular point in 
time to address what is going to be a long-term challenge in this 
country. In doing that, I think there are a couple of parameters I hope 
we have as we begin this debate.
  The first is that no retiree today or someone who is going to retire 
should have to worry about their Social Security benefits being 
touched. We need to come up with a system that protects for now and 
forever those who have paid in, those who are relying on that very 
important program. I think that is a principle upon which this debate 
should be based. But, secondly, we also have to look at how we can 
improve this system for young people today who are paying in so that we 
can dramatically increase their retirement income, and when the time 
comes they will be able to supplement what Social Security provides.
  And so in having this debate, as we lay out those parameters, I think 
it is

[[Page H2498]]

important that everybody be at the table. This bill contemplates 
involving in a bipartisan way all the organizations who have a stake in 
this issue and all the various generational groups, starting with 
generation X and baby boomers and current retirees. But it is a debate 
that we need to have.
  I want to credit again the committee for taking action to begin the 
debate now before the crisis hits later. It is something that I very 
much support. I look forward to entering into this debate.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the legislation before us, H.R. 
3546. It is a commission. It is made up of a council. Hopefully we are 
going to get the brightest and the best minds to come up with some 
resolve to a problem which is not pending today, it is off 30-something 
years from now, but I think it is wise that Congress develop a fix to 
the problem now when we have the luxury of time, when we have the 
luxury of an elongated debate.
  I am not from the school that thinks this is just another commission. 
I say to you if in fact we have another idea for another commission in 
the summer composed of 24 different members of a council, let us also 
pass that, because the problem before us is probably the weightiest 
that this Congress is going to address in a very, very long time.
  We have been told repeatedly during the debate that we have to take 
the politics out of this issue. It seems to me that that admonition is 
being directed to the Democrats. Let me just indicate to my colleagues 
that there is legislation pending in the House which would give those 
seniors born between the year 1917 and 1926 a $5,000 lump payment. That 
would cost the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already in fiscal 
peril, some $40 billion to $50 billion. That also is playing politics.
  To make the situation even worse, seniors in my district and around 
the country are getting a mailing today by a group called a special 
project of TREA, Senior Citizen League, asking the seniors to send in 
this registration form to get on the Wisconsin Register of Notch 
Victims. It also asks them to send in $15, $20 as a special gift. That 
is cruel. That is cruel, because we know in this body that bill will 
never pass. We do not have the $50 billion.
  So I say let us take politics out of the debate, but that goes to 
both sides of the aisle, not only in this reform legislation that we 
are talking about but also other bills that are introduced. I am 
disturbed that there is talk in this body about a person who is 45 
today would have to live to 85 to collect all their money. My friends, 
this is a pension plan and not a deferred savings plan.
  Our family had the unfortunate event of losing not only my sister but 
my brother-in-law some 13 months ago. They had worked all their lives 
and paid into Social Security. Never once did their four children come 
to me, my nieces and nephews, saying, ``That's unfair. Give us the 
money back.'' Why? Because my father had the good fortune of living to 
82. He clearly collected more than he put in. A few weeks ago we went 
to Chicago to celebrate Auntie Marie Ducha's 90th birthday. She is 
getting more than her and Uncle John paid in. That is the system.
  If we devise a reform plan and bring it to this floor that gives 
everyone their money back in total, we are going to put at peril the 40 
to 50 million people currently receiving benefits because we are going 
to cut off that revenue stream.
  We all have preconditions as we enter this debate. Mine is very 
simple: Do not tamper with the revenue stream now that pays those 
benefits for those who are currently on the system. If you want to take 
politics out of this debate, vote for the motion later today that would 
reserve this surplus, because this reform bill will have some enormous 
costs connected with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue 
on Social Security Act. Social Security reform is one of the most 
talked-about issues around Capitol Hill tables and kitchen tables 
across the Nation. As with any issue of this magnitude, everyone has a 
different solution and method of reforming the Social Security system.
  Some people want the program to remain exactly as it is, while others 
call for total or partial privatizing, or an increase in the retirement 
age, or tax incentives like Individual Retirement Accounts.
  One condition for reform, however, is that we guarantee a sufficient 
revenue stream to make good on our promise of benefits to those who are 
retired or planning their retirement around the current system.
  In order to achieve this, we need to have a constructive and 
comprehensive national discussion about the future of Social Security, 
which annually pays benefits to nearly 50 million retired and disabled 
workers and their dependents and survivors.
  The bill on the floor today will foster such a dialogue. It creates 
an 8-member commission to develop reform recommendations and solicit 
feedback from the American people, partly through the Internet.
  The President and both Democratic and Republic Members of Congress 
will then use these recommendations to design a single package of long-
range reforms to strengthen the Social Security trust fund. The 
deadline for presenting suggestions to Congress is February 1, 1999. 
This gives us sufficient time to draft a comprehensive and fair plan.
  The proposed commission complements bipartisan forums being held 
around the nation, such as the one held by the President, the American 
Association of Retired Persons, and the Concord Coalition in early 
April. That meeting also sought to solicit ideas from the American 
public and inform them of many reform options.
  Other private sector groups, such as Americans Discuss Social 
Security, are also hosting town hall meetings across the country and on 
the Internet. Again, these meetings are facilitating a nationwide 
debate about the future of Social Security and providing a framework 
for restructuring the Social Security system.
  I am pleased these forums are including the opinions and ideas of 
people across the country. A healthy dialogue will now ensure that 
Congress passes a meaningful and equitable product to ensure the 
solvency of this program. I look forward to hearing from my 
constituents as they take part in this national debate about the best 
ways to preserve Social Security for our children, grandchildren, and 
beyond.
  I urge support of the bill before us so we will be armed with all 
suggestions and solutions as Congress goes about the task of major 
reform of this most important national program.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrich).
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
for yielding me the time and also recognize the extraordinary 
leadership he has shown as the chairman of the subcommittee which has 
worked so hard to save Social Security and to make sure that Social 
Security will be there for our parents and that it will be there for 
the baby boomers and their children. I think nobody in this House has 
done more to really try to develop the database, to hold the hearings, 
to do the investigations, to lay the framework for saving Social 
Security than the gentleman from Kentucky.
  I simply wanted to rise in strong support of this opportunity to 
engage the American people and to make the point that this is different 
than past efforts. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first 
commission developed with an inherent Internet base to it that will 
allow every American to have an opportunity to find out what all the 
different proposals will do for them, which proposals for the future 
are best for all Americans.
  I think it is very important for people in Washington to realize that 
in the information age we need to share information and share 
opportunities to participate with all of our citizens. When we talk 
about something as important and as personal as Social Security, we 
have a particular need to truly be in a position to have everybody feel 
comfortable that they know what is being proposed, they know how to 
deal with it, they know how it will affect their lives and they have 
had a chance to have input and to offer advice.
  In addition, this commission is designed so that the age breakout, 
with one-third baby boomers, one-third older than baby boomers and one-
third younger, is designed to create a generational dialogue rather 
than generational warfare. It is designed to bring Americans together 
rather than to separate Americans, to have Americans, grandparents and 
grandchildren, children and parents, all talking together about how we 
save Social Security and how we create a better future.
  Finally, this commission, I think, offers us a tremendous opportunity 
for

[[Page H2499]]

every Member to participate. I have talked with the American 
Association of Retired Persons, for example. They are very eager on a 
nonpartisan basis to work with every single Member, to have meetings 
where everything is laid out, no preconditions, but look at all the 
different options that have been created, all the different 
possibilities, have a dialogue with the entire community.
  I hope that we will be able next year, in 1999, to take major steps 
towards creating a 21st century information age Social Security system 
that is sounder, stronger and better than the current system. I want to 
make sure that my mother and my mother-in-law who are currently on 
Social Security get every penny of their cost-of-living increase, that 
they get the money they should get from the system that they have 
depended on, I want to make sure that the baby boomers have a fair 
chance to have an even better future with a system that will not 
collapse when they retire, and I want to make sure that my two 
daughters, who are younger than the baby boomers, have an opportunity 
to have an even better system and do not have to fear that they are 
simply throwing their money away.

                              {time}  1715

  This commission is a key step towards rebuilding faith with America's 
young people when we learn that, pollsters tell us, that people under 
30, more of them believe in unidentified flying objects than believe 
that they will get Social Security.
  We know that we have a problem in cynicism and a problem in people 
simply not believing that they have been considered. I think we have a 
chance by creating this commission to create a dialogue where everybody 
has a better future, everybody has a better opportunity to know that 
their savings are going to go to a system that they will have a chance 
to survive with, and I think that is very, very important. This is a 
step towards saving Social Security for the baby boomers and their 
children and saving it by making it more modern and even better.
  And I thank my friend again for the leadership he has shown in really 
being a pioneer at recognizing that saving our parents for our 
generation and saving our children, while making sure we also survive, 
is a tricky, complicated business, but if we talk together as 
Americans, we can do it.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Bunning) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Kennelly) for their wonderful work on Social Security.
  I could come to the floor this afternoon with charts and graphs and 
statistics to underscore the critical nature of Social Security to the 
people of this country. But instead, in the next minute or so, let me 
just tell my colleagues what this program has meant for me.
  My father died years before he ever received one retirement benefit 
under Social Security. But because my brother and I were minors at the 
time, we received vitally needed survivors' benefits under Social 
Security. Frankly, that allowed us to continue to get our college 
education and get on with life.
  I have a very good friend who is incapacitated with mental illness 
and cannot work. He receives and lives entirely on his Social Security 
benefit.
  My mother, now age 77, lives independently, would simply not be able 
to but for her Social Security check; and whether she lives to be 87, 
97, 107, with that guarantee of the Social Security check, as long as 
her health holds out, she can continue to live independently.
  Now I am absolutely determined to make certain that these core 
assurances, survivors benefits, disability benefits, a retirement 
benefit that is there as long as one may live, continue to be part of 
any Social Security program on into the future, and I have some plans 
in terms of how we get that accomplished.
  I am forced to vote against this commission idea today, however, 
because it omits one critical facet, and that is the one thing this 
House can do today that really has bearing on taking a positive step 
forward in Social Security, committing that we do not touch the surplus 
until we have this Social Security reform idea all figured out.
  Mr. Speaker, the President said it first, and he said it best. We 
must save Social Security first.
  The Speaker, testifying to the Committee on Ways and Means, says he 
wants to take that surplus and put it in individual accounts this year. 
That would be exactly the wrong thing to do. We have to have the 
constructive national bipartisan debate the majority and minority have 
been talking about today. We must lock up this surplus until we have 
figured out Social Security reform.
  And I will be offering a motion to recommit later that will make one 
change to the proposal before us but a vitally needed one. It will 
direct that the surplus is held absolutely until Social Security reform 
is completed.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  I want to echo the words that the Speaker said a few minutes ago in 
congratulating the gentleman from Kentucky, others on his subcommittee 
and the full committee for the work that has been done in this area. 
There can be no more important thing for us to talk about today, 
tomorrow, this year or next year than preserving Social Security and 
making sure it works for those who get it now and those who will need 
it in the future.
  This is not the first time we have had to deal with the troubled 
Social Security program, and no one is going to argue that it has been 
one of the, if not the most, successful social programs that we have 
today. It is one of the reasons that poverty among the elderly has 
declined as dramatically as it has.
  But, like many nations around the world, all nations, we are 
embarking on a major, unprecedented demographic transformation which 
threatens the promise of Social Security in the future.
  Most experts agree that a long-range deficit in the Social Security 
program needs to be addressed in the near future so that we can change 
it for the future. We really cannot delay reform.
  Now the legislation that is before us today would create a national 
dialogue on Social Security, and I believe that is the key to having a 
successful reform and change of it. It is imperative that Americans 
must be engaged in this discussion, understand the parameters of what 
we are talking about and to develop a national consensus for change. We 
need to hear what people are saying, to really listen to them.
  I like to think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I 
began this process 3 years ago when we created the House Public Pension 
Reform Caucus, which includes now more than 70 Members of Congress from 
both sides of the aisle. It began the process here in the House of 
educating the Members of Congress, providing a forum to discuss, to 
research, examine the problems that plague Social Security.
  Additionally, I have recently convened a group of my own in Tucson, 
30 people, called my own task force on retirement savings to encourage 
a dialogue with constituents. They represent their own constituents' 
groups. The idea is for them to go back, have a dialogue with their 
individuals, their members, and bring it to my own task force. Again, 
this is part of reaching out that I think is necessary, that we must do 
on a national basis.
  Now this legislation also creates a bipartisan panel to design a 
long-range Social Security preservation plan, and I strongly agree with 
my colleagues that Social Security reform must be bipartisan if it is 
going to receive the confidence of the American people or the needed 
support in Congress. But I would like to mention there have been a lot 
of commissions and panels that have diagnosed the problems that are 
facing Social Security and offered countless options for ways in which 
we could improve it or fix it.
  One commission which I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to 
participate in is the CSIS National Commission on Retirement Policy. 
Along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and 
with Senators Gregg and Breaux, this commission has helped to bridge 
the gap between House and Senate, private and

[[Page H2500]]

public sectors. Next month, this commission, after more than a year of 
work, will unveil its bipartisan, bicameral public service sector 
reform proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, we have grappled with the difficult decisions necessary 
to advance a bipartisan Social Security reform, such as the long-term 
solvency of the system, national savings, equity of benefits across 
income, across generations and income levels, designing the individual 
retirement accounts to supplement Social Security, the administrative 
feasibility of accounts, the management and regulation of accounts and 
the distribution of those funds upon retirement.
  I absolutely agree that this bipartisan panel that is created by this 
legislation needs to look at all of these different proposals that are 
out there, and I believe if we do that not starting from ground zero we 
can accomplish this next year, which I believe is the critical year for 
us to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill for dialogue is something I really support and 
agree with. As a matter of fact, I have already had a public dialogue. 
But this bill is worded so that the surplus could be spent to create 
private retirement accounts, and that is favored by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Speaker Gingrich) and the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). What they do not tell us 
is that they intend for these private accounts to replace Social 
Security benefits.
  In the State of the Union speech this year, President Clinton lost a 
national debate with the American people about what they want Social 
Security to look like in the 21st century. The President pledged to 
enter into negotiations with Congress by early next year on Social 
Security reform legislation.
  Now I do not believe that we should preempt the American people by 
spending the budget surplus on private retirement accounts before we 
decide how and if private accounts fit into a comprehensive Social 
Security reform package. There are inherent dangers in relying on the 
stock market as something as important as Social Security that really 
must be discussed and people must be clear on that.
  Everyone's retirement income would depend on the ups and downs of the 
market. Benefits for widows and children of deceased workers would be 
jeopardized, people would have to buy private disability insurance if 
they could find one to sell it to them for a policy that would be 
comparable to Social Security disability benefit at a price that they 
could afford.
  The fiscally responsible thing for Congress to do is to guarantee 
that all of any present and future budget surpluses be used for Social 
Security reform in whatever form it might take after we complete the 
year of dialogue. Saving this money will reduce the Federal debt as 
well as shore up the Social Security Trust Fund. Such action is a much 
more effective means of assuring future retirement security for future 
generations than spending the budget surplus to establish these private 
funds. I do not believe we ought to leave the people at the whims of 
the stock market.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security on which I am 
privileged to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, my dear friend from Texas offers a picture-perfect 
example of why we need to have a national dialogue on Social Security, 
because perhaps she misunderstands the intent of what many people have 
talked about here. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the gentlewoman 
joining with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security in 
sponsoring H.R. 3351 if, in fact, she is afraid that somehow Social 
Security will be taken from today's seniors.
  Let me humbly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be further 
from the truth, and those who offer that argument, no matter how well 
modulated and how reasonably stated, are sadly succumbing to the 
temptation of rhetorical terrorism. Let us state clearly and 
unequivocally from both sections, from both aisles, that the challenge 
for us remains, first and foremost, to keep Social Security intact for 
today's seniors. But, at the same time, we should welcome a national 
dialogue on something this vitally important.
  I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from 
Arizona. Because I, too, have formed a citizen's committee on 
retirement. I, too, invited not only current retirees but baby boomers 
and members of the next generation to join in a dialogue. That is the 
key to dealing with this problem. That is what this modest proposal 
suggests.
  Indeed, a look back at recent history would suggest that Washington 
gets into trouble when Washington experts listen to each other, when 
they are walled off from the rest of the people, when they fail to take 
into account the concerns of average American citizens, most notably 
today's Social Security recipients.
  So this legislation, which I am pleased to support, says that we will 
set up a dialogue not as Democrats or as Republicans but as Americans, 
not to succumb to the temptations of rhetorical terrorism but, instead, 
to offer sound, sensible solutions. Because the stakes are too high, 
the stakes are too high to succumb to the temptation of sloganeering 
for campaigns just a few months away.

                              {time}  1730

  Please support the legislation.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, if I might, let me broaden this discussion a little bit 
and put it into a somewhat different context.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States has by far the most unfair 
distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world and the 
greatest gap between the rich and the poor. In recent years in this 
country, we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, 
while at the same time about half of the senior citizens in this 
country are trying to survive on incomes of $15,000 a year or less, and 
12 percent of the seniors live in poverty.
  Many senior citizens today cannot afford their prescription drugs. In 
my State seniors make a choice between heating their homes in the 
winter and buying the food they need and the prescriptions drugs they 
need. That is a crisis which we should be dealing with.
  What is not a crisis is the fact that Social Security today will pay 
out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 33 
years. Now, what other program do we have that is going to pay out all 
of their benefits for the next 33 years? How many businesses in America 
today can say, gee, if I do not do anything, things are going to 
continue to go okay for 33 years?
  Should we begin to address the fact that as our population ages and 
we have fewer workers, that we are going to have a problem? Of course. 
Should we discuss it today? Yes, we should. But let us not fool the 
American people and talk about a crisis and the bankruptcy of the 
Social Security system which today is going to have an $80 billion 
surplus this year.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3546, 
the National Dialogue on Social Security Act. According to the trustees 
of the Social Security Trust Fund, the system is going broke. By the 
year 2013, the Trust Fund will be paying out more in benefits than it 
takes in through payroll taxes. By the year 2032, the Social Security 
Trust Fund will be completely bankrupt.
  Saving Social Security must be our Nation's most important priority, 
and we must all work together to move this process forward. Social 
Security is much too vital a program to have just one party or one 
branch of a government push for reform. Saving Social Security should 
not be a Republican versus Democrat issue; it should not be a 
conservative versus liberal issue, and

[[Page H2501]]

it should not be a Congress versus the President issue. It should be an 
issue where we all stand together, placing the interests of our Nation 
first.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today puts us on that road to 
reform. The proposal has two parts. First, it seeks to engage the 
public on the future of Social Security. Earlier this month I held town 
hall meetings in each of the 10 counties that make up my congressional 
district in northern California. At these forums, literally hundreds of 
citizens of all ages shared with me their ideas and suggestions about 
how to improve the health of the Social Security system. This 
legislation will make sure that the voices of the American people 
continue to be heard throughout the reform process.
  Second, this proposal establishes a bipartisan intergenerational 
panel to design a single package of long-range reforms. I believe that 
this panel represents our Nation's best hope for securing the broad 
bipartisan, intergenerational support we must have to tackle this 
monumental task.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this very important legislation.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think it is 
important we have an open and honest debate about how we assure the 
solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. I think it is terribly 
important we work off the same set of facts as we debate that.
  But our first order of business has to be to use the proposed surplus 
to repay the massive Federal debt, starting with that portion of the 
debt that is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Well, how do we do 
that? We do that by exercising discipline in our spending habits. We 
resist the temptation to use the surplus to pay for new Federal 
programs or tax cuts at the expense of the Social Security Trust Fund. 
If we are going to increase spending and programs or reduce taxes, find 
the money in the existing Federal budget, but do not use the surplus.
  And how do we go about doing that? Well, the first step is we need to 
take up and pass a House budget resolution. We are running almost 2 
months behind in doing that for no valid reason whatsoever. The budget 
resolution is our road map, it is our spending plan in which we limit 
ourselves as to where we are going to spend money, how we are going to 
pay for tax cuts, how we are going to pay for existing programs and new 
programs, and most importantly of all, how we are going to protect that 
surplus and use that money to begin paying back the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  Without passing that budget resolution, we are in serious danger of 
passing spending bills in the House of Representatives without 
appreciating how we are going to pay for them, and with potentially 
spending the surplus; and, perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, we are in 
serious danger without passing this House budget resolution of passing 
spending bills on the floor of the House, spending the surplus without 
admitting to it ourselves or to the American public.
  So what we do is far more important than what we say. We need to have 
a national dialogue, but we need to take up and pass the House budget 
resolution, and we need to protect the surplus in the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would suggest to the gentleman from Florida that he look at H.R. 
3351. It is a bill that will do just exactly what the gentleman says. 
It is a bill that will wall off the surplus, and until we have a 
settlement on Social Security, no one can touch it. It will buy the 
debt down until that time, and I suggest that the gentleman look at 
H.R. 3351, which I am the principal sponsor of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Very quickly, in terms of whether it is bankrupt or not, if we just 
kept increasing taxes on the American workers, there would always be 
tax revenues coming in. But just to caution everybody on the danger of 
tax increases, that is how we solved the problem in the 1970s, that is 
how we solved the problem in 1983. In fact, we have increased the 
Social Security tax 36 times since 1971. More often than once a year we 
have put additional tax on American workers. I would just suggest that 
it is very dangerous if we continue to rely on tax increases to solve 
this problem.
  Today, the American working families pay more, 75 percent of American 
working families pay more in the FICA tax, Social Security tax, than 
they do in the income tax. So I would hope, even though I suggest we 
keep everything on the table, let us at least consider the imposition 
of increased taxes.
  I would plead with my colleagues not to use as an excuse the fact 
that if the government pays back everything that it has borrowed from 
the Social Security Trust Fund, that we will continue to have enough 
money until the year 2032.
  Just look at this chart a minute. The little blue blip up here on the 
left is the additional money that is coming in from current taxes that 
is over and above paying out the existing benefits. That runs out, in 
the new estimate, in 2013. But look at this year, for example. And the 
rest of the chart in red is how much money the general fund is going to 
have to come up with to pay back what has been borrowed.
  In the year 2032, for example, somehow the general fund is going to 
have to come up with $200 billion, and we either do that by cutting 
other spending, by increasing taxes or by more public borrowing, but 
again, it is not all that easy to pay back what has already been used 
up and is now in the Trust Fund.
  Some people suggest that using the surplus is a way to start solving 
the problem. I agree, let us do it. I just got the actuary's report 
today, though. Based on using all of the projected surplus up until the 
year 2016, it would only solve less than 20 percent of the Social 
Security problem.
  Some people have suggested if government would just simply stop 
borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, it would be okay. I 
agree again. Let us stop that. Let us at least make that borrowing 
marketable certificates so the trustees at any time can go around the 
corner to the local bank when they need additional benefits and cash 
that in to pay those benefits. But as we see from this chart, we are 
now spending the surplus, which is approximately $72 billion this year, 
$84 billion next year, $100 billion the year after that, and then we 
start going downhill with less and less of a surplus going to the Trust 
Fund. Let us not put off this very serious problem. Let us deal with 
it. The longer we put it off, the more drastic the solution.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, saving Social Security is absolutely critical. Social 
Security is one of the cornerstones that has made our country great. It 
was 50 years ago, or more than 50 years ago, when it took great courage 
on the part of FDR to stand up and say that too many older Americans 
were living in poverty and that we needed to do something about it, 
just as it takes great courage on the part of this President to stand 
up and say, we cannot let the Social Security program become unglued at 
this time.
  It is time to ensure that Social Security will exist for generations 
to come. Today I want to thank the Members on the other side of the 
aisle who have followed the President's lead and said that our budget 
surplus must be reserved for saving Social Security first. I look 
forward to working with leaders from both parties to develop solutions 
that will ensure the continued success of Social Security without 
putting the retirement benefits of current and future citizens at risk.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of 
the bipartisan Commission on Social Security. I represent the 
congressional district in Florida that has more seniors than any other 
district in the Nation, so the solvency of Social Security, like 
Medicare, is very important to me and my constituents.

[[Page H2502]]

  But I am concerned about Social Security, not only for today's 
seniors, but also for their children and grandchildren. We have all 
heard that the Social Security Trust Fund will go broke by the year 
2032. I know that may seem like a long way off, but when baby boomers 
begin retiring and become eligible for Social Security, it will be very 
difficult to make changes. We need time to transition to a new system 
and give Americans time to prepare for their retirement.
  That is why we must have the courage to reform Social Security now, 
before we enter a crisis mode. Good public policy is not achieved in 
crisis.
  The Commission would take this debate out of partisan politics while 
the American people learn the facts and constructively discuss the 
options for reform.
  What are the facts? The first fact: America is getting older and 
living longer. In the 21st century we will witness big demographic 
changes. As the baby boomers cross into retirement and life expectancy 
increases, the number of Americans on Social Security will also rapidly 
increase. Meanwhile, the number of workers paying taxes to support the 
elderly will decrease. Simply put, we will have more seniors living 
longer and fewer workers to support them. As good as it has been, 
Social Security is unsustainable in its current form.
  The second fact: Americans need more information. Americans, young 
and old, know there is a problem, but they are not sure why it exists 
or how to solve it. The Commission's national dialogue would help 
dispel the myths about Social Security and allow for complete 
discussion of reform options among seniors, baby boomers and young 
people, because any reform proposal must have trigenerational support. 
Social Security reform must be a win/win/win.
  Why is the Commission critical? At first, I was skeptical that a 
commission was the right answer. I feared it would take too long and 
offer too many solutions. But this Commission would only offer one 
recommendation by February 1999.

                              {time}  1745

  In other words, the commission would take swift and decisive action. 
This commission would provide a solid basis for enacting broad, 
bipartisan changes to Social Security, changes that will ensure a 
secure retirement for all generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan 
commission. It is the right time and a prudent measure.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, there are people who say they want a 
dialogue on Social Security. I suggest such a dialogue would be like a 
cat having a dialogue with a mouse, or maybe a crocodile having a 
dialogue with a frog, or perhaps a shark having a dialogue with a tuna.
  Because Wall Street having a dialogue over Social Security with 
senior citizens is just as predatory, because they do not really want a 
dialogue. They already know what they want to do with Social Security, 
I would say to Mr. and Mrs. America. They want to take benefits from 
them and use those benefits to fuel growth in the stock market.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really about privatization. That is what they mean 
when they say, ``Let us have a dialogue.'' A dialogue with Wall Street 
is about how to grab Americans' retirement funds through privatization.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no crisis. The current tax and benefit rates 
remaining constant, Social Security will pay 100 percent of the 
benefits of future recipients until 2032 without any change whatsoever. 
In today's Cleveland Plain Dealer, my hometown, it says, ``Social 
Security's health is improving.''
  A problem that could develop in 35 years is not a crisis, it is a 
projection. The privatization dialogue would dismantle a hugely popular 
and successful government program and deliver a hugely profitable kitty 
for Wall Street investors to charge fees on.
  Privatizing Social Security is a radical, extreme measure. It would 
guarantee that there would be retirees who would go poor because their 
private investments failed. For every winner in the stock market, there 
will be a loser. Wall Street goes up, 9,000 points, and Wall Street 
will come down. And then where will retirees be when they need their 
monthly check?
  Privatizing Social Security will endanger one of it greatest 
accomplishments, that it has saved millions of seniors from the despair 
of poverty because it guarantees benefits. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members 
to reject this bill.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support a 60-year success story 
called Social Security. Almost half of our senior citizens were in 
poverty before its enactment, and now literally millions of seniors 
have been able to live and have a good quality of life because of that 
safety net called Social Security.
  I also rise to ask my colleagues, in addition to voting for this 
resolution, to vote for what I believe is the most significant vote 
that will be in front of us today, and that is the motion to recommit 
offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my good 
friend, who will be offering to us the opportunity to truly put Social 
Security first by indicating that every single penny of any surplus 
that we have now would be put aside and held until we solve the Social 
Security situation.
  Mr. Speaker, we have time to do it right. We in fact know that as of 
yesterday, we now hear that it will be 2032 before Social Security runs 
out. That gives us time to do small steps in order to solve the 
problems in a big way, and I would urge us to do it quickly, to 
preserve and protect Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also urge my colleagues then to do the 
additional things that we need to do to make sure that our citizens 
have retirement security, expanding savings opportunities. First we 
have Social Security. We need to protect it and preserve it. Secondly, 
we need to expand those kinds of things that we did in the Taxpayer 
Relief bill last year where we expanded IRA options and make sure we 
have other options to encourage savings.
  Third, I would urge my colleagues to focus on pensions for small 
businesses. I have a bill, as do others of my colleagues have important 
legislation, that would give future opportunities for the 42 million 
people who work for small businesses, work hard every day, or who own 
their own small business and need a pension. All three of those things 
together will help us to guarantee every American retirement security 
for the future.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no particular problem with the 
creation of a another commission to study the needs of the Social 
Security program, so long as it is balanced and without agendas other 
than the true need to preserve the safety net for America's workers.
  But equally important is that we begin this debate with a clear 
understanding of what Social Security is and why it was created before 
we begin proposing radical solutions. And also we must be careful not 
to confuse the issues while trying to solve the problem.
  First and foremost, we must remember that Social Security is a safety 
net below which no American will fall. It is a retirement security 
program, it is a disability insurance program, and it is a survivor 
insurance program. It is not a 401(k) or an individual retirement 
account. Any reform must not destroy the safety net or it will destroy 
the essence of the program.
  Second, we must not confuse solvency with return on investment. The 
foremost issue is the preservation of the existing Social Security 
system through and beyond the baby boom retirement period. Since it is 
a pay-as-you-go social insurance program, as the ratio of workers to 
retirees contracts, annual benefit costs will exceed revenues and 
eventually reserves. To maintain the current benefit structure is a 
solvency question addressed more by structural issues than return on 
investment.
  Third, most so-called privatization proposals do not address either 
the

[[Page H2503]]

safety net or solvency, but rather return on investment. This is not a 
panacea and we should be cautious. Replacing the existing Social 
Security system with private retirement accounts may well increase the 
return on investment over the current system for some, but it could 
also eliminate the safety net without a huge government subsidy costing 
trillions of dollars. And even in the era of the bull market and the 
9,000-point Dow, we must remember that with yield comes risk. Seven 
times in the 1970s and the 1980s the real value of the S&P 500 was 40 
percent below what it has been in the previous 10 years. If investors 
missed the market, it could cost them.
  Fourth, the bill we should be debating is the budget resolution and 
what to do with the surplus. Included in the $5.4 trillion debt is $600 
billion of Treasury bonds owned by the Social Security Trust Fund. We 
should give some serious thought to begin paying down the debt, growing 
national income, and making Social Security solvent for the baby boom 
generation.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining on either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Bunning) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the 
work of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the Committee on 
Ways and Means on this legislation. However, I respectfully disagree 
with the assessment that the solution to Social Security reform is 
establishment of another commission.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous commissions, panels, et cetera, 
that have diagnosed the problems facing Social Security. They have 
offered countless options to address these problems. We do not have a 
shortage of proposals for reforming the Social Security system.
  Next month the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I will join 
Senators Judd Gregg and John Breaux in introducing legislation 
incorporating the recommendations of the National Commission on 
Retirement Policy organized by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies. This proposal will address the issue of 
retirement savings in general, in addition to the future of Social 
Security.
  It reflects several months of work of a bipartisan commission 
composed of a diverse group of experts as well as Members of Congress. 
I doubt that an external commission will know what is politically 
viable. Only Members of Congress, the people's elected representatives, 
are qualified to decide what are forms the American public is willing 
to support in a program as important as Social Security.
  Members of Congress are elected to provide leadership on issues 
facing our Nation. Our constituents expect and deserve to have their 
elected representatives make the tough choices necessary to ensure that 
the Social Security program is strengthened and preserved.
  Expert commissions are useful in bringing new ideas into the debate 
and helping Congress understand the issues. We are past that point on 
this issue. There are more than enough expert reports that identify the 
problems and offer ideas for solutions. Now is the time for elected 
officials to begin doing our job of taking these proposals and putting 
together a politically viable proposal that the public will support.
  Earlier this year, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I 
introduced legislation establishing a special bipartisan bicameral 
committee of Congress so that those of us elected to make tough 
decisions would be able to work through the regular legislative process 
to take all the proposals that have been developed and put together 
bipartisan Social Security reform legislation that can be voted into 
law. We submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules yesterday that 
attempted to incorporate some of the ideas from our super committee 
proposal into the commission, but were not able to offer that amendment 
today.
  There is no question that legislation of this magnitude cannot 
receive the confidence of the American public or Congress unless it is 
bipartisan from the beginning. The failure of health care reform in 
1994 made this crystal clear.
  I am pleased that the President has learned this lesson by allowing a 
bipartisan discussion to go forward on Social Security instead of 
unilaterally offering a proposal of his own. While I agree very 
strongly that we must maintain bipartisanship in the Social Security 
debate, I do not believe that a commission is necessary. The President 
is demonstrating the presidential leadership that will be essential to 
maintaining bipartisanship. Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Lott and 
other Republican leaders have all expressed a commitment to Social 
Security reform. And I am committed to doing my part to speak out 
against those who attempt to politicize this debate from left or right.
  Also, I want to speak briefly in support of the motion to recommit 
stating that the entire budget surplus be reserved until we enact 
Social Security reform. Reserving the budget surplus for Social 
Security is not a substitute for structural reforms of Social Security 
but it will give us a running start towards structural Social Security 
reform. Reserving the surplus for Social Security reform will make it 
easier to enact policies which provide a strong Social Security system 
for future retirees.
  Proposals to use the surplus for any other reasons, including the 
proposals to create individual savings accounts to supplement Social 
Security reform now, will make our task much more difficult, that task 
of comprehensive Social Security reform. While I strongly support the 
concept of individual savings accounts within the context of 
comprehensive legislation, we should not enact individual accounts on a 
piecemeal basis without knowing how they will fit within a 
comprehensive reform.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have a 
``three-fer'' here from Texas.
  Social Security represents one of the most successful programs ever 
enacted by our U.S. Government. It along with Medicare are the crown 
jewels, as we call them, of Democratic legislative accomplishments from 
Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson.
  Today I will vote to establish a national dialogue on Social 
Security. It is important that we start this process immediately, so 
that we have ample time to consider a variety of proposals and have 
time to develop the best way to save Social Security for the future 
generations. As Members of Congress, this is one of our greatest 
responsibilities.
  Congress created this program to raise the income level of senior 
citizens above the poverty line. It has been so successful in the 63 
years, and I hope that my Republican colleagues have learned how 
important Social Security and Medicare is to all Americans. We do not 
need to gamble with Social Security funds and invest them in fly-by-
night schemes. We need to make sure they are there not just for the 
generation that is enjoying the benefits now, but for the next 
generation and the next generation, to make sure we do not slip back 
into poverty for our senior citizens.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, this is a great debate for us to have. Many 
people may not realize it, but my home State of Pennsylvania has one of 
the highest populations of rural elderly, and I cannot tell my 
colleagues how important Social Security is to them and to their 
families.
  For many people of my district, the Social Security system is the 
only protection that they and their families have from being totally 
impoverished. Without Social Security, half of our most vulnerable 
seniors and disabled citizens would be living in poverty.

[[Page H2504]]

  We are all concerned about Social Security. Created by a Democratic 
President, Social Security has kept millions of American seniors out of 
poverty. It is a sacred covenant between the American people and their 
government which the Democrats are dedicated to preserving.
  A national dialogue on the future of Social Security is a good idea. 
Bipartisan panels on Social Security are a good idea. A White House 
conference is a good idea. All of these things are good.
  But my main concern is we sit here in Washington, make ourselves look 
good by really setting up a panel and opportunity to talk about Social 
Security, but then, Mr. Speaker, none of this is going to amount to 
anything more than a lot of hot air unless we all commit ourselves 
right here and now to make sure that the budget surplus does not get 
spent on tax cuts or government programs, but is held in reserve until 
we have ensured the future of the solvency of Social Security.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Dialogue 
on Social Security Act. Social Security is one of our greatest success 
stories. For over 60 years, since its creation by President Franklin 
Roosevelt, it has been an independent provider of financial security to 
hard-working men and women in their retirement years.
  When we consider its success, prior to Social Security's enactment, 
retirement meant insecurity and poverty for too many of our senior 
citizens. Today the program has become a safety net for millions of 
seniors and their families. It is estimated that without Social 
Security, over half of the elderly would be living in poverty.
  We are all aware of the demographic shifts that threaten the solvency 
of the Social Security system in the next 30 years. It is our 
responsibility as Members of Congress to unite Americans in the effort 
to reform and preserve Social Security. It must be there, not just for 
our generation, but for our children and our grandchildren, too.
  I caution my colleagues, however, any change must be thoughtfully 
debated and carefully considered. Any reform must strengthen Social 
Security's future while maintaining the underlying philosophy which is 
the foundation of its success, a guarantee of financial stability for 
the elderly.
  Contrary to what some of my Republican colleagues believe, we cannot 
play fast and loose with Social Security. It must not become just 
another investment vehicle subject to the uncertainty and the 
fickleness of the market. That is not a guarantee. It also should not 
be sacrificed for tax cuts or experiments with personal retirement 
accounts. Social Security must come first. The guarantee of a secure 
retirement must come first.
  I support recommitting this bill for amendment to save the budget 
surplus until Congress takes real action on Social Security. The time 
for reform is now, but it must be real reform. We must guarantee that 
American men and women who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the 
rules will not have to struggle in their golden years. I look forward 
to the coming discussion of how we, in fact, preserve Social Security, 
support real reform, support future generations, support the dialogue.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3546, 
the National Dialogue on Social Security Act, and urge my colleagues to 
support this worthy piece of legislation.
  The intent of this legislation is to initiate a national dialogue on 
the future of the Social Security Program. Such a dialogue is a 
necessary component of any future reforms that are needed to ensure the 
long-term stability of the system.
  While Social Security has been an unparalleled success over the past 
sixty years, its future is being driven by negative demographic trends. 
The baby boomer generation is nearing retirement and subsequent 
generations are not large enough to subsidize the boomers' projected 
demands on the Social Security system.
  Current estimates disclose that the Social Security system will start 
paying out more benefits than it receives in contributions around the 
year 2013. This incoming/outgoing ration will gradually worsen until 
the program reaches insolvency in 2032.
  The problems facing Social Security are not immediate. However, the 
longer we wait to make reforms, the more painful those reforms will be.
  The President has already initiated a dialogue on Social Security 
reform. I am pleased that this bill will allow Congress to join this 
discussion. It is important to address this subject while our window of 
opportunity remains open. Furthermore, Congress needs to do this in a 
manner that is above politics. The subject of Social Security reform is 
far too important to be influenced by partisan politics. This bill 
provides for this through the creation of a bipartisan panel to examine 
all of the various proposals that have been advanced over the past 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, Social Security has played a vital role in our Nation's 
success and prosperity this century. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues 
to support this worthy legislation to ensure that it continues to do so 
long into the future.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the nation is now engaging 
in a dialogue about the future of Social Security, our most important 
government program. President Clinton deserves credit for fueling this 
discussion. Without a doubt, we must take steps to preserve Social 
Security for today's seniors--and tomorrow's. But as part of this 
effort, we must also address the current inequities facing women of 
retirement age across America.
  Let me share a few facts. Women live seven years longer than men on 
average--so they have an increased need for economic security in their 
later years. Women move in and out of the workforce more than men to 
raise children and care for elderly relatives so their earnings can 
change dramatically from year to year. And, women are still paid less 
than men--about 70 cents less on the dollar and three quarters of women 
earn less than $25,000 per year.
  As a result, women have far less retirement income than men. Less 
than a third of all female retirees have pensions. And of those women 
with pensions, the average benefit is 40 percent less than men's. 
Equally troubling, women's average monthly Social Security checks are 
25 percent smaller than men's.
  Given these disturbing figures, is it any surprise that fully one-
quarter of women over 65 live in poverty, that women make up three 
quarters of the elderly poor?
  The good news is that there are ways to make Social Security fairer 
to women. I am working on a package of Social Security measures to 
improve the system for women. For example, one bill would improve 
Social Security benefits for those who take time out of the workforce 
to provide child care or elder care.
  Unfortunately, it does not appear that these issues are getting the 
attention they deserve. As economist Kathleen Feldstein recently noted 
in the New York Times, some reform proposals currently on the table 
would perpetuate or even exacerbate the problems facing women in 
retirement.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not passing judgment on any reform plan today. I 
would simply urge that as my colleagues, the Administration, and the 
citizens of this nation work together to preserve Social Security, we 
pay close attention to the unique circumstances which affect women's 
retirement. We must use this crucial debate to improve the economic 
security of older women and future generations.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly speak out 
against H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 
1998. This bill will do injustice and harm to the effort to resolve the 
problems facing the Social Security system. The odd adage ``if it aint 
broke, don't fix it'' applies to this bill. Our bipartisan task force 
is working hard toward resolving the problems of the historic ``third 
rail'' of American politics. We do not need another task force to 
undermine the hard work and difficult decisions that need to be made.
  As a member of the Social Security task force, I must commend the 
collegial bipartisan manner in which the task force has conducted its 
business and I take this moment to recognize Congressmen Roy Blunt, R-
Mo. and Bill Delahunt, D-Ma. for their leadership.
  I am, however, mystified at Republican efforts to implement this 
legislation. In my opinion, H.R. 3546 duplicates the current bipartisan 
process instituted to resolve the problems facing Social Security. This 
is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars and the energy and effort of 
members of Congress.
  Social Security, created by a Democratic President, and used by 
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents has kept millions of seniors 
out of poverty. For a majority of minorities who are elderly, Social 
Security is their major source of income. While I applaud my colleagues 
efforts to begin another discussion to save Social Security, the fact 
that the members of the ``Dialogue Council'' and ``Panel'' will be 
chosen by the majority leadership is surprising. Such a nonpartisan 
issue should not be drawn into the maelstrom of politics.

[[Page H2505]]

  I find it more than a coincidence that this bill sounds a lot like 
the current national discussion about the future of Social Security 
which the President began in Kansas City. The mandates of this 
legislation directly compete with the process currently underway. I 
maintain that this legislation, put forth by the republican leadership, 
is simply an effort to confuse an issue vital to the well being of the 
nation. Unfortunately, this legislation reeks of an election year 
attempt by the Republicans to appear concerned about an issue that the 
people have mandated important.
  I am further concerned that because the bill appoints a Council and 
Panel so clearly skewed to favor the majority, it will not foster the 
bipartisan debate needed and desired by most in the House. This bill 
will allow the Republican leadership in the House and Senate to stack 
the Dialogue Council and Panel with members who clearly support the 
privatization of the Social Security system.
  As a member of the Social Security Task Force, I am objectively 
analyzing the pros and cons of privatizing social security. Any 
conclusion on this issue must be made after Congress and the nation has 
had the opportunity to examine all options as to what is clearly 
demonstrated to be in the best interest of the American people. The 
actions we take today on Social Security will affect our parents and 
the lives of our children. The actions we take today will affect the 
course of America in the coming decades. It is my charge, as a member 
of the Task Force, to make the tough decisions and recommendations to 
preserve this vital program. I only hope the American people see this 
bill for what it is, and recognize that this is an election year 
attempt to appear to address this critical issue.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a 
national dialogue on Social Security. I was honored that the Concord 
Coalition and the American Association of Retired Persons chose to host 
the first town hall meeting on Social Security reform in my district, 
the Fifth Congressional District of Missouri. The President's 
participation in this bipartisan forum and numerous others around the 
nation, ensures that a thoughtful and inclusive national dialogue will 
enable all Americans to express their views as to the future of Social 
Security well into the 21st century.
  The President is encouraging Congress to reserve the anticipated 
budget surplus for bolstering Social Security and reducing the national 
debt. Congress must take steps to implement the President's call for 
action. I urge my colleagues to resist any delays in action which would 
result in the anticipated surplus being dedicated to other programs. We 
must preserve the integrity of Social Security to afford all citizens 
of this country that this successful safety net will be there for them 
when they retire, as it has been since President Roosevelt initiated it 
in 1935.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton recently initiated a 
national dialogue on the future of Social Security, which will enable 
Americans of all ages to participate in any decisions that are made 
about Social Security's future. By introducing H.R. 3546, the National 
Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998, the Republican leadership has 
shown that they, too, believe it is critical to have a thoughtful 
discussion about Social Security before taking action.
  Fortunately, we have time to have that discussion. Yesterday, Social 
Security's trustees reported that the trust fund will be fully solvent 
until 2032 under current policies. This does not mean we should ignore 
Social Security's long-term problems. But it does mean we can take time 
for a thorough and thoughtful discussion of all the issues involved.
  We do not yet know what the short-term cost of fixing Social Security 
will be. That is why it is critical that we save all of the budget 
surplus until we know what the Social Security program needs and how 
much it will cost.
  Some people would like to spend the surplus now. Their suggestions 
range from tax cuts to new government programs to small individual 
retirement accounts. But it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend 
the surplus. By saving it, we guarantee that the money will be there if 
we need it for Social Security and we reduce the public debt, fueling 
economic expansion and a higher standard of living for future workers 
and retirees.
  Social Security is one of the most successful programs ever--without 
it, over half of the elderly would be extremely poor. Thirty-eight 
million elderly people depend on Social Security to pay for the most 
basic necessities of life. We owe it to them and to the next generation 
of retirees to save all of the surplus for Social Security while we 
have a careful and thoughtful discussion about how to protect the 
program over the long term.
  I strongly support the amendment to H.R. 3546 which Representatives 
Rangel and Kennelly offered in the Ways and Means Committee. It would 
have guaranteed that the surplus was saved for Social Security. By 
contrast, the much weaker amendment that was adopted would allow the 
surplus to be spent before we have discussed all the options for Social 
Security. I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, 
which would amend the bill to prevent the surplus from being spent for 
any purpose until we decide how to solve Social Security's long-term 
problems.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, we face--all of us--a daunting challenge. 
To solve it, we must begin our work now and put partisan differences 
aside.
  As we proceed, we must do two things: First and foremost, we must 
honor our commitment to today's seniors and those who will retire soon. 
The green checks the Social Security Administration mails each month to 
one in six Americans are the backbone of retirement income for the 
nation. Secondly, we must also protect younger Americans so that Social 
Security works for them as well.
  Today is a good time to reaffirm that Social Security was originally 
intended to supplement retirement. It is just one leg of what is 
referred to as a 3-legged stool with the other two legs being private 
pensions and personal savings. On the latter point, Congress continues 
to look for ways to encourage personal savings so that thriftiness 
is rewarded not punished.

  This discussion today is about the extent to which future retirement 
should be a public responsibility and how much it would be a private 
one. If we delay reform, we shorten the time needed by the American 
people to accumulate savings and adjust their plans for retirement. 
Long-term changes must be made while the ``baby boomer'' generation is 
still in the work force and has time to make adjustments.
  While the solvency of Social Security is a slow-motion crisis, to 
America's workers in their 20's and 30's, there is an immediate 
crisis--a crisis of confidence. Instead of taking advantage of the 
tried and true power of compound interest, taxpayers are faced to put 
retirement savings in a Washington program that earns much less than a 
traditional savings account.
  We are standing on the threshold of a great new opportunity: the 
first federal surplus in a generation. Ladies and Gentlemen, the 
American people have never retreated from a crisis and we must not do 
so on this issue.
  Former President Gerald Ford, in a speech a year ago, pointed out 
that the Founders of our country designed a government in which it is 
easier to do nothing than to do a great deal all at once. But they also 
counted on the will and wisdom of Americans to conceive and implement 
reforms where necessary. Our conscience demands what our children 
deserve. God willing we will disappoint neither.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3546, the 
National Dialogue on Social Security Act. This legislation could not be 
more timely with the announcement yesterday that in the year 2032, the 
Social Security Fund will be exhausted. We must take action to address 
the long-term needs of the Social Security system and it must be done 
so that Americans are confident they will have a reliable source of 
income during their retirement years.
  The intent of this bill is to create a bipartisan, eight-member panel 
which will report its recommendations on long-term changes to Congress 
by February 1, 1999. The other important component of H.R. 3546 is to 
initiate and coordinate a truly inclusive national dialogue which will 
also issue a report. The national dialogue will allow representatives 
of all Americans, from the children of the Great Depression to the 
children of the third millenium, to participate in a process affecting 
their future. It is my strong belief that proposals to incorporate the 
private sector and promoting options can be developed that will, at the 
same time, ensure that the current beneficiaries continue to receive 
the benefits they have been promised. In any event, I look forward to 
receiving the panel's recommendations at the appropriate time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to 
create an expert panel to study Social Security reform. I agree that we 
need to accelerate a national dialogue about how the Social Security 
system should prepare for the challenges it will face when the baby 
boom generation begins to retire, and that a bipartisan panel to design 
long-range Social Security reform would serve a necessary role in 
evaluating potential reforms.
  The time is now for Social Security reform. We are on the verge of 
balancing the federal budget for the first time since 1969 and I 
believe that it would be a clear abdication of our responsibilities if 
we do not seize this historic moment to implement a lasting reform of 
Social Security.
  The best way to save Social Security is to take politics out of the 
equation.
  As you know, I have been working on Social Security reform since the 
1980's. In this Congress, I have introduced H.R. 2929, the most recent 
version of my Individual Social Security Retirement Account (ISSRA) Act 
legislation. This bill, developed with noted economist Peter Ferrara, 
would create a new retirement option for all Americans and fully 
address the

[[Page H2506]]

impending shortcomings of our Social Security system. Rather than using 
my time here today to advocate any specific legislation, I would like 
to illustrate my beliefs about how our existing Social Security system 
should be reformed, and highlight some issues that the proposed expert 
panel will have to address.
  My legislation adheres to three fundamental principles that must be 
present in any reform to our existing Social Security system. First, 
existing benefits must be guaranteed without reductions for all current 
retirees. Second, workers must have the option of staying in existing 
Social Security, or choose to start an individual account. Finally, we 
simply cannot levy new taxes to further extend the Ponzi scheme that is 
our current Social Security system. In contrast, we must consider an 
eventual tax cut for individual account participants.
  The individual accounts created by my ISSTA legislation are not only 
fiscally sound, but also necessary to any reform that will ensure the 
survival of our national retirement system. For example, under my plan 
the Social Security taxes (currently 6.2% of wages paid by both worker 
and employer, or a total of 12.4%) of those workers who choose to 
create an ISSRA would be redistributed. Workers and employers would 
each contribute 5% of wages to an ISSRA (10% total), and workers could 
make additional contributions of up to 20% of gross income. The 
remaining 2.4% of the payroll tax would continue to help fund the 
ongoing obligations of Social Security but could be eliminated 10 years 
into the transitional period, thus providing a 20% tax cut. Current 
workers who opt out of traditional Social Security would also receive 
``recognition bonds'' from the government that would pay a portion of 
their retirement benefit based on the proportion of taxes they had 
already paid into the current system.
  These individually owned and managed accounts should be governed by 
the same rules currently utilized for IRA accounts, with the exception 
of the right to withdrawal. All workers choosing to form an individual 
account could choose from among approved private investment managers. 
This safeguard would make the system easy to use, and protect 
unsophisticated investors from potential fraud and abuse.
  Like the current system, employee contributions to ISSRA accounts 
would not be tax deductible, while employer contributions would remain 
deductible. Investment returns over the years would be tax free until 
withdrawal, in a manner identical to today's IRAs. During retirement, 
only half of the benefits would be included in taxable income.
  Benefits at retirement would be based on what the individual's ISSRA 
account could support. The worker could choose to purchase an annuity 
or make periodic withdrawals in such a manner that the account would 
not become exhausted within the beneficiary's lifetime. Retirement age 
for individuals choosing to utilize an ISSRA would be variable after 
age 59 and one-half, based on funds available in their account.
  As a safeguard, a minimum benefit would be guaranteed for all 
individuals assuring that no worker would fall below the minimum 
necessary for a dignified retirement. This benefit would supplement an 
individual's shortfall in private benefits and would be financed from 
general revenues and the eventual surplus in the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  Under my ISSRA plan, and similar reform plans utilizing individual 
accounts, benefits for retirees would grow enormously. Of particular 
importance to me is the plight of the working poor, who would receive 
increased benefits under my plan as opposed to their level of benefits 
under Social Security. Indeed, the working poor would experience the 
largest gains in retirement benefits under my plan. For example, an 
individual working for a minimum wage would receive more than three 
times the benefits promised by our current system. In addition, these 
financially vulnerable individuals would also have substantial funds to 
leave their heirs thereby breaking the cycle of poverty.
  Up until now, the costs associated with the implementation of a 
Social Security reform like my ISSRA plan were thought to be too severe 
to be addressed through reasonable measures. However, projections of 
the fiscal impact of this plan have demonstrated that the transition 
costs can be financed without new taxes or any benefit cuts for current 
retirees. According to a recently published analysis by Peter Ferrara, 
transition deficits under my ISSRA plan would disappear within only 14 
years.
  Indeed, in any reform plan using individual accounts, transition 
costs can be accommodated through a number of reform measures designed 
to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund. The first would be the 
displacement of Social Security benefits as workers choose the private 
system. Although starting slowly, these savings will grow substantially 
over time. Immediate savings would be realized by transferring 
responsibility for the disability and pre-retirement benefits of all 
individuals who opt out to private disability and life insurance 
carriers. Rather than using Social Security funds, these benefits would 
be accommodated by the private marketplace through Treasury Department 
approved ISSRA fund managers.

  Further savings would result from the waiver of past tax payments. 
Recognition bonds will be waived for individuals under the age of 30 
who choose to utilize the new ISSRAs, and the Social Security Trust 
Fund will not be expended for their retirement benefits.
  Several sources of revenue would also be available to finance the 
transition. The continuing payroll tax of 2.4% for workers opting out 
of traditional Social Security would be credited to the Trust Fund for 
a period of ten years. This revenue, when combined with revenues 
resulting from the sale of a new issue of ``Social Security Trust Fund 
Bonds'' would finance the majority of transition costs.
  The net effect of these measures would be a Social Security Trust 
Fund with net revenues in 14 and a large positive balance after 22 
years. Eventually these surpluses would grow large enough to cover 
losses in revenue from a 20% payroll tax cut and reduce the national 
debt.
  Not directly accounted for in my plan, but substantially aiding the 
federal government in meeting transition costs would be the generation 
of substantial new revenues as a result of new savings and investment 
in a reformed Social Security system. The net increased savings 
resulting from the implementation of my ISSRA plan or another plan 
utilizing individual accounts would also lead to significant economic 
growth, and increases in productivity, wages and jobs.
  Clearly, support is growing among the American people for Social 
Security reform. A recent CATO Institute poll indicated that 69 percent 
of respondents favor reforms that would allow them to invest privately 
the amount they pay into Social Security; 74 percent support a plan 
that gives people a choice of staying in traditional Social Security or 
moving to a new system; and 77 percent want a system that allows 
individuals to control investment of their retirement funds. My ISSRA 
plan includes all of these desirable features, as should any serious 
Social Security reform proposal. Clearly reform involving optional 
individual accounts is a comprehensive way to protect the benefits of 
current retirees, preserve the integrity of the system for future 
generations, and help sustain the long-term health of our economy.
  Our efforts must result in a return to integrity and solvency in a 
reformed Social Security system that gives every American worker 
control over his or her retirement destiny.
  In closing, I commend Chairman Archer for his efforts in moving 
forward with a national debate about the future of Social Security, and 
I fully support this critical legislation.
  As America ages, we must work together to create new solutions that 
go beyond Washington's typical quick fixes--and without raising taxes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan effort to 
further a national dialogue on Social Security.
  Social Security is the towering achievement of our democracy in the 
twentieth century. It has bestowed on millions of Americans a measure 
of financial security and freedom from fear of spending their 
retirement in impoverishment.
  It has taken us decades to build a program that has worked so well to 
keep retirees out of poverty.
  That has been so successful in supplying survival income for widows 
and their children when their loved one dies unexpectedly. And that has 
given so many disabled people income when they were unable to work.
  It would be a national disgrace if we damage a program that has done 
so much good for so many people. We shouldn't take any steps that would 
drastically change the nature of Social Security. And we should make no 
changes without engaging in an intense dialogue with the American 
people who overwhelmingly support and fund it.
  We are hearing a lot about Social Security from people who want to 
divert the stream of Social Security payments from the trust fund into 
equity markets. Who want to change the whole nature of the Social 
Security system, from one where there is a sacred bond between 
Americans and their government, to one where there this bond is 
eliminated.
  Many advocates of radical reform want to change Social Security from 
a safe and secure source of income into a bet on the performance of the 
stock market.
  They want to transform the system from one where Social Security 
payments are guaranteed, to one where the level of payments will 
fluctuate based on the volatility of the market.
  In their rush to revolutionize, they have forgotten one thing. For 
most beneficiaries, their Social Security check is not money to put 
aside, or a source of extra income. For many Americans, their Social 
Security check is all that stands between them and poverty--it is their 
only source of income.
  To accomplish the drastic changes which they ultimately want, 
proponents of radical reform are trying to create a panic among all

[[Page H2507]]

Americans who have a stake in Social Security. From their comments over 
the last several months, you would be convinced that the entire system 
was in risk of imminent collapse. That the best bet would be for 
Americans to take their money and head for the hills, or at least for 
Wall Street.
  This is irresponsible and just plain wrong. As yesterday's trustee's 
report made clear, there is absolutely no risk of imminent or long-term 
collapse of the system.
  We should be open to all reforms that work to protect the health of 
Social Security into the second half of the next century, but the basic 
structure of Social Security must endure.The system must continue to 
serve retirees, survivors, and people with disabilities. Benefit levels 
must remain adequate to allow beneficiaries to live a life of dignity. 
And the payments must be guaranteed to all participants in the system.
  The President has told the American people that all budget surpluses 
should be dedicated to the Social Security trust fund until long-term 
reform is accomplished.
  If we are serious about protecting Social Security for the next 
century, for all present and future beneficiaries, it is critical that 
we earmark these funds. This is the best use of this unexpected bonus, 
not for short-term election-year fixes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit that will 
reiterate the intention of the Congress to dedicate budget surpluses to 
Social Security. This is the best way to begin our dialogue with the 
American people--kicking off the process with a real sign of our 
commitment to the system.
  I know when I go door to door in St. Louis, there is no groundswell 
or razing the system or privatizing the process. Seniors and younger 
workers are all concerned about the ability of the system to pay out in 
the future. But no one I have talked to wants to dispose of the system 
which so many have relied on for so long.
  I agree with Bob Dole's recent remarks--that ``this is an issue which 
is easy to demagogue, but where we have an obligation to tread 
carefully.'' We need to move forward without destroying the system 
which has taken so long to achieve.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, most Americans living today were born well 
after the Great Depression. They are not marked by the fear of economic 
loss because--as a society--they have not experienced it.
  It may well be that those who have not lived through the Depression 
do not appreciate the need for a social safety net. Today's adults 
almost assume that a good economy will last forever.
  In such a climate, more people may be less appreciative of safety 
nets, like Social Security, and more convinced that self-reliance will 
suffice.
  But economic self-reliance is only workable for those who are 
reasonably well off and who understand the value of savings. Nobel 
prize winning economist Modigliani, my economics professor at 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, taught me this lesson: people 
save only when they have money to save and perceive the need to save. 
With our national savings rate at an all time low of 3.8% of disposable 
income. I cannot help but conclude that Americans today do not perceive 
the need to save for the future.
  Self-reliance also assumes a certain level of sophistication to 
ensure that invested savings will grow. That requires knowledge about 
how to balance investment opportunities and risks. Americans have a 
ways to go in this regard as well.
  Social Security was never intended to meet all the requirement needs 
of Americans. The three-legged stool of secure retirement also requires 
worker pensions and private savings.
  We have a voluntary, employment-based pension system. Sadly, only 
about half of all Americans have an employer-based pension; small 
businesses tend not to cover workers at all.
  The erosion of pension security in the United States has been 
dramatic. Thirty years ago, most large employers structured pensions to 
look like our Social Security system with an employer and employee 
contribution and a guaranteed benefit payment related to the workers 
wages.
  More and more today, Americans have voluntary savings plans with a 
percentage of salary saved with each paycheck. These savings plans 
allow us to see how much workers are saving in voluntary, tax-
subsidized plans, how sophisticated they are about their retirement 
investments, and whether workers actually use their retirement savings 
for other purposes.
  Early results are troubling. Workers often withdraw their persion 
funds when they leave a job and do not redeposit their pension into 
another savings plan. And some withdraw their pension funds even though 
they do not change their place of work.
  1996 data on pension withdrawals show 60% of the distributions (in 
terms of the number of withdrawals, not dollars) from pension plans 
were not redeposited into another retirement savings plan. 79% of all 
the dollars distributed from pensions were redeposited in a pension 
savings plan.
  Overall, affluent people with large pensions tended to redeposit 
their pension funds; lower-income people with smaller pensions often 
withdrew pension funds for consumption.
  Put another way, 95% of the distributions over $100,000 were 
redeposited into a new pension savings plan.
  Only 20% of the distributions under $2,500 were redeposited into a 
new pension savings plan.
  In addition to size of the pension, age and sex are factors in 
whether pensions will be reserved for retirement needs: young workers 
and women tend to withdraw all their pension funds more often than 
other workers.
  A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report studies the 
implications for women in particular, should the United States move 
toward a privatized retirement system. The report points out that 
women's Social Security benefits are lower than men's benefits, due to 
their lower earning levels.
  Proponents of privatization argue that individuals might take on more 
risk in the management of individual accounts to achieve a higher rate 
of return. But privatization could exacerbate the gender differences 
now found in retirement income for men and women.
  Men's pensions funds, on average, are twice the size of women's 
pension funds.
  Women make more conservative investments than men when they direct 
their retirement savings investments themselves, according to GAO and 
other economic studies.
  The GAO found that women ages 51 to 61 had a lower percentage of 
their total assets in stocks, mutual funds, and investment trusts than 
men did. These assets are riskier, but have higher yields than others, 
such as certificates of deposits, savings accounts, or government 
bonds. With very conservative investments, the investment return may 
not be adequate to see many women through their retirement years.
  Before we enter down the path of privatization, we should be mindful 
the current savings rates and practices of Americans. We should not 
assume that voluntary private savings will ever replace the benefits of 
Social Security.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder 
of our time.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
call for the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 410, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  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.


               Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Pomeroy

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Is the gentleman opposed to 
the bill?
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose the bill in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Pomeroy moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3546 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

                 TITLE III--SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST

     SEC. 301. SAVING THE UNIFIED BUDGET SURPLUS UNTIL 
                   COMPREHENSIVE ACTION HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN TO 
                   SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY.

       The unified budget surplus should be reserved until--
       (1) the Congress has undertaken comprehensive action to 
     save social security for current and future generations, and
       (2) the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social 
     Security Reform has reported its recommendations.

     SEC. 302. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this title shall be effective through 
     March 31, 1999.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
his motion.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Kennelly), who has been such a strong and constant leader on 
Social Security.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion to 
recommit because it says in no uncertain terms we intend to save Social 
Security first. By that I mean we intend to save the budget surplus for 
protecting Social Security's long-term solvency.

[[Page H2508]]

  The bill before us has a statement that begins in that direction but 
leaves some room for doubt. This motion makes clear that we should act 
to maintain Social Security solvency before we establish any new 
programs, including private retirement accounts.
  I should not have to remind my colleagues that two-thirds of retired 
Americans count on Social Security for more than one-half their income. 
This is a system that has worked. It will continue to work if we 
dedicate ourselves to that purpose. Again, let us keep the old promises 
before we make any new ones.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this commission by its very design is about 
analysis and discussion now, leading to legislative action later, 
hopefully in 1999. Now, the motion to recommit will put present meaning 
to a bill that is otherwise merely about future action. Let us agree, 
and let us agree across this partisan aisle that today we make the 
commitment jointly that the surplus will be preserved for Social 
Security.
  What a wonderful opportunity this surplus presents to us to show the 
country how seriously we hold Social Security and our resolve to do 
something meaningful for the long-term security of this vital program. 
Protect the surplus. Dedicate the surplus. Hold the surplus for Social 
Security.
  Let us face it, the great majority of us in this body have never seen 
a surplus. The first one we have had since 1969 and, oh, the things we 
would love to do with it, the investments we would like to make in 
highways and other things, the tax cuts, the many ways we could devote 
this surplus. Some would even like to begin to move to individual 
accounts on Social Security this year with the surplus. But let us 
forestall those plans.
  In direct accord with the bill introduced by Chairman Bunning and 
cosponsored by seven Republican Members, this motion to recommit takes 
the Archer bill and makes only one change to it, an addition; that 
addition, committing this Congress to holding the surplus for the 
future of Social Security.
  I do not think there is a more important step we can take, in 
addition to what the bill of the gentleman from Texas represents, than 
to add to that bill what this motion would achieve, and that is the 
commitment right here, right now that the surplus will be held for 
Social Security.
  It was only 3 months ago when the President challenged us from that 
pulpit, save Social Security first. This is our first opportunity in 
this forum to cast a vote on that commitment, save Social Security 
first.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of 
commitment and accord between this body and the American people. We 
will address Social Security. We will address Social Security in a 
bipartisan and responsible way to preserve it through the 21st Century. 
But let us begin today by committing that surplus to this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to 
the motion?
  Mr. BUNNING. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
North Dakota if he has looked at H.R. 3351. It was a bill that I put in 
in March. It is a bill that does exactly what the gentleman's motion to 
recommit does, only it does it separately from this commission bill. It 
walls off any surplus that we get in the year 1998 and says that none 
of this money can be recycled out in debt, and all of it is dedicated 
to when we have a settlement in the Social Security system.
  We debated this issue at length in the Committee on Ways and Means. 
We worked very hard to get a consensus on language that is in the bill 
in section 206 of the report language. And it says a Sense of The 
Congress: It is the sense of Congress that, pending the report of the 
panel under subsection (a), which is the panel the gentleman spoke 
about, the Federal unified budget surplus should be dedicated to 
reducing the Federal debt by the public, which is what my bill would 
do, increasing the retirement income security of individuals and 
ensuring the solvency of the Social Security system.
  It is my contention that the gentleman's motion is unnecessary and 
duplicates language already in the bill. We think that it is totally 
appropriate that the agreement that was reached in the Committee on 
Ways and Means and is in the language of the bill should be voted on 
without consideration of the gentleman's motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) 
for a question.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to tell the gentleman that I have been relieved to have a leader of his 
stature and with his jurisdiction on Social Security advocating 
capturing the surplus for Social Security and exclusively for Social 
Security as he has done and does in his legislation.
  I therefore believe that we might be in accord on this motion to 
recommit, which essentially takes the gentleman's legislation and would 
enact it today. If I had a bill and the gentleman had a motion to 
recommit that essentially passed my bill today, I would probably think 
that was a good thing.
  Mr. BUNNING. We already debated this in the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and the bill that we passed out has consensus language that has 
three issues involved. One is to reduce the debt held by the public, 
which my bill would definitely touch upon. The other is increasing the 
retirement income of individuals, which is what we want to do with the 
salvage of Social Security. The other was to ensure the solvency of the 
Social Security system, which is exactly why we have formed the 
commission.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. BUNNING. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, those provisions do not begin to have the 
clarity the motion to recommit offers. While the gentleman does talk 
about some consensus effort within the committee, in fact there was a 
protracted debate in the committee and a voice vote where there was a 
clear divide against including language that spelled out surplus----
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time and be able 
to close at least.
  I sincerely believe that this is a totally unnecessary and 
duplicative motion to recommit. I urge defeat of the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMEROY. 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 223, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               YEAS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)

[[Page H2509]]


     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barr
     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     DeLauro
     Dixon
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Meek (FL)
     Sandlin
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Wise

                              {time}  1835

  Mr. BOEHNER and Mr. HOEKSTRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 413, 
nays 8, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               YEAS--413

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H2510]]



                                NAYS--8

     Conyers
     Frank (MA)
     Kucinich
     Martinez
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Sanders

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barr
     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Dixon
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Meek (FL)
     Sandlin
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Wise

                              {time}  1848

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________