[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8732-H8756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 552, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4578) to amend the Social Security Act to establish the 
Protect Social Security Account into which the Secretary of the 
Treasury shall deposit budget surpluses until a reform measure is 
enacted to ensure the long-term solvency of the OASDI trust funds, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Pursuant to House Resolution 
552, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4578 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4578

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESERVE ACCOUNT.

       Section 201 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n)(1) There is established within the Treasury a special 
     reserve account to be known as the `Protect Social Security 
     Account' (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the 
     `account'). The account shall be used to save budget 
     surpluses until a reform measure is enacted to ensure the 
     long-term solvency of the OASDI trust funds.
       ``(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay into the 
     account annually during the fiscal-year period beginning on 
     October 1, 1997, and ending on September 30, 2008, amounts 
     totalling, in the aggregate, 90 percent of the projected 
     surplus (if any) in the total budget of the United States 
     Government for that fiscal-year period.
       ``(3) Within 10 days after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
     shall project the budget surplus (if any) for the total 
     budget of the United States Government for the fiscal-year 
     period beginning on October 1, 1997, and ending on September 
     30, 2008.
       ``(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the funds 
     held in the account pending enactment of the reform measure 
     referred to in paragraph (1). The purposes for which 
     obligations of the United States may be issued under chapter 
     31 of title 31, United States Code, are hereby extended to 
     authorize, in the manner provided in subsection (d), the 
     issuance at par of public-debt obligations for purchase for 
     the account. The interest on, and the proceeds from 
     redemption of, any obligations held in the account shall be 
     credited to and form a part of the account.
       ``(5) As used in this subsection, the term `total budget of 
     the United States Government' means all spending and receipt 
     accounts of the United States Government that are designated 
     as on-budget or off-budget accounts.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to fiscal years 
     beginning on or after October 1, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is 
adopted.
  The text of H.R. 4578, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 552, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 4578

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESERVE ACCOUNT.

       Section 201 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n)(1) There is established within the Treasury a special 
     reserve account to be known as the `Protect Social Security 
     Account' (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the 
     `account'). The account shall be used to save budget 
     surpluses until a reform measure is enacted to ensure the 
     long-term solvency of the OASDI trust funds.
       ``(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay into the 
     account annually at the end of each fiscal year during the 
     fiscal-year period beginning on October 1, 1997, and ending 
     on September 30, 2008, amounts totalling, in the aggregate, 
     90 percent of the projected surplus, if any, in the total 
     budget of the United States Government for that fiscal-year 
     period.
       ``(3) For purposes of determining budget surpluses under 
     paragraph (2), within 10 days after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, shall project the budget surplus, if any, for the 
     total budget of the United States Government for the fiscal-
     year period beginning on October 1, 1997, and ending on 
     September 30, 2008.

[[Page H8733]]

       ``(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the funds 
     held in the account pending enactment of the reform measure 
     referred to in paragraph (1). The purposes for which 
     obligations of the United States may be issued under chapter 
     31 of title 31, United States Code, are hereby extended to 
     authorize, in the manner provided in subsection (d), the 
     issuance at par of public-debt obligations for purchase for 
     the account. The interest on, and the proceeds from 
     redemption of, any obligations held in the account shall be 
     credited to and form a part of the account.
       ``(5) As used in this subsection, the term `total budget of 
     the United States Government' means all spending and receipt 
     accounts of the United States Government that are designated 
     as on-budget or off-budget accounts.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

         The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to fiscal 
     years beginning on or after October 1, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After one hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in the Congressional Record numbered 1, which shall be considered read 
and debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4578.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we consider a plan to set aside 90 percent of the 
surplus until we can save Social Security and use the remaining 10 
percent to cut taxes now.
  The plan we vote on establishes a special reserve account within the 
Treasury called the Protect Social Security Account. This account will 
save budget surpluses until a reform measure can be considered to 
ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security.
  Ninety percent set aside, Mr. Speaker. Ninety percent of the surplus. 
The American people expect us to save Social Security, and they need 
tax relief. This plan gets the job done on both accounts.
  We are committed to saving Social Security. We are also committed to 
letting people keep a part of the taxes that they have generated for 
this government by their work.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I hear there is opposition to this plan from my 
friends on the other side of the aisle. Why would anyone oppose setting 
aside 90 percent of the surplus until Social Security can be saved? It 
is because they do not want to save the surplus. They want to spend the 
surplus. The Democrats do not want to use the surplus for Social 
Security. They want to use it to increase spending, expand the size of 
government, and grow bureaucracy. Under the Democrats' proposal, the 
very people who need help will be hurt. The Democrats are proposing to 
punish husbands and wives, farmers and ranchers, senior citizens and 
small businesses by denying them tax relief now. Why? So they can spend 
the taxpayers' money.
  Earlier this year, President Clinton spent $2.9 billion of the 
surplus to help the people of Bosnia. Already this fall he is proposing 
to spend another $13 billion of the surplus on more government. Not to 
pay for it, not to offset it, but to simply increase government 
spending. When will this end? If we do not return a portion of the 
surplus to the people whose income taxes created this surplus, the 
politicians will spend it. They always have, and they always will. Make 
no mistake about it, we have a surplus only because of the increase in 
income taxes, not payroll taxes. We have a surplus instead of a deficit 
only because of the increase in income taxes, not an increase in 
payroll taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the best way to stop the politicians from spending the 
taxpayers' money is to take it away from them before they can waste it. 
We now have a chance to set aside enough money to save Social Security 
and to cut taxes. They are both important goals. They are both within 
our reach.
  Now is not the time for anyone to say ``no'' to families who pay 
marriage penalties, farmers and ranchers who are suffering, and small 
business owners who create jobs. Now is not the time to say ``no'' to 
senior citizens whose Social Security checks are reduced because of an 
unfair earnings limit when they decide voluntarily they want to 
continue to work.

                              {time}  1115

  Now is the time to say yes to saving Social Security and cutting 
taxes, and our 90-10 plan does both. We can save Social Security and 
cut taxes. The job begins today with this vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong, but I thought I heard some 
sense of partisanship in the gentleman from Texas' presentation on this 
bill, and I am going to try to restrain myself and try to remind my 
Republican friends that things that they are talking about today are 
Democratic concepts. These are concepts that we Democrats have and 
continue to support. The only difference that separates us today is 
that we believe that until we have the fiscal discipline to abide by 
our budget rules that we should have the money to pay for these tax 
cuts before we cut the taxes.
  Now I had thought, and probably my colleagues have had a caucus and 
changed their mind, but the last I heard from my Republican leadership 
friends was that they were running around the country pulling up the 
Tax Code by the core. They were pulling it up by the roots. They were 
saying that the system was too complicated. And they had the majority, 
and they had the opportunity to fix it, and they came back with a $300 
billion bill, which we supported, that was far more complicated than 
any code the Democrats left them.
  So let us forget all this talk about flat tax, consumer tax and 
retail tax. They should say that they would like to be realistic and 
deal with taxes that most of the people want. But they also have to let 
the senior citizens know that they have decided that the moneys that 
Americans have paid to make Social Security solvent, that they are only 
entitled to 90 percent of it because they have decided to take 10 
percent of the money that provides the surplus that was basically there 
for survivors and widows and disabilities and Social Security to give a 
pre-election tax cut.
  Now some people talk about Democrats and the leader of the free 
world, President Clinton, going into the surplus for emergencies. So 
what would they have it? That the farmers not get any assistance? Shall 
we tell our citizens in Puerto Rico that we are not going to help them? 
Are we going to say to our military, our boys and our girls in the 
military that are in Bosnia, that they are not going to be helped 
because we do not touch the surplus?
  We are talking about a one-shot emergency as opposed to a permanent 
tax cut, as long as they are in the majority that is. And so let us 
wait and do what the President has asked and that is to say we support 
tax cuts, Republicans support the suggestions that the Democrats have. 
The only difference between the two is we say save Social Security 
first.
  Now what is so remarkable about us coming back and in a bipartisan 
way going to the Social Security Trust Fund and making certain that 
actuarially it is going to be solvent, and then under the democratic 
rule it triggers, without us going into conference and without us going 
into debate, it triggers off the tax cuts, but what it does not do is 
violate the rules of fiscal responsibility.
  So I do not know when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) talks 
about do not let the politicians touch it. My God, the politicians have 
to be those who have the majority. They are the ones that have their 
fingers in the cookie jar that the taxpayers put in the cookies for the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  So I do not know how many votes they have. I do not even understand 
the politics of their tax bill. All I know is this: that politically I 
do not see why their leadership would have them to vote for a bill that 
raids the Social Security system, that the Senate may

[[Page H8734]]

not even take up, that the President is going to veto and that they 
know in the bottom of their hearts they do not have the votes to 
override the veto. So if they want to go back home and be counted among 
those who cared more about a political advantage in November than 
preserving the funds for our seniors, they can do it, but it almost 
frightens me that we are about to lose the rule, because I truly 
believe, if we are going to show the difference between us and them, 
this is going to be the issue.
  So I do not know how many votes they have for fast track, I do not 
know how many votes that they are going to have for Social Security, 
but I do believe that if we are going to save Social Security, do not 
put it in an accounting system and say we are not going to touch it, 
that we really take it out of the system, off budget, put it in the 
Federal Reserve, and then we would know not 90 percent but a hundred 
percent of the taxes are going to be used for what the taxpayers think 
it should be used for.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security, who is a sponsor of the base bill on which we are voting 
today. It is interesting to also note that the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) is a cosponsor of that bill.
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, just to respond in a small way to the 
gentleman from New York, the gentleman from New York voted just last 
week on the floor of the House of Representatives to spend part of the 
surplus on agricultural disaster relief. If it is okay for him to spend 
part of the surplus, why is he proposing to punish farmers and ranchers 
and others by denying them relief now?
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have devoted myself to protecting 
and preserving Social Security. The Committee on Ways and Means' 
Subcommittee on the Social Security, which I chair, has conducted a 
series of hearings, 11 to be exact, on the future of Social Security 
for this generation and the next. Our subcommittee has worked to fully 
explore every option for Social Security reform. The information 
obtained through these hearings will be invaluable to the Congress as 
they proceed to save Social Security. And we will save Social Security 
just like we balanced the budget, reformed welfare, saved Medicare and 
cut taxes.
  The President has also worked to advance the Social Security debate, 
vowing in his State of the Union address to reserve every penny, then 
$680 billion of future budget surpluses, until Social Security has been 
strengthened. Unfortunately, however, somewhere between his State of 
the Union and the drafting of the President's budget proposal this 
commitment to Social Security got lost in the shuffle. The President's 
budget did nothing to redirect budget surpluses to Social Security, 
included no new trust fund investment strategies, no changes in Social 
Security taxes or spending. It proposed nothing new.
  That is why in March of this year I introduced legislation to create 
a new Treasury account, the Protect Social Security Account, into which 
each year's budget surplus would be deposited. My bill, as introduced, 
walled off 100 percent of all budget surpluses so that they could not 
be frittered away on new spending programs. Due to lower inflation, 
increased corporate taxes and increased income tax revenue from hard-
working Americans, the projected surplus we reached is $1.6 trillion. 
That is an additional 1 trillion since the President's State of the 
Union.
  So I say we can do more. We can save Social Security, and we can cut 
taxes for those Americans who need it most: married couples, farmers, 
small businesses and senior citizens. Today, using language virtually 
identical to my original bill, we will pass legislation to wall off 90 
percent of the budget surplus until a solution for Social Security is 
found.

  While less sounds like less, in this case less is more. Ninety 
percent of the surplus today is just about 1.4 trillion, nearly double 
the amount that would have been saved at the time of my original bill. 
Certainly Social Security has no guarantee of any kind right now, no 
guarantee of any kind that it will get any of the surplus without some 
kind of protection like that provided in this bill. The President and 
Congress will spend the surplus on anything they want.
  Even the President has already proposed 31 billion in new government 
spending funded from the very budget surplus he promised to reserve. 
Americans deserve better than more broken promises. This bill, by 
including my wall-off provisions, will guarantee in law that 90 percent 
of the surplus will be held aside to strengthen and protect Social 
Security. It will guarantee that we have the funds needed to implement 
Social Security reform when Congress takes action on it. That is 1.4 
trillion for Social Security.
  The Federal Government has never done anything like this. I wanted a 
hundred percent, but 90 in hand and guaranteed in law is better than a 
whole roomful of wishes that it was 100 percent. This bill locks in 
that protection in law.
  My primary goal in this bill and since I came to Congress is to 
protect and preserve Social Security. The bill with the wall-off 
provisions will do more to protect and strengthen Social Security than 
anything Congress has considered in the 12 years that I have been here.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to assure everybody to vote in a positive manner 
on this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our Democratic Whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
for yielding this time to me.
  For years the Republicans talked about fiscal responsibility. So what 
is happening now? They are rushing to spend a surplus that does not 
exist. This bill is nothing but camouflage to cover that up. It is just 
an accounting trick to permit siphoning off funds from Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  Let us remember something here. Social Security is the foundation of 
America's retirement system. It has worked well for more than half a 
century, and we have to strengthen it for future generations.
  Even as we speak today, 44 million Americans are receiving Social 
Security benefits, our fathers, our mothers, grandparents, our friends, 
our neighbors. Protecting these benefits for today's seniors and 
protecting them for baby boomers and future generations beyond that is 
our responsibility.
  Of course everybody likes tax cuts. We favor tax cuts. We supported 
tax cuts just a year ago, and they became law. But Americans have been 
very clear with the Congress about their priorities. They want us to 
save Social Security first.

                              {time}  1130

  We cannot give a surplus that does not exist. Americans believe that 
people who have worked hard all of their lives have a right to a secure 
retirement. They expect us to guarantee that right. This is why we need 
to address the long-term challenges of Social Security. If we fail to 
come up with a long-term plan, if we squander today's Social Security 
revenue on a short-term election year giveaway, then the retirement for 
millions of Americans will be put in danger.
  Now, the Republicans say they only want to divert just 10 percent of 
the revenue from Social Security. Well, that is like rowing into the 
middle of a lake and then announcing you only want to drill one hole in 
the bottom of the boat; just one hole.
  This bill is a prelude to a raid on the Social Security trust fund, 
and that raid will probably happen tomorrow when we meet here to pass 
the raid itself, the robbery, the stealing of the fund.
  Perhaps my friends on this side of the aisle think that while the 
country is distracted they can pick its pocket and dip into our 
retirement funds. Well, I have news for you: The country understands 
what is happening here. They know it is not right and not fiscally 
responsible, and you are not going to get away with it.
  To my senior friends in Florida, and we have many Michiganders who 
have

[[Page H8735]]

gone down to Florida and live, let me say, you are going to about to 
get hit by Georges, the hurricane, that is going to deliver that left 
hook to you. But tomorrow the Republicans are going to give you the 
uppercut, the knockout punch.
  Vote no on this camouflage.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by respectfully 
pointing out that the gentleman from Michigan voted just last week on 
the floor of the House to spend part of that surplus on agricultural 
disaster relief. If it is okay to spend part of the surplus, why is the 
gentleman proposing to punish farmers and ranchers by denying them tax 
relief now?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Republican plan to 
save Social Security and reduce our Nation's record high tax burden. We 
are also dedicated to fulfilling our commitment to our Nation's seniors 
as our plan sets aside the vast majority, some 90 percent of our entire 
expected surplus until we agree on a plan to save Social Security.
  At the same time, we believe it is entirely appropriate to return at 
least a small portion, some 10 percent of this projected surplus, to 
those who created it in the first place, hard-working American 
taxpayers.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, taxes are now higher 
than they have been at any other time in America's peacetime history. 
So to my friends on the other side of the aisle who say we should not 
use even one penny of our Nation's surplus to provide middle class tax 
relief, I say, yes, we do have crucially important task ahead of us in 
saving Social Security, and our plan sets aside $1.4 trillion to do 
precisely that. But, at the same time, we should, at least at this 
time, not pass up this opportunity to provide 48 million married 
taxpayers relief from the marriage penalty. After all, when a couple 
stands at the alter and says ``I do,'' they are not agreeing to higher 
taxes. And why should we deny Americans new incentives to save? Why 
should we deny farmers and ranchers relief from the death tax? Why 
should we deny the self-employed the opportunity to fully deduct the 
cost of their health insurance? And why should we deny seniors a chance 
to earn a little more outside income without facing the loss of their 
Social Security benefits?
  Today we have the opportunity to do all of this, while at the same 
time setting aside 90 percent of our surplus to save Social Security. I 
would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, do not 
turn your back on husbands and wives; do not turn your backs on farmers 
and ranchers; and do not turn your backs on seniors and small 
businesses in your districts. Support the Republican plan to reduce 
America's record high tax burden and, at the same time, save Social 
Security.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that I am one of the friends on 
this side of the aisle, and we support those tax cuts. We just think we 
ought to save the Social Security system first.
  In terms of the emergency spending for the poor farmers that were hit 
by an act of God with floods and droughts, we thought at one time that 
America wanted to help them. We think that is different than a pre-
election tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my 
colleague from New York for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate reminds me of an old gospel song, ``Ninety-
nine and a Half Won't Do.'' The song tells us that when you believe in 
a cause, when you truly believe, you have to give 100 percent; ninety-
nine and a half won't do.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Social Security, when it comes to our 
workers and the elderly, ninety-nine and a half won't do. And if 
ninety-nine and a half won't do, then 90 percent just won't do.
  My Republican colleagues want a tax cut, but they do not want to pay 
for it. So what do they do? They raid the Social Security trust fund; 
they steal from our workers and our seniors. They take 10 percent, and 
then they brag this they let the elderly keep 90 percent of their own 
money. They brag that they left 90 percent of the money in the Social 
Security trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do.
  How can you do this to the old? How can you do this to our workers, 
hard working American families that have paid into the Social Security 
trust fund for 30 and 40 years? Now Republicans want to give them 90 
cents on the dollar.
  Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do.
  Democrats, my side of the aisle, will accept no compromise when it 
comes to the savings and the retirement of American working families. 
Every penny paid in the Social Security trust fund must be used to save 
Social Security first.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to reject this bill; to reject any 
effort to sell Social Security short; to sell Social Security down the 
river; to give anything less than 100 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
simply to quickly and briefly respond to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Lewis), for whom I have the greatest personal respect.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement that we want to raid the 
Social Security trust fund is totally irresponsible and is totally 
false. In our committee's markup of this bill, there was a political 
appointee of the Clinton Administration from the Social Security 
Administration that was asked this precise question and responded that 
what we were doing did not raid the Social Security trust fund nor in 
any way impact on the payroll dollars that go into that fund.
  That should be very clear. We are going to hear a lot of rhetoric 
today and tomorrow, and Members should realize that much of it is 
false.
  Recently the minority leader from the other body commented that we 
were taking Social Security reserves out of the fund. That also was 
repudiated by the administration's representative from the Social 
Security Administration.
  This type of rhetoric should not enter this debate. I regret it, but 
the facts should be laid out for what they are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Judy Chesser, Deputy Commissioner of the 
Office of Legislation of the Social Security Administration said that 
statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4578 Save Social Security Act.
  H.R. 4578 establishes a new account in the U.S. Treasury to preserve 
Social Security system. This account is being set up for the vote we 
will have tomorrow on the tax relief or the 90-10 plan. What we are 
talking about on this amendment is to set up this fund with the 
understanding that 10% of the surplus will be used for tax reduction 
for the middle income citizens of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider Mr. Rangel's amendment to 
transfer 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund surplus to the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to be held in trust for the Social 
Security system. But under this substitute, Congress must default on 
publicly traded debt obligations before it could default on its 
obligations to fund the Social Security system.
  This is a Faustian bargain and is not what we want to do. I represent 
a District with a large elderly populations.
  While I do like Mr. Rangel's idea about setting aside 100 per cent of 
the surplus for Social Security, I do not think it is prudent to do so 
at the risk of allowing the country to go into default to achieve that 
end.
  There is must good in the tax relief bill. Our tax cut focuses on 
middle-income Americans. The centerpiece is marriage penalty relief. We 
also help small business, make health care more affordable, and we will 
make filing tax forms a lot easier. Plus we will lower tax penalties on 
people who save, reduce death taxes, and provide tax relief for senior 
citizens, for education and child care. We also provide help for 
farmers and ranchers who have been hit hard this year. This is a 
compromise that I can support.
  Our plan protects Social Security and reduces the worst penalties in 
the tax code, but

[[Page H8736]]

it is also a safety check against big government and wasteful spending.
  For those who say we are hurting the Social Security Trust Fund  . . 
. let's go the Administration themselves. When Ms. Judy Chesser, Deputy 
Commissioner, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Social 
Security Administration was asked if these tax cuts would impact the 
Social Security Trust Funds she said ``NO.'' Therefore this tax relief 
plan has no impact on the Trust Funds. Period.
  And finally . . . isn't it possible that if we reduce taxes ever so 
lightly we will also give more incentives for Americans to create more 
jobs and to ultimately provide more revenues to the Government. This 
will mean more surplus to the Government which will again shore up the 
Social Security trust fund.
  All of us here must also remember that we might not have a surplus if 
it does not stop these emergencies supplements appropriations for all 
these monies that the President is talking about. Every day he is 
proposing a new program and every country he goes into he promises more 
money without true accountability. So let's stop these emergency 
appropriations.
  For those Senior Citizens who want tax credit relief for estate taxes 
and a social security earnings limit, I suggest that this bill our plan 
will actually help Senior Citizens.
  There are many other things that make H.R. 4578 a good bill towards 
passage tomorrow of our 90-10 tax relief plan.
  Seniors have done their part to make this country great and deserve 
to be treated with dignity and respect. When the President receives 
this bill, he can sign it thereby ensuring that Social Security will 
remain solvent for generations to come. For these reasons I support 
H.R. 4578.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by commending the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Bunning) for their leadership on this effort, which not only 
will save Social Security, but begin the process of eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty, an issue which affects 28 million married working 
couples.
  We hear a lot of rhetoric and have to recognize it is an election 
year, and politicians in many cases will say just about anything in an 
election year.
  Of course, we have heard some claim that this plan somehow harms the 
Social Security trust fund. I thought it was so important when the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) asked a representative of the 
Clinton Administration, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security 
Administration, Chairman Archer asked as a result of the tax bill being 
considered by the committee, which, of course, we will be voting on 
tomorrow, will there be any impact on the monies of the Social Security 
trust funds? And Judy Chesser, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social 
Security Administration was pretty direct. Sometimes politicians are 
not very direct, but she had a very simple answer. She said no. This 
plan in no way harms, hurts, hinders, impacts the Social Security trust 
fund.
  So let us be honest about it, this is an important piece of 
legislation. We are going about saving Social Security here. This is a 
big day. If you think about it, since 1969 Washington not only was 
spending money beyond the means of this Federal Government, but we 
never had the opportunity to save Social Security. Now, thanks to a 
balanced budget, we have a projected surplus; extra money that we can 
use for important priorities. Today we are voting to make saving Social 
Security first the number one priority.
  If you think about it, the same folks who oppose this effort to save 
Social Security and to eliminate the marriage tax penalty are the same 
people that said we could not balance the budget. They are the same 
people that fought down here and fought against lowering taxes for the 
middle class. They are the same people who opposed our efforts to 
change and reform our welfare system that was failing, with more 
children living in poverty than ever before, and also they are the same 
people that objected when we wanted to tame the tax collector and bring 
about IRS reform.
  This is important legislation because, just as the Deputy 
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pointed out that our 
legislation does not impact the Social Security trust fund, in fact we 
are going to have extra money to help save Social Security, that we set 
aside $1.4 trillion.
  Think about that. When President Clinton gave a speech, which we all 
applauded, talking about saving Social Security and setting aside the 
surplus for Social Security, there was $600 billion in the projected 
surplus at that time. Today we are setting aside more than twice what 
the President asked for, $1.4 trillion. Think about that. $1.4 
trillion. That is a lot of money. Yes, it is 90 percent, but it is more 
than twice what the President originally asked for.
  I have often had a series of town meetings and forums on Social 
Security, and the senior citizens and the working people that attend 
these forums have had a pretty common message. Number one is they say 
as we work to save Social Security, let us keep the politics out of it. 
Let us make it a nonpartisan effort.
  Democrats and Republicans should work together. This legislation 
deserves bipartisan support. Let us vote to save Social Security and 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We have that opportunity today and 
tomorrow.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I had thought under the House rules it was a violation 
to take the official transcript of a markup or committee meeting, other 
than a public hearing, that it should not be published or distributed 
to the public in any way except by majority vote of the committee. But 
having seen how the majority has waived the budget rules, I suppose you 
have waived the House rules, and so I am not in violation.

                              {time}  1145

  Now, Ms. Chesser was asked to respond to the majority, yes or no. Her 
answer was no. That was the chart we saw.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) then asked her to come 
back, and he said, I just want to make sure, unless I misunderstood, 
Ms. Chesser, would you please come back to the table and repeat what 
you have said.
  The answer was, it does not affect the money currently going into the 
trust fund. However, it would make a far smaller amount of the surplus 
available when there is a bipartisan attempt to resolve the social 
security's current financial problems, which we hope to do in a 
bipartisan way. As Members know, we are not in actual balance over the 
next 75 years.
  It helps, when we take part of the transcript out and publish it, 
that we put in the whole amount.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal).
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for 5 seconds?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, on the statement made by the gentleman from 
New York, I am not sure where he got what he presented to the House, 
but we received what we presented to the House off of C-Span. 
Therefore, it was not in violation of the rules.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the details, 
when we come into this Chamber, that makes us really feel good about 
being Democrats.
  I have to tell the Members, when I hear speakers march to that 
microphone and suggest that this side is playing politics with social 
security, after they have scheduled the tax cut 6 weeks before the 
national elections, that we are playing politics? Do Members know what 
the name of this account they have offered today is? The Protect Social 
Security Account. It is Orwellian, that is really what it is, because 
only George Orwell would have suggested that we should protect social 
security by raiding it. That is precisely what they are doing today.
  For them to complain about politics, politics, 6 weeks before a 
national election, to offer a tax cut to the American people by raiding 
the social security account, that is politics. We ought to have a 
substantive debate in this Chamber about what we really mean by 
``protecting social security,'' and spending it for a tax cut is not 
the way we protect social security.
  This bill that they are offering today locks up what they say is 90 
percent of the social security trust fund. What about the Asian fiscal 
crisis? What about a recession that could loom on the horizon, and 
alter dramatically

[[Page H8737]]

every fiscal projection we have seen in this Chamber for the last year? 
Are we blind to the realities of what is happening across the globe?
  This is a time when we should be taking satisfaction from the fact 
that it was the Democratic Party, with the leadership of President 
Clinton in 1993, that balanced that budget. Do Members know what else 
is ironic? Let us not forget the role George Bush played in 1991 when 
half of his own party split from him, when he looked at the reality of 
where we were headed as we turn the page on this century.
  I have to go back to what I said earlier. To complain that the 
Democrats today are using politics, we are honoring the contract we 
made with Mr. Roosevelt, which the American people have said time and 
again they subscribe to and they do not want to see it altered.
  A tax cut 6 weeks before the national election, who among us believes 
that that is intelligent fiscal policy? And at the same time, they 
violate that sacred trust that Democrats hold dear and senior citizens 
hold dear. Social security should be saved and protected before we 
discuss any tax cuts.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would once again point out that the term ``raiding the 
social security trust fund,'' which obviously is programmed to be in 
each of the Democrats' presentations, is completely and totally false, 
and it is reprehensible that it continues to be used on the floor of 
the House.
  Members should be well aware that it is not the case. But I guess if 
they say it enough, long enough, maybe some people may believe it. The 
gentleman, who is a very good friend of mine, again, and whom I respect 
personally, also said that we were locking up 90 percent of the social 
security trust fund. That is false.
  I would suggest that the Members on the other side read the bill. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) cosponsored it, other than the 
change from 100 to 90 percent. The bill does not say that. It says, ``A 
projected surplus will be set aside.'' Let us try to be accurate in 
what we say.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Johnson), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully point out that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke ahead of me voted on the 
floor of the House to spend part of the surplus on agricultural 
disaster. If it is okay to spend the surplus that way, why is the 
gentleman proposing to punish farmers and ranchers by denying them tax 
relief now?
  I want everyone to listen to the Democrats' rhetoric. They are 
forgetting one simple fact, that for 40 years the Democrats never set 
aside one penny to protect social security. Instead, they spent 
taxpayer and social security dollars on government programs. They are 
talking about 40 days from election, and suddenly they are concerned 
about saving social security. In this bill today we are protecting 
social security, and the Democrats are going to have a chance to put 
their money where their mouths are.
  In 1960, the Democrats said that we could not win the Cold War. We 
did. In 1996, the Democrats said we could not reform welfare. We did. 
In 1997, the Democrats said we could not give tax relief and balance 
the budget, and we did. They also said we could not and should not 
reform the IRS. Well, we did that, too.
  Now the Democrats say we cannot provide tax relief to families, 
farmers, small business, seniors, and protect social security. Once 
again, they are wrong. We will.
  This bill does set aside 90 percent of the $1.6 trillion surplus for 
social security. That is a lot of money. In return, we want to give the 
families, farmers, small businesses, seniors a break from high taxes. 
They deserve a break. Taxes are just too high.
  Let me say it one more time. I think people deserve a strong social 
security system and tax relief. What they do not need is for the 
surplus to stay here in Washington, D.C., where Democrats and the 
President will steal it to create a bigger government.
  The choice is simple, taxpayers over bureaucrats. How can anybody 
argue with that?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4578 because it 
breaks our promise to the American people to keep social security 
whole. Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be about politics or 
partisanship but about people, the American people.
  Social security is the foundation of retirement income for American 
workers and their families. Two-thirds of older Americans rely on 
social security for 50 percent of their total income. Thirty percent 
rely on it for 90 percent or more. It is the principal insurance 
against family impoverishment due to death or disability for 96 percent 
of America's work force, and it is a lifeline for more than 43 million 
retirees and disabled workers and their spouses and their children.
  Because of its importance to the American way of life, my Democratic 
colleagues and I join the President in his commitment to preserve 
social security for future generations. This is not a debate about who 
favors tax cuts. Both Democrats and Republicans favor tax cuts in this 
bill. This debate is about whether we have the resolve, the fiscal 
discipline, to do what is right, or whether we will, once again, say 
that we can have it all, let the good times roll, and do the wrong 
thing: rob from our social security trust fund to give a tax cut we 
know we cannot afford.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about preserving the benefits of 
social security for our children and grandchildren, setting aside 90 
percent to save social security is not enough. Even diverting 10 
percent of the social security surplus before enacting a proposal to 
save social security undermines the future financing of the system.
  In fact, this diversion of 10 percent from social security, which our 
Republican friends dismiss as small and rather unimportant, amounts to 
more than a $200 billion hole in the social security trust fund over 
the next 5 years, at a time when we owe $2.235 trillion to the fund 
already.
  As my Democratic colleagues have already stated, the surplus in the 
unified budget consists of funds raised from social security payroll 
taxes and from the interest accrued on social security Treasury bond. 
Today we have a surplus in the social security fund due to the policies 
of President Clinton and most of the Democrats on this side. However, 
as millions of baby boomers age, the social security fund is projected 
to begin losing money in 2013, and would become insolvent a few years 
later unless reforms are enacted.
  The bottom line is that we must begin to take steps to ensure that 
sufficient resources are building up in the social security system, so 
they are building to pay the promised social security benefits in the 
future and that will not be threatened.
  H.R. 4578 therefore amounts to an illusory election year tax plan 
that might be right to pander for votes in an election year, but it is 
dead wrong for the future of social security and the direction of our 
Nation's fiscal policy.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as a member of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security, I have to commend the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, with having a series of 
hearings about saving social security. I participated in the first 
great debate in Kansas City with the President about the discussion 
about social security.
  But I think what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, is rather 
than just talking about saving social security, we are putting actions 
with our words. We are putting the peoples' money where our mouths are.
  There has been a lot of talk about billions and trillions of dollars, 
about the surplus, but let me put it in language that everybody can 
understand.

[[Page H8738]]

 Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand ten $1 bills, a projected surplus. This 
is not money that is needed to balance the Federal checkbook, which we 
are doing. But of these ten $1 bills of surplus money, we want to take 
9 of those bills and put them aside for social security for 
safekeeping. We want to take this single dollar bill of surplus money 
and leave it in the pockets of the people who sent it here.
  How dare these Members say to married couples across this country, we 
want to continue to punish you because you choose to get married, we 
are not going to let you have this dollar? How dare we say to the 
farmers of this country, who feed us, or the small businesspeople who 
employ the majority of people, no, you sent the money here, but you 
cannot have it back?
  It is laughable, Mr. Speaker. Even in this tax relief measure we are 
providing relief for seniors who choose to work beyond retirement. 
There is tax relief for seniors in this bill. Yet, our friend on the 
other side say no.
  In fact, the gentleman from Michigan earlier today in this debate 
said that we were picking the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. 
There is such a death grip on this dollar by those on the other side 
that they will not even let it stay in the pockets of those who sent it 
here.
  I say no. I say it is time to say no to the Rangel substitute and yes 
to the bill. We can save social security, and let the American people 
keep what they earn.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak in strong support of 
the Save Social Security Act.
  Social Security is perhaps the most important and successful program 
in the history of our republic. It has helped generations of Americans 
retire with dignity and respect. There is bipartisan agreement that we 
should take advantage of projected budget surpluses to address the 
long-term financial challenges facing the system. We owe it to retirees 
and future generations to do this, and I commend Representatives 
Bunning, the Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, for the 
series of hearings he has held over the past year and a half to take an 
honest, straightforward look at the choices we must make to save Social 
Security for our children and grandchildren.
  To make sure there are enough resources set aside from future budget 
surpluses, the Save Social Security Act proposes that we wall-off $1.4 
trillion of future budget surpluses in a special Save Social Security 
Account. That's right, $1.4 trillion. Clearly, this is a responsible 
commitment to the future of Social Security that will help preserve the 
program's solvency.
  By setting aside $1.4 trillion to save Social Security, we can not 
only protect the program, but allow the American people to keep more of 
their hard-earned money. Taxes are currently at their highest levels in 
our Nation's peacetime history. The House has a clear choice today. 
Those who think your constituents pay too much in taxes should vote for 
the Save Social Security Act. Those who think that Americans are not 
overtaxed or do not pay enough in taxes should vote against the bill 
before us. It is shameful to scare seniors and hide behind Social 
Security to cloak opposition to letting the American people keep more 
of their hard-earned dollars. It is even more shameful to hide behind 
Social Security to spend more on government programs, like the 
Administration's proposal to spend $13 billion of the surplus on new 
spending.
  I'm going to illustrate what this debate is all about. I am holding 
in my hand ten one dollar bills. What we are proposing is to take these 
nine dollars and put them aside to save Social Security. A truly worthy 
goal.
  Given the willingness of the Administration to spend the surplus on 
government programs, $13 billion at last count, the debate then becomes 
what do we do with this remaining one dollar. I think we should let the 
American people keep it. After all, it is their taxes that have created 
the surplus in the first place. Those who agree with me that this one 
dollar is best returned to the taxpayers will vote for the bill before 
us.
  Or, we can give this money to the Federal Government for new spending 
programs and let Americans continue to pay the highest level of taxes 
in our Nation's peacetime history. Those who favor this approach should 
vote against the Save Social Security Act.
  Putting aside enough money to protect Social Security is not the 
issue. The issue is more government programs or tax relief. The choice 
is clear. If you favor letting the American people keep more of their 
money, vote for the Save Social Security Act. If you want more 
Washington programs, vote against the bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, will pull out those same 10 $1 bills. I, too, 
will tell the Members that if I have $10 because I work for the 
government, and I got them because someone is working every day 
contributing to the social security trust fund for his or her 
retirement, I am not going to tell them, well, I am only taking one of 
your $10 you just gave me for your social security investment in 
retirement, and I am going to use this to give out tax cuts, mostly to 
folks who are better off and do not need to worry about your retirement 
the way you maybe do. So you keep your 9 and I get to spend your one.

                              {time}  1200

  That is what we are talking about. And, by God, please do not tell me 
that they are willing to tell an American farmer that they are going to 
punish them because this Congress, some here, are willing to say that 
we want to help them in time of need because of the drought and because 
of floods and because of all that done through an act of God.
  But my colleagues on the other side are saying to them, no, we cannot 
let this Congress help them out in their time of need. But, by the way, 
we do have money, that $10 that they just gave in their contributions 
out of their paycheck every month, to take one of those $10 and give a 
tax cut 6 weeks before the election. We can do that. Punish the farmers 
for an act of God.
  Do not do that. And please do not punish seniors for the political 
acts of men in this House.
  Now, when those folks out there in the country that are earning this 
money that they are putting into the Social Security trust fund go to 
the supermarket, they do not expect to receive 90 percent of the 
groceries they just paid for. When we buy a home, we do not expect to 
own nine-tenths of that home. When we pay for our child's education, we 
do not expect them to receive 90 percent of a college degree.
  Mr. Speaker, when Americans deposit money in a bank, they certainly 
do not expect that bank to give them only 90 percent back of their 
original deposit, or 90 percent of the interest that their money has 
earned. They expect 100 percent.
  The fact is, the budget surplus is not a surplus, other than Social 
Security funds contributed every day by people who work and give of 
that money out of their paycheck. American workers are doing what 
Republicans here are unwilling to do in this House. They are saving and 
investing for their retirement.
  In fact, what Republicans are proposing through this tax cut is to 
take those savings and investments because, again, the surplus we are 
talking about is created by all the trust fund dollars that American 
workers are contributing. The fact that we are not using every dollar 
out of the trust fund for Social Security and paying out for today's 
retirees does not mean that we should tell those folks who are working 
and contributing that right now we have a surplus, because they are 
paying a little bit more than we have to pay out today, because those 
workers know that tomorrow when the baby boomers retire we are going to 
go in the opposite case and we have to save now to take care of that 
problem later.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, please do not take even one dollar 
out of the $10 that American workers are earning every day and 
depositing into the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts 
right after an election.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), a highly respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this, but some of the 
examples are just getting absolutely ridiculous. The gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Archer) has cautioned a number of folks that they 
really ought to deal with a debate about the facts and not about some 
political rhetoric that they wish to argue.
  The reason we have a surplus right now is because people are paying 
more

[[Page H8739]]

in income taxes, the economy is doing well, and inflation is lower than 
anticipated. It is always relative to what people said was going to 
happen. And what is happening today is that people are better off than 
the projections and inflation is lower. So, more money is coming in 
than anticipated.
  The Social Security trust fund does not go bankrupt until 2030. We 
have a few years to be prudent about the way we spend our money. And I 
would tell the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the $9 he 
counted out is not money that is in the trust fund. It is money that 
people paid in income taxes beyond what the government's current 
obligations are.
  The point that needs to be made repeatedly, and I know folks on the 
other side know it but will not admit it, but what the American people 
need to understand is that all 10 of those dollars are theirs. All we 
are proposing to do is to give them back one of them, as the gentleman 
indicated, and set the other nine aside for the ongoing obligation for 
Social Security leading toward the year 2030.
  Now, what we propose to do is have a surplus every year, not just 
this year. This is not a unique event. In 1999, in 2000, in 2001, in 
2002, on and on and produce a surplus, every year. We want to make sure 
if we miscalculate on collecting revenue that we set aside a reasonable 
portion to deal with tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, till 2030. But 
there is no reason whatsoever why people who are overcharged by this 
government on their income tax cannot get a small portion of it back, 
whether it is the first day of a Congress or the last day of a 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
continually forget is that the money is the people's in the first 
place.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, hearing this debate leads one to believe that the only 
thing we have to fear is truth itself. The truth, according to the tax 
committee, is that we have in the next 5 years, according to this 
chart, we have a national fiscal situation that is still in deficit. 
$137 billion of the fiscal picture is in deficit.
  We have a $520 billion fiscal picture over the next 5 years which is 
in the plus side, and that is all in the Social Security account. There 
is no free lunch in this business. We have to rob from Peter to pay 
Paul. If we are going to give tax breaks, we have to pay for the lost 
revenue. And the only surplus that we are going to have is in the 
Social Security account. That is it. So, we will have to rob from the 
Social Security account.
  Now, if this tax plan is not an election year gimmick, I ask the 
Republican leadership, they have been in the majority for 4 years, if 
this was such a great tax plan, why did they not bring it to us before, 
instead of 6 weeks before the election?
  Mr. Speaker, this is not fiscal responsibility. This is fiscal 
foolishness, election year fiscal foolishness.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), chairman of our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, hearing my good friend from California typifies the 
incendiary nature of this debate. For what the American people see 
today, Mr. Speaker, is a clear example of those who eagerly embrace the 
politics of fear rather than the policies of hope.
  The case is clear, the facts these: In excess of $1 trillion, $1.4 
trillion set aside to do nothing but save and protect Social Security.
  My colleague from California and others who expound on the politics 
of fear talk about the short-term calendar. But, Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of full disclosure, it is far better to take a long-range view 
and let history teach us.
  Mr. Speaker, in terms of full disclosure, the facts are clear and 
undeniable. In 40 years' time, when the liberals had the majority in 
this Chamber, they never set aside one single penny to save Social 
Security. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a thing did they save.
  Oh, they were happy to raise payroll taxes. They were happy to take 
more and more of Americans' hard-earned money. And now when we have the 
opportunity to set aside in excess of $1 trillion, they say no, 
because, Mr. Speaker, the message is clear, if somewhat confusing, from 
the other side. They once again say no tax relief, no time, no how. It 
is the taxpayers' money, but somehow they should not have it.
  Shame. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the majority 
proposal, reject the minority substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and his amendment to protect 
Social Security.
  Without Social Security, an additional 11.5 million older Americans, 
our mothers, our fathers, our brothers and sisters, would be 
impoverished, dramatically increasing the overall poverty rate from 13 
percent to nearly 50 percent among those over the age of 65.
  It is very simple. Social Security works. Social Security reduces 
poverty, and the American people want this Congress to ensure that 
Social Security remains solvent well into the future. I, for one, 
intend to do whatever it takes to make sure that this body meets that 
demand.
  Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that the very party that at one point 
would have turned Social Security over to Wall Street is proposing to 
use the potential budget surplus not for Social Security but rather for 
a tax cut that I find imprudent, ill-timed, inefficient, poorly 
targeted and risky.
  Mr. Speaker, we may end this fiscal year with a budget surplus. If we 
do, we owe it to the American people to put that money, all of that 
money, and that is the difference, all of it, aside until we are sure 
that we can maintain the long-term solvency of Social Security. 
Therefore, I stand in support of the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Adam Smith).
  Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the key fact in this 
debate is that there is no budget surplus. The only surplus that 
exists, exists in the Social Security trust fund.
  So, when we hear the other side talking about how they are setting 
aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security, we cannot set aside money that 
is already spoken for. That money is borrowed. It must be paid back, 
plus interest.
  We would not borrow $200,000 for a home mortgage and say we are 
setting that aside for our child's education, because we have to pay it 
back. That is the fundamental flaw in the Republican argument. The 
money is already in the Social Security trust fund. We should keep it 
there.
  We saw that chart that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
brought up. We saw the truth. The only surplus that exists outside the 
Social Security trust fund, which we have to pay back, is $31 billion. 
Now, if they wanted to be honest and offer a bill to say we should set 
aside 90 percent of the real surplus, 90 percent of $31 billion would 
make sense, because that is the only surplus that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot spend money twice. I will agree with the 
Republicans on one point. We were wrong for 40 years. I use ``we'' 
loosely, because I was not here. We should not have borrowed that money 
and used it to reduce the size of the deficit, and the public agrees. 
They sent us that message in 1994.
  What I am afraid of is that the Republican majority has forgotten the 
very message that sent them here. I hope that the American public will 
send them the same message in 1998: Do not borrow from the Social 
Security trust fund and treat it as income. That is manipulative 
rhetoric, and it is wrong.
  The reason is that money is already spoken for. We have to pay it 
back. We should not let the Republicans, any more that we would let the 
Democrats, spend money twice. It gets us into big deficits.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).

[[Page H8740]]

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to H.R. 4578. I oppose 
any Republican attempt to undermine Social Security by proposing a big 
tax cut during this election year.
  In the 1930s, before Social Security, many hard-working Americans who 
had no family to care for them lived in the streets, and sometimes they 
starved. Social Security was created to reduce this type of primitive 
poverty, conditions that are unconscionable in our time and in our 
Nation of wealth and resources.
  We need Social Security for the 30 million hard-working Americans 
who, after a lifetime of low-wage jobs, have no money for retirement. 
Without Social Security, they would have nothing. We need Social 
Security for the 5.5 million Americans with severe disabilities who are 
unable to work. They would be destitute without Social Security.
  This Congress has an obligation to strengthen Social Security, 
because working people have earned and deserve Social Security. It is 
the most sacred, fundamental measure for the survival of all Americans. 
That is why tax cuts are not an option until Social Security is 100 
percent secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4578.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, since everybody was using props, I think I 
will use a prop, in my opinion, that talks about the deficit. It is a 
credit card. It is not cash. We do not have the cash yet.
  Anybody who believes a 10-year projection on what the surplus is 
going to be really has lost their mind. We do not know if it is going 
to be $1.5 trillion. We hope it is $1.5 trillion. We do not know that.
  This whole tax cut and this whole 90/10 scenario is predicated on a 
surplus that we do not even have yet. It is a fraud on the market, and 
it is a fraud on the public.
  The fact is, we are looking down the barrel at $5.5 trillion of debt 
that we are going to have to pay, including the debt in the Social 
Security trust fund. To go and start spending all that money now 
without a rational plan of how it is going to be done means that we are 
going to end up adding more debt. And, ultimately, our debt-to-gross-
domestic-product ratio will go to 200 percent, and then Social Security 
will really be in trouble. So bills like this are not going to 
strengthen Social Security. In fact, it probably makes it worse.
  This is nothing more than a political gimmick to cover what the true 
intention is, which is to take us back to supply side economics and 
back to the days of $200 billion deficits, because many Members on the 
other side just seem to think that does not really matter.
  The fact is, if they ran a business the way they are proposing to do 
this now, and I came from the business world, they would run it into 
the ground. They would never be able to get credit, and now they are 
talking about spending credit that they do not have.
  This is a terrible, terrible idea. The best thing we could do would 
be to start paying down the debt, get the debt-to-GDP ratio down. That 
would make Social Security stronger and honor our obligations, not only 
to the senior citizens and future senior citizens that are going to 
rely on Social Security, but also honor the obligations of the United 
States taxpayers to the Treasury bonds that are out there.
  This is a fraudulent, risky policy that will lead us back into the 
problems that we came out of. I guess if we pass this tax bill, we can 
say that the days of fiscal responsibility, which we only have enjoyed 
for a fleeting moment, are dead, and they are dead at the hands of the 
Republican Party.
  Who would have believed it?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4578. This bill does 
nothing to strengthen Social Security and, in fact, it may weaken it. 
It is nothing but a political gimmick that allows the Majority to 
argue, falsely, that they voted to protect Social Security. This 
legislation is only a cover-up for tomorrow's attempted raid on the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  The best way and the most responsible way to strengthen Social 
Security is to buy down the Federal debt, which today stands at $5.5 
trillion. The debt to GDP ratio is 67 percent, double what it was in 
1981. Interest paid on the Federal debt, $244 billion this year, has 
more than tripled since 1981. It is now the third largest Federal 
program after Social Security and defense. If we do not start paying 
down the debt, it will mushroom to 200 percent of the Nation's economic 
output by the middle of the next century and interest payments will 
consume more and more of the Federal budget.
  We should take advantage of this window of opportunity to begin 
paying down the debt before the retirement of the Baby Boom generation 
a decade from now begins to require additional spending on programs 
such as Social Security and Medicare. By paying down the debt, we will 
be able to add to private investment and expand national income to pay 
the costs of the Baby Boom's retirement and reduce the share of Federal 
spending taken by interest payments on the debt.
  The Republican Majority says that they will pledge 90 percent of the 
projected surplus to Social Security, but at least 98 percent of it 
comes from Social Security. Furthermore, the surplus does not yet exist 
and the Republicans want to go ahead and spend it. If it does not 
materialize, the Congress will be spending far more than 10 percent of 
the Social Security surplus. To propose a tax cut that is not paid for 
means more debt. If you run a business that way, you would run it into 
the ground.
  There is no difference between the Social Security Trust Fund and the 
``Protecting Social Security Account.'' This is spending the surplus 
and there is no reason why the Majority could not dip into the 
``Protecting Social Security Account'' to fund another ill-timed, ill-
advised, and irresponsible tax cut. Mr. Archer has said that as long as 
the Republicans are in charge, there will be a tax cut every year. So 
it looks like the Republican tax bill is just a downpayment on the $700 
billion raid on the Social Security surpluses they proposed earlier 
this year.
  The Majority's proposed tax cut is not paid for, so my colleagues 
have to resort to political gimmicks. This legislation is a sham. It 
will neither strengthen Social Security nor will it help us buy down 
our $5.5 trillion national debt. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 4578.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), highly respected chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, what is an interesting proposition is that 
everybody in America now, from the President to the Democrats to the 
Republicans, claims we have a balanced budget. Why is it that we claim 
that we have a balanced budget? Well, it is not complicated. It is 
because we are taking in more money this year than we are spending.
  Now, when we take a look at the surplus, we are actually going to 
spend less than what we take in. And let us just presume that the 
surplus is $40, two twenty-dollar bills. You said to me, so, John, the 
surplus is $40. Where does that $40 come from? I say, well, 20 of the 
$40 comes from the Social Security FICA taxes that we all pay. That is 
the difference between how much we collect in FICA taxes and how much 
we pass out to our seniors. So of the $40 surplus, 20 of it is Social 
Security FICA taxes. We are going to put it on this side of the podium.
  The other $20 comes from all the other taxes that we levy in the 
country, the income taxes, all the taxes that Americans are subjected 
to; and we are going to put that $20 on the other side of the podium.
  Now, the $20 that comes in from the FICA tax, the Social Security 
tax, we are going to save it. We are going to put it right in our 
pockets. We are going to save it, and we are going to use it to fix 
Social Security long term, to save it for three generations of 
Americans.
  But the other $20 that gets generated from the income taxes and all 
the other taxes, we are going to give part of it back to the American 
people.
  It is just that simple. It has nothing to do with robbing something 
from Social Security. It is about giving people some of the taxes that 
they pay in excess of the Social Security taxes.
  One more time, for all those watching, $40 in surplus, $20 comes from 
the

[[Page H8741]]

Social Security tax. We are going to save it and put it in our pocket. 
The other $20, we are going to start to give some of it back.
  To my colleagues and those who want to be in favor of change, let me 
just suggest to you what this is about. For those that are watching 
this debate, in my opinion, this is not really about tax cuts. School 
choice is not really about just school choice. Social Security reform 
is not just really about Social Security. It is about power. It is 
about whether we are going to run America from the bottom up, where the 
people and the families and the communities have the power, or whether 
we are going to continue to run America from the top down, where just a 
handful of people in America think they know better and they run our 
lives.
  If I can give you more money in your pocket, you and your family, 
then you have personal power and you can begin to solve the problems in 
your community. But if the government tells you they want to keep it 
all here in Washington, they not only do not want to give you a tax 
cut, they want to use the surplus to spend, to create even more 
government.
  Would it not be an irony for a party and individuals who are 
committed to shrinking the size of government to take the benefits of 
balancing the budget and then use it to increase the size of the 
governmental elites in this town?
  I ask you all to think, when you come for this vote, where do you 
want the power to be? Do you want it to be vested in Washington with a 
handful of people running this country from the top down, or do you 
want to be in charge of where your kids go to school? Do you want to be 
in charge of the ability to provide for yourself in your retirement 
years? Do you want to be in charge of designing a welfare program in 
your own community? And, finally, maybe the best manifestation of 
personal power, do you want more money in your pocket and less money, 
less of your money in the hands of the government?
  I would argue to you, as we go into this next century, the strength 
of America is not going to be based on the big shots, on the elite. The 
strength of America is based on the power of every man and woman and 
child and family and community inside of this Nation.
  This is about power and this is about giving you more of it.
  I hope my colleagues will reject this notion of keeping the 
governmental elite powerful and accept the notion and have the 
confidence that we, working together, can make America better. Support 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
majority's legislative measures that would jeopardize the solvency of 
the Nation's Social Security trust fund. It is just ``mean spirited'' 
and ``irresponsible'' to further burden seniors by weakening their most 
stale source of income.
  Social Security accounts for more than 40 percent of the income of 
the elderly. In fact, 44 million retired and disabled workers, their 
dependents and survivors, are counting on us to do the right thing. 
Preserving the safety net for elderly Americans is one of the most 
pressing issues facing our Nation today, and impacts each one of us 
individually and collectively. More importantly, how we as a Congress 
choose to address this issue today will impact the quality of life for 
generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, seniors are in the twilight of their lives, and we 
should be considering measures that are designed to improve the quality 
of their lives. Instead, the majority in Congress is once again playing 
a game of Russian roulette and using ``smoke and mirrors'' tactics to 
trade seniors' economic security for an election year tax cut. This is 
just irresponsible, and threatens the lives of the weakest and most 
vulnerable among us.
  As the current baby boomer generation approaches retirement, our 
Nation stands on the brink of an incredible demographic shock. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between the years 2010 
and 2030, the over-the-age 65 population will increase by more than 70 
percent. However, the population paying payroll taxes will rise by less 
than 4 percent. This is firm and compelling evidence that the budget 
surplus must be invested in protecting Social Security.
  The Nation is enjoying a record budget surplus, and we had promised 
the American people that if they would help us to control spending, and 
help us to balance the budget, and that if we could yield a budget 
surplus those funds would be used to protect Social Security. Now, the 
Republican majority is reneging on that promise.
  In fact, 98 percent of the more than $1.5 trillion budget surplus is 
due to the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. These funds are 
needed to pay future benefits to senior citizens.
  We must do all that we can to protect Social Security's long-term 
solvency. The Democratic proposal would save 100 percent of the Social 
Security surplus and place it in a ``lock box'' account at the Federal 
Reserve until it is released to be used or Social Security.
  We must keep our word to our seniors and to the American people. We 
must keep our promise to use the surplus to ensure the solvency of our 
Nation's Social Security system.
  Seniors must not be forced to choose between food and shelter, or 
between food and medicine. They have worked hard for their country, and 
their country must not turn its back on them. Let's do what is right--
protect Social Security. I ask my colleague to join me in voting no to 
H.R. 4578, a bill that jeopardizes Social Security's solvency.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
bill, not because I am against reducing the tax burden on my 
constituents, but because I am a firm believer in keeping promises--in 
this case, the promise to our citizens that Social Security will be 
there for them when they retire.
  The debate on this bill involves one point of contention. Republicans 
believe that the funds in our coffers are surplus, and we Democrats 
believe that we ought to honor the contracts that we have entered into.
  Why do I call this a contract? When we originally passed the Social 
Security Act, we had to justify the additional amount of money that was 
being taken out of the paychecks of our constituents. It was explained 
to them at that time, that the money would be held and given back to 
them at the time that they chose to retire.
  As proof, I have brought with me a copy of a letter, that was sent 
out in 1936 as a mass mailing to people all over the country. The 
pertinent part reads:

       Under this law the United States Government will send 
     checks every month to retired workers, both men and women, 
     after they have passed their 65th birthday . . . This means 
     that if you work in some factory, shop, mine, mill, store, 
     office, or almost any other kind of business or factory, you 
     will be earning benefits that will come to you later on. From 
     the time you are 65 years old, or more, and stop working, you 
     will get a Government check every month of your life.

  Most importantly, the statement reads: ``The checks will come to you 
as a right.'' A right.
  We cannot deprive the citizens of this country this right. Last month 
I held a series of town hall meetings. Although the meetings were all 
held in different neighborhoods, with people of different races and 
backgrounds, with people from different financial strata, and with 
people of all age groups, at each of the meetings there was a clear 
consensus that Social Security must be there for them when they call 
upon it. It must be saved for them, not out of the generosity of our 
hearts, but because we owe them the money. It is their right?
  This position is supported by the National Committee to Preserve 
Social Security and Medicare, who recently stated: ``An $80 billion 
election-year tax cut proposed by the U.S. House Republican Leaders 
wrongly taps Social Security funds and ignores Congress's obligation to 
protect the nation's social insurance program . . . The diversion of 
these Social Security funds undermines the future financing of Social 
Security, and Congress should reject this proposal.''
  We all agree that our middle class is taxed too heavily. However, it 
does not make sense to remedy that by raiding the Social Security Trust 
Fund, before the Social Security trustees tell this Congress Social 
Security is safe. Instead, what should be done is follow the democratic 
tax relief bill which gives tax relief to working Americans once Social 
Security is saved.
  We Democrats voted for significant tax cuts last year. However, that 
bipartisan bill was paid for. This one is not. In order to even debate 
this bill, we had to waive part of the Budget Act. If you need any 
indication of how bad this bill, is, all you have to realize is that it 
is just a few votes away from violating another federal statute.
  I strongly urge all of you to vigilantly protect against this robbery 
of the American people, and vote against this passage of H.R. 4579.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, at 7:00 p.m. on September 25, 
National Weather Service and civil defense officials indicated that the 
projected landfall of Hurricane Georges would be somewhere between 
Baldwin County, Alabama, and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Based on this 
information, Representative Sonny Callahan and I have decided that it 
would be in the best interest of the constituents we serve to return 
immediately to our respective congressional districts to make the 
necessary preparations before this major hurricane strikes. We 
understand that the House

[[Page H8742]]

will consider tomorrow H.R. 4579, the Taxpayer Relief Act. Although we 
do not share the same opinion on H.R. 4579, I oppose it, both 
Congressman Callahan and I do realize the important nature of the 
legislation being considered. However, due to overwhelming threat of 
impending natural disaster, we plan to go home to help our families and 
constituents prepare for Hurricane Georges. Therefore, we have decided 
to pair our votes and depart for our congressional districts.
  Mr. Speaker, had I been present I would have voted against H.R. 4579 
for the following reasons: there is no surplus. We are $5.5 trillion in 
debt. Its the first time in 30 years that we haven't had to borrow 
money to pay for our annual operating deficit. Its not the time to 
incur new responsibilities.
  We still owe $800 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund. When 
Social Security was started there were 19 contributors for every one 
recipient. By the year 2025, it is projected that there will be 2 
workers for every one Social Security recipient. If we don't repay the 
debt now, while we can, we never will.
  People don't feel they get enough from their tax dollars now. They're 
right. The biggest chunk of their taxes ($365 billion) goes for 
interest payments on the national debt (approximately $1 billion per 
day). The amount of money squandered on interest continues to grow 
every day. Our taxpayers money will be squandered forever unless we 
retire the debt.
  This is especially bad for national security. These dollars could be 
better spent replacing 30 year old warplanes, helicopters, ships, and 
land weapon systems. National defense spending has shrunk since the 
Republicans took control of Congress. In Fiscal Year 1995, the first 
fiscal year under the leadership of the new Republican majority, 
defense budget outlays in constant dollars amounted to $295.4 billion. 
The Fiscal Year 1999 level of defense outlays in constant dollars is 
$265.6 billion. That is a $30 billion reduction in constant dollars 
under Republican leadership. Now, the GOP is dreaming up ways to give 
tax breaks to rich contributors, instead of addressing our pressing 
national security needs.
  We need to fulfill the promises that have been made. First and 
foremost, is honoring the promise of a ``lifetime of free medical 
care'' made to those who served in our nation's armed forces. Just 
yesterday, the House National Security Committee was informed that the 
Defense Health Program was underfunded for the next year by $623 
million. As you may know, the Defense Health Program provides funding 
for the treatment of our uniformed service personnel, their families, 
and military retirees. It also provides funds for the operation of our 
military medical treatment facilities. It really doesn't surprise me 
that House Speaker Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Lott, House Budget 
Committee Chairman Kasich, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman 
Domenici do not consider keeping our promises to our nation's military 
retirees as important. After all, not one of them served one minute in 
uniform. However, I do think that fully funding our nation's defense 
and military health care needs is important. This is where we should be 
spending any surplus that may be left after we've restored the 
financial integrity and stability of Social Security.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this election 
year GOP tax gimmick that would raid and expend the Social Security 
Trust Funds and jeopardizes the solvency of the most successful 
domestic program in our nation's history. The Republican leadership has 
opted for instant gratification with an untimely and irresponsible tax 
expenditures that would spend much of the projected federal budget 
surplus in the midst of the ongoing global economic contagion. In this 
bill, the Republican Majority breaks the 1997 budget deal and has 
turned its back on our retirees by reneging on their prior promise and 
advertised position to ``Save Social Security First.''
  This irresponsible bill simply undermines the core effort to protect 
the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds and provide sufficient 
resources to fulfill our commitments to all retirees. I this plan, 
Republicans spend the first projected budget surplus in almost 30 years 
on tax cuts. Plain and simple, this GOP action speaks louder than 
words. Tax breaks and election year gimmicks take first place over a 
sound Social Security system. Whether or not this surplus will actually 
materialize is not at all guaranteed. And virtually every economist, 
inside the government and out, believes that any surplus could be 
short-term and will vaporize shortly after the Baby Boom generation 
starts to collect Social Security and Medicare in 2008. It would be 
foolish to spend any of this money before we have assured the long-
range solvency of the Social Security system. Almost every plan that 
has been offered to date to reform and strengthen the Social Security 
Trust Funds would use the entire budget surplus. This suggests that the 
GOP wants to manufacture a Social Security Insurance system crisis to 
compound and ensure that radical changes will and must occur to this 
time honored defined benefit program.
  Rushing to spend the hard-won and long awaited budget surplus is 
reckless and irresponsible for several reasons. First, this tax cut 
plan reduces the amount available for Social Security from $520 billion 
to $430 billion during the next five years. Next, the Republicans are 
spending money that is not in the federal government coffers. The 
surpluses the GOP want to spend is not real; such funds are only 
projections made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--the kind of unreliable budget 
projections that the Republican leadership criticized only a few months 
ago. The GOP view is colored by partisan motives and has changed as the 
CBO has made more rosy projections.
  Moreover, the recent turmoil in the financial markets and the ongoing 
economic and financial crises in Russia, Japan and the other Asian 
Pacific Rim nations, and now, Brazil could have a significant impact on 
the U.S. economy. This would result in the further weakening of both 
the stock markets and real economic growth more than CBO expected in 
the July projections. As a senior Member of the House Banking 
Committee, I visited southeast Asia last winter and met with political 
and financial leaders in China, Korea and Japan. Following the trip, I 
was convinced then and recognize today that the Asian economic 
contagion is not isolated to Asia. This global crisis will further 
impact adversely the rosy United States budget picture of today without 
a doubt.
  In response to this partisan and careless Republican tax plan, I 
support the Democratic alternative tax plan, which safeguards Social 
Security, is fiscally responsible and invests in our nation's future. 
Unlike the Republican tax plan, the Democratic alternative sets aside 
every penny of the projected federal budget surpluses to ensure the 
long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, increases the 
standard deduction for a joint return to an amount equal to twice the 
amount allowed on a single return to provide some marriage penalty 
relief and would permanently extend income averaging for farmers by 
providing a tax relief package that would take effect immediately. 
Furthermore, the Democratic tax bill would take the entire amount of 
the Social Security surplus in each fiscal year and transfer it to the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held in trust for Social 
Security. This would safeguard the temptation to expend it on pet tax 
breaks schemes. Furthermore, this would limit the use of the Social 
Security surplus and place a control on Congress. Under the bill, 
Congress would have to default on publicly traded debt instruments 
before it could default on its obligation to the Social Security 
system. Moreover, the Democratic bill would really lock up 100% of the 
Social Security surplus, while the Republican proposal pretends to 
safeguard 90% of the Social Security Insurance system surplus.
  Deciding now to use the surpluses for tax cuts before addressing 
Social Security's long-term problems will siphon off resources that 
will be needed to maintain the solvency of the Social Security Trust 
Fund. Budget surpluses should be reserved until a Social Security 
Commission, the President and the Congress address the long-term 
requirements of Social Security. This initiative represents just 
another step in the Republican agenda to eliminate the Social Security 
Insurance program and squander away the projected surplus as they cast 
about for an issue in the upcoming mid-term elections.
  Unfortunately, while House Republican leaders praised the concept of 
``Saving Social Security First,'' they turned around and then passed a 
budget that broke this pledge. However, its telling that the Senate has 
never agreed to this scheme up-front in a budget blue print. This 
broken promise has led to dissention and differences among their own 
party and has entrenched the budget conference process with the GOP led 
Senate, which strongly endorses the President's call to save every 
penny of the budget surplus to strengthen the Social Security Trust 
Funds. To date, we have no budget. This is not governing. There is 
little doubt that the GOP Senate will finally be seduced into accepting 
tax breaks. However, the Administration and most Democrats will not 
accept this raid on the Social Security Insurance System. Nothing is 
going to happen if these surpluses and funds are justified. Such funds 
will be available once the solvency of Social Security is resolved. 
Meanwhile, this ``surplus'' will translate into a lower overall 
national debt. A good positive result that most citizens believe must 
be reduced.
  I urge all members to vote no on this Republican attempt to raid the 
Social Security Trust Funds for election year tax breaks.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the single most popular 
federal program ever conceived. It provides millions of seniors with 
retirement income. But it does more than just pay out retirement 
benefits. Social Security is a retirement program, a life insurance 
program and a disability insurance program all

[[Page H8743]]

in one. Social Security provides benefits to more than forty-three 
million Americans each year, only thirty million of whom are retirees. 
Seven million Social Security beneficiaries receive survivors 
benefits--one and one-half million of those survivors are children. 
Five and one-half million Americans receive Social Security disability 
benefits. Social Security has paid these benefits on time, month after 
month, like clockwork, for the past sixty years. Social Security has 
always been there when we have needed it and its our responsibility to 
ensure that it will always be there in the future.
  But now, the part of Social Security which Americans are most worried 
about is its retirement portion, and with good reason. Since Social 
Security was created six decades ago, Americans have depended on the 
``three-legged stool'' model of retirement planning. The first leg of 
the stool is personal savings; the second leg of the stool is the 
employer provided pension plan; and the third leg of the stool has 
always been Social Security.
  Social Security has rightly been considered the bedrock upon which 
retirement security rests for all Americans. No matter what damage 
vagaries in the stock market might have on personal savings, no matter 
what damage employer carelessness or dishonesty might have on pension 
plans, people have always believed that Social Security would be there, 
the strongest and most important leg of the stool.
  Unfortunately, over the years, the stool has weakened. As income 
stagnated in the 1970's, Americans had to dip into their retirement 
savings to pay for their children's education, or put a down payment on 
a house, or pay for increasing medical costs, thus weakening the first 
leg of the stool.
  Employer provided pension plans are also dwindling with the loss of 
secure jobs with reliable benefits. Nowadays, less than half of all 
workers have employer provided pension plans, and those that do are 
receiving less and less in contributions from their employers, thereby 
weakening the second leg.
  Now, when people are beginning to depend on it the most, some people 
want to weaken or even saw off that third leg of the stool. Those 
people say that Social Security will go bankrupt in the next century, 
that Social Security doesn't pay beneficiaries a high enough rate of 
return. They believe that instead of fixing Social Security by saving 
the surplus, and sitting Americans' retirement security firmly on the 
three-legged stool, Americans would be better off trying to balance 
their futures on only two legs. I wouldn't try to sit on a two-legged 
stool, and I wouldn't recommend anybody trying to balance their 
retirement future on one either.
  Right now, some Republicans in this House are mounting an attack on 
Social Security. Not a direct attack, though they have tried that in 
the past, but an indirect attack. These Republicans are planning to 
spend our budget surplus, the first budget surplus we have had for 30 
years, on tax cuts. Tax cuts are not necessarily a bad idea. In fact, I 
would seriously consider supporting some of these tax cuts, if we 
really had any money to spare. But the fact is that we do not.
  The ``surplus'' that some in this House so desperately want to spend 
on tax cuts is in fact needed to support Social Security once it begins 
running a deficit early in the next century. The only reason why a 
surplus exists at all is because the Social Security trust fund is 
taking in more money than it is spending. But that will change in 2013. 
That year, Social Security starts paying out more money than it takes 
in. That year, we will need the money which we should be saving from 
the surplus to pay for the baby boomers' retirement. The surplus that 
exists now, and with good economic luck will exist for the next several 
years, is nothing more and nothing less than our and our children's 
future.
  But there are those who believe that Social Security is not worth 
saving because its return rate is too low. Social Security is not meant 
to provide workers with a big bonanza. It is intended to provide an 
income floor, a minimum below which we will not allow beneficiaries to 
fall. And it has worked. When Social Security was created, senior 
citizens were the most poverty stricken group in America. Now only 12% 
of older Americans are poor. Without Social Security, 42% of older 
Americans would be poor.
  Some may think that Social Security is too conservative. It may not 
pay out as high a rate of return as more risky and speculative 
investments. But it is that caution which guarantees that Social 
Security will be there for all of us when we retire or are injured or 
the person we depend on to provide for us dies. So if the stock market 
fails us, if our savings are eaten up by illness, if our pension plan 
disappears, we will be still able to live with dignity.
  When you are already at retirement age, there are no second chances. 
There is no time to build up a new nest egg. There is no time to play 
the stock market for big returns. You retire with what you've got, and 
if there is no Social Security, and you've made a mistake in the stock 
market and your employer took the pension money and ran, you've got 
nothing. Nothing at all to fall back on. Our mothers, our fathers, our 
brothers, our sisters, our sons and our daughters, all of us deserve 
better than that.
  Don't let the short term gratification of a fleeting tax cut distract 
us from saving for our future. Before we consider cutting taxes, save 
Social Security first.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4578, the 
so-called Save Social Security Act. This legislation is an assault on 
one of the most successful government programs in American history--the 
Social Security program.
  H.R. 4578 would rob Social Security recipients of the very benefits 
that they earned through their hard work and dedication. This bill sets 
up a separate account for Social Security, and requires the Treasury 
Department to deposit only 90% of the currently projected surplus in 
that account. There are several problems with this bill. First, the 
bill does not protect the Social Security Trust Fund--it does not 
prevent these funds from being used for additional tax cuts or spending 
increases in the future. Secondly, it does not reserve the full amount 
of money that Social Security has accumulated. None of the projected 
surpluses should be touched until the long-term solvency of Social 
Security has been fully secured.
  As the representative from the 20th oldest district in the nation, I 
have always let the thoughts and views of my senior constituency guide 
me through my legislative decisions. More than 113,000 individuals in 
my District rely on the benefits of Social Security. They depend on 
this sacred program on a daily basis and I have consequently worked my 
hardest to ensure the solvency of their program! Today was one of the 
most offensive attacks on the Social Security program that I have 
witnessed thus far in my 16 years of working in the House. The seniors 
in my district have asked me to vote against this fraud of a bill--it 
does not adequately protect their hard earned money.
  I believe that the Social Security program must remain sacrosanct and 
excluded from budgetary gimmicks. Let us do what is right by reserving 
every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund for the people that 
contributed to its solvency. It is not our money to waste, but it is 
our money to protect. This Republican bill does not properly address 
the current issues facing Social Security. Instead of safeguarding 
current Social Security funds, these Members would rather jeopardize 
this remarkable program with a false plan to assure their existence.
  As a true Representative of the Pennsylvania's Third District, I will 
do all I can to Save Social Security the right way! I suggest that all 
Members of this body do the same by concerning themselves will valid 
legislation that will focus on strengthening our current Social 
Security system that has been successful for more than 60 years. It has 
provided a sense of certainty for more than 160 million workers and 
their families. Let us Save Social Security First, not last.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4578, the ``Save Social Security Act''. The title of this legislation 
gives the impression that it will actually save Social Security when, 
in fact, the Republican leadership has called this legislation up for a 
vote to take away 10% of any budget surplus from Social Security. The 
passage of this bill is a slap in the face to the millions of Americans 
who have paid into Social Security their entire working lives.
  This legislation is another attempt by the Republican-led Congress to 
undermine our safety-net programs. It is not fair to spend the 
projected surplus on tax cuts when Social Security is in need of 
shoring up for the upcoming baby-boom generation. Of the projected 
surplus of $1.6 Trillion, 98% is generated by payroll taxes for Social 
Security. If it wasn't for Social Security, the federal budget would 
have an estimated deficit of $137 Billion over the next five years.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we should solve the long-term Social Security 
Trust Fund solvency problems before we pay for tax cuts out of a 
surplus funded by Social Security. I support tax cuts for marriage 
penalty relief, self-employed health insurance deduction, education and 
child care tax credits, however, I believe it must be paid for through 
responsible fiscal planning.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and ensure Social 
Security benefits for generations to come.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the ``Protect Social Security 
Account'' developed in H.R. 4578 should increase awareness of the 
Social Security problem. However, the legislation does nothing to solve 
the problem.
  The bill requires the Secretary of Treasury to make annual 
nonnegotiable ``IOUs'' to this new account each fiscal year from 1998 
to 2008. The new government debt owed to this ``Protect Social Security 
Account'' would equal

[[Page H8744]]

90% of the projected total unified budget surplus for each of those 
fiscal years.
  In addition, the Treasury will make out IOUs to the Social Security 
Trust Fund for its annual surplus, as it has done in the past. The 
Social Security tax revenues surplus, which is the social security 
taxes in excess of benefit payments for that year, is a major part of 
any unified budget surplus. This means we are creating a $1.90 in debt 
for every dollar borrowed in those years that the unified budget 
surplus is greater then the Social Security surplus. Total government 
debt will increase faster than if the new account was not established. 
In other words, the increased debt to the Social Security trust fund 
will be about $80 billion for the 1998 fiscal year. Because the 
calculations for government IOUs into the ``Protect Social Security 
Account'' is 90% of the unified budget surplus in most years, there is 
double accounting for government indebtedness for the same money. That 
results in total debt going up faster than it otherwise would. The 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Congress and the 
President will have to increase the existing $5.95 trillion in debt 
ceiling two years earlier if this bill would become law 2001 instead of 
2003. Ironically, the more unified budget surplus that is spent by 
government, the less debt subject to debt limit there would be.
  There will never be any actual money that is going into this account, 
just more IOUs. I am voting for the Rangel substitute because it has 
the effect of investing the Social Security surplus in marketable bonds 
as does my bill, H.R. 4033. I am voting for H.R. 4578 in the hopes that 
a future Congress will pay back the debt in the ``Protect Social 
Security Account'' to help solve the Social Security problem. We should 
all recognize that by the year 2008 the general fund of the Treasury 
will owe $2.252 trillion to the Social Security Trust Fund. This does 
not include the money that will be owed to the new fund. Unless there 
are sufficient resources in the general fund of the Treasury to repay 
that borrowing, the ability to pay the promised Social Security 
benefits will be threatened.
  The fact is, none of the rhetoric by Republicans or Democrats or the 
President that we should save the surplus to save Social Security does 
anything to fix Social Security. The legislation I introduced (H.R. 
3082) has been scored by the Social Security actuaries to keep Social 
Security solvent.
  Others that have done real work to save Social Security include 
Representatives Stenholm, Kolbe, Sanford, and Porter, and Senators 
Moynihan, Kerrey (NE), Gregg, Breaux, Gramm, and Domenici. I applaud 
all of their efforts. I acknowledge the tremendous increase in 
awareness that the President has helped stimulate by announcing in his 
State of the Union address last February that we've got to save Social 
Security. As Chairman of the bipartisan task force on Social Security, 
I am setting our first goal to be a discussion of the real facts and 
the real problem of the current system.
  Senator Moynihan said during Social Security reform discussions in 
1983, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, no one is 
entitled to his own set of the facts.'' If we can have honest 
bipartisan discussion of the issue, and if we can increase public 
understanding, then we can pass real Social Security reform legislation 
in 1999. That is important, because the longer we put off the 
resolution, the most drastic the changes will have to be.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the goal of 
reducing taxes on hard-working American families. The Republican way of 
reducing taxes is by reducing spending and reducing government. That's 
why I voted earlier for a budget that reduced spending for these tax 
cuts.
  But the President likes to say, from one side of his mouth, that he 
wants to save Social Security. Yet, from the other side of his mouth, 
he calls for billions of dollars of new spending from the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  Senate Democrats claim they want to save Social Security while 
proposing to spend Social Security taxes on increased spending.
  And my own Republican leadership wants to cut taxes--offsetting the 
cuts with the Social Security Trust Fund.
  On this issue, I say: A pox on all their houses.
  I want tax cuts. I support these tax cuts. I just don't want them 
funded out of Social Security taxes.
  I had hoped that the leadership would find a way to phase in tax cuts 
from the projected surplus in the general fund, but this plan does not 
do that.
  When I was in business, we had good years and we had bad years. 
Sometimes we needed to borrow money to get through the lean times. But 
every businessman knows that you don't raid the employees' pension fund 
to meet payroll.
  In the 40 years that Democrats controlled Congress they raided Social 
Security for other programs. It was wrong. It's still wrong. And that's 
why this measure is wrong today.
  I'm not voting with the Democrats today. They can't wait for the 
chance to spend the Social Security Trust Fund on more government 
programs. But his vote today underscores the need to put this money 
into personal accounts for each and every American. Those accounts 
should be personalized with the name of an individual, not the name of 
Congress.
  I will not support this legislation today. Not because I don't 
support the tax cuts, but because Montanans tell me the real path to 
tax reduction is to reduce the size of government.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, the budget surplus which will be obtained 
this year is the greatest achievement of common sense and foresight in 
decades. While much of the world around us flounders in economic chaos, 
the United States' economy continues to drive forward, largely due to 
this success.
  Now we are casting to the wind the same common sense planning--and if 
I might add, conservative policies--which eliminated the budget deficit 
and created the budget surplus. Six weeks away from the election we are 
voting on tax cuts, many of which I admittedly support and would like 
to see enacted, even though we can not yet pay for them without taking 
money needed for saving Social Security.
  The truth is that we only have a budget surplus today because a 
surplus exists in the Social Security Trust Fund. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, 98% of the budget surplus from 1999 to 
2008 will come from the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. Only 
2% will come from non-Social Security sources. However, this surplus is 
only temporary. The hordes of retiring ``Baby Boomers'' will draw 
heavily on Social Security, and the Trust Fund will become bankrupt by 
2032.
  The Democratic Substitute to the Republican's so-called ``Save Social 
Security Act'' we are now considering makes a very simple proposal: we 
set aside 100% of the budget surplus in a special fund to be used 
solely for keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent until a long 
term solution can be found. The Republican bill, on the other hand, 
will take the surplus which really belongs to Social Security and use 
it for funding the tax cuts we will vote on tomorrow.
  The Republican proposal risks Social Security and it risks America's 
future. What happens if the worldwide economic crises seriously 
affected American markets and the surplus turns out to be less than 
predicted? The result, I fear, will be less than welcome. We will be 
stuck with these new tax cuts, which I know this House will not have 
the political capital to repeal. We will return to the days of budget 
deficits, and our economy will be trapped in the same cycle of stagnant 
growth we thought we left behind when the last recession ended six 
years ago.
  In recent years the improving economy has permitted the vast majority 
of Americans to cast aside their fears and look towards their future 
with renewed hope and newly minted dreams. I hope that either this 
House or the more sensible policy-makers in this city reject the risky 
political games we are playing and return to the common sense that has 
served us well to date. Let us save Social Security first and enact tax 
cuts when we can pay for them.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispel some of the 
misleading hyperbole the American people are being fed today. Americans 
are sick of political double talk. They want the truth--so here it is.
  This surplus we are talking about here today--do you know where it 
came from? It came from you--your hard earned pay checks, your savings 
accounts, your investments and even the deaths of your family members 
and friends. It's not the government's money--it's yours!
  You know what happens to your money when it gets to Washington? Well, 
for the last 40+ years, the Democratic majority spent it--spent well 
above it--and often wasted it. In fact, if it weren't for the 
Republican majority you elected, we wouldn't even be standing here 
today talking about a surplus or how to use the excess taxes you have 
sent us.
  You deserve some of your money back. And, yes, your money--$1.4 
trillion--should also go toward preserving and protecting Social 
Security. Both can be done.
  Let me reassure you right now that under the bill before us today, 
fully 90% of your surplus goes into a ``Protect Social Security 
Account.'' Some $1.4 trillion of your money is set aside until we pass 
legislation to ensure the long term solvency of Social Security.
  And do you know what the impact on the Social Security Trust Fund 
will be from giving you back 10% of your money? None. Let me repeat 
that. None. The Social Security Trust Fund will not lose one dime by 
passing this legislation today and the tax bill tomorrow. Not a penny.
  So, to recap the truth for Americans sick of all the political 
legalese and double talk: Passing this legislation gives you, the 
overtaxed

[[Page H8745]]

American, 10% of your money back. It secures 90% of your money in a new 
account to be used for preserving and protecting your Social Security 
program. Let's pass the ``Save Social Security Act.''
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is one of our Nation's 
greatest success stories. It is the financial bedrock for our country's 
elderly, and for all hard working American families who want to retire 
with some peace of mind. Two-thirds of our seniors depend on Social 
Security for more than half their retirement income.
  But right now, Social Security is under attack: this bill would raid 
Social Security to pay for a tax bill. The Archer bill pays for its tax 
plan with money from the Social Security Trust Fund--money that 
Americans have invested for their retirements, money that the program 
needs for long-term survival. I believe in tax cuts, but I believe we 
must protect the Social Security Trust fund first. We cannot undermine 
our retirement security for the sake of ten cents per day today.
  I urge my colleagues: don't be irresponsible. Protect our Social 
Security trust fund, and protect our retirement savings. Vote for the 
Rangel tax cut, which ensures the solvency of the Social Security trust 
fund. Oppose the Archer Social Security raid.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided 
legislation. It combines commendable tax cuts with an unacceptable 
funding mechanism. The bill would take money from the Social Security 
Trust Fund to pay for these tax cuts. I consider this a fatal flaw.
  This bill is the legislative equivalent of the Trojan Horse. It 
contains a collection of tax cuts that Democrats would usually support. 
Most of the tax cuts contained in H.R. 4579 have, in fact, been 
proposed and supported by Democrats in the past. The marriage penalty 
provision is similar to one offered by Representative McDermott during 
the Ways and Means Committee mark-up of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act--
and rejected unanimously by the Republicans on the Committee. The same 
is true of the 100 percent deduction for health insurance for the self-
employed. Similarly, I do not think that anyone is opposed to extending 
the expiring tax provisions contained in H.R. 4579--they are non-
controversial, and most of us have voted to extend these provisions a 
number of times. The provision in the bill which would allow non-
refundable credits against the alternative minimum tax is similar to a 
change proposed in legislation introduced recently by Representative 
Neal. And the provision assisting military personnel who sell their 
homes after returning from temporary postings is similar to a change 
recommended by the Administration earlier this year.
  The problem with this bill, of course, is not primarily with the 
proposed tax relief, but rather with the way that this tax relief would 
be paid for--with money from the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The Federal Government is expected to collect $1.6 trillion more in 
revenues than it is projected to spend in outlays over the next ten 
years. That figure, however, hides the fact that the Federal operating 
budget--the budget excluding Social Security--is projected to run a 
surplus of only $31 billion over the next ten years, and that in fact 
it is not even expected to produce a significant surplus until the year 
2006. The reason that CBO has projected a unified Federal budget 
surplus for fiscal year 1998 and the subsequent 5 years is that the 
Social Security trust fund is currently running a surplus of over $100 
billion annually. Without the surplus in the Social Security trust 
fund, the Federal Government is actually projected to run a deficit of 
$137 billion over the next five years.
  The point that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle forget or 
choose to ignore is that after 2010, first the unified Federal budget 
and then the Social Security Trust Fund begin to run huge deficits as 
the number of Social Security beneficiaries doubles from 40 million to 
80 million. In fact, even counting the projected trust fund surpluses, 
outlays for Social Security are expected to exceed receipts by 
trillions of dollars over the next 75 years.
  Moreover, there is no guarantee that the projected $1.6 trillion 
surplus is going to materialize at all. CBO has estimated that a 
recession next year could change the projected surplus of $520 billion 
over the next five years to a deficit of $44 billion. I think that, 
given the current global economic uncertainty, it would be wise for 
Congress to actually run a surplus before it spends it.

  Mr. Speaker, we all support taxpayer relief. And I suspect that we 
all would agree on the need to preserve Social Security. The question 
before us today is whether we should reduce the amount of money in the 
Social Security Trust Fund before we have taken action to ensure the 
program's future solvency. I do not think that we should. Most experts 
agree that we will need the surplus--and then some--to keep Social 
Security solvent in the next century.
  43 percent of retiree households in my congressional district depend 
on Social Security for all of their retirement income. That means that 
roughly 33,000 people are living on an average of $9,000 a year. The 
45,000 retirees who have pensions or income from savings get by on an 
average yearly income of about $16,000 a year. We shouldn't risk the 
retirement security of millions of senior citizens in order to score 
political points in an election year. We don't have the right. 
Consequently, I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to spend 
money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts--no 
matter how meritorious those tax cuts might be--until we enact 
legislation that ensures the future security of Social Security. If we 
restore Social Security's financial health next year--and if it looks 
like we won't need all of the money in the trust fund to pay out 
benefits--then we might want to take a look at lowering the Social 
Security payroll tax rate. That might be the fairest tax cut financed 
by Social Security receipts. I do not think that such a situation is 
likely, but I would be pleased if it turned out to be the case. Short 
of such a remarkable turn of events, I urge my colleagues to keep their 
hands out of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Instead of this ill-advised bill, Congress should enact legislation 
before it adjourns that will wall off the Social Security Trust Fund 
surplus. Then, next year, this body can work to craft a long-term 
solution that will ensure the solvency of Social Security. If we follow 
such a course, Social Security will be able to continue paying out 
benefits for the foreseeable future.
  I will support the Democratic alternative. The Democratic amendment 
to H.R. 4579 would allow all of the tax cuts contained in the original 
bill--but it would delay these tax cuts until the Social Security 
trustees certify that Social Security will be solvent for the next 75 
years and OMB certifies that the Federal budget--excluding the Social 
Security trust fund suplus--is running a surplus and will continue to 
run a deficit for the following five years. The Democratic amendment to 
H.R. 4578 would take all of the surplus in the Social Security trust 
fund--100 percent of it, not merely 90 percent--and lock it away in an 
account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where it would earn 
interest at the market rate. By putting the money in this ``lock box'' 
account, Congress could ensure that it wouldn't be spent on other 
programs--as many of my Republican colleagues fear--or on tax cuts 
benefitting the well-to-do--as many of my Democratic colleagues fear. 
The difference between 90 percent and 100 percent of the trust fund 
surplus may sound insignificant at first blush, but once one realizes 
that 10 percent of the projected Social Security surplus amounts to 
over $160 billion, the importance of preserving this money for Social 
Security becomes clear. Diverting $160 billion from the Social Security 
program is not responsible. It is not reasonable. It is outrageous. It 
is nothing short of a raid on our children's future.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in exercising restraint, foresight, 
and fiscal conservatism. Save the surplus--and preserve Social 
Security.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation. 
When I came to Congress 10 years ago, my foremost priority was to work 
towards balancing the Federal budget. As I prepare to leave this 
institution, I am very proud of the fact that this goal has been 
reached during my tenure. But reaching a balanced budget is only the 
first step. We must continue to pursue fiscally responsible policies to 
ensure that we can accomplish related objectives, such as maintaining a 
solvent Social Security program for today's seniors and future 
retirees, and saving our children from an increasing mountain of debt.
  I am not opposed to tax cuts. I supported them in the Balanced Budget 
Act last year, and I have been a forceful advocate for some of the 
proposals us today, especially the 100% deductibility of health 
insurance costs for the self-employed. But this is not the time to be 
considering these measures. I fear this vote has political motivations, 
and the subject is too dear to me and critical to the country. We must 
be certain that Social Security is properly funded, that our parents, 
our friends, and our neighbors that rely on that program can continue 
to depend on it. Let us do the right thing here today, I urge my 
colleagues to preserve the Social Security trust fund for its intended 
purpose, and support the Rangel substitute.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 
Rangel Democratic Amendment and oppose H.R. 4578. I strongly support 
the Democratic Amendment which would create an account at the Federal 
Reserve Bank for the entire Social Security surplus.
  It is fiscally irresponsible for Congress to spend any of the 
anticipated surplus before we have addressed the long-term retirement 
needs of working men and women, or before the surplus has even 
materialized.
  In order to claim a budget surplus, the majority will use money from 
the Social Security

[[Page H8746]]

trust fund. We cannot let this happen. We must restore the $9 trillion 
in unfunded liability owed to individuals who have paid into this most 
successful government program all of their working lives.
  Mr. Rangel's Amendment would transfer 100% of any Social Security 
surpluses to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held in trust 
for the Social Security system.
  Congress should stand firm to ensure that Social Security will remain 
strong for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Democratic Amendment sponsored by the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Rangel. Mr. Speaker, we need to save Social Security first.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4578, 
which contains the Republicans' plan to save Social Security. I oppose 
it because it is a job incomplete.
  It is not a coincidence that this bill is being brought to the floor 
at the end of the session, and immediately before the House will 
consider a Republican bill that spends a significant portion of the 
Social Security surplus on a tax cut.
  This bill comes to the floor only because the Republicans must have 
some response ready for the millions of Americans that they plan on 
taking money from tomorrow, when we debate the Republican Tax bill. 
They want to be able to say that they voted to save 90% of the budget 
surplus to Social Security.
  Ninety-percent sure sounds good. It sounds like a good score on an 
exam, but this is not an exam. This is the money of the American 
people. This is money that should all be put into a safe place, away 
from politicians, especially in election years.
  Furthermore, this Republican plan does not really take the Social 
Security Trust Fund off-budget. This means that not even the 90% that 
they claim is safe, is truly safe. It is still reachable by Congress 
when the next election-cycle comes around. We need legislation that 
puts the money of the American people in a truly safe place, like a 
Federal Reserve bank.
  Democrats, on the other hand, are committed to preserving all, that 
means 100%, of the budget surplus for Social Security. That is because 
we know that this money is not really a surplus. It is, rather, a debt. 
A debt that we owe to all of the Americans that have dutifully paid 
into this plan over their entire careers.
  The Chairman says, ``Let's be conservative.'' The trouble is the 
Chairman's proposal is not conservative enough. The most conservative 
thing to do is to take all of the surplus money and lock it away, until 
we know that Social Security is saved.
  This is not money that we should be using to play election-year 
politics. I urge all of you to vote against this bill, and for the 
democratic substitute.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 4578. This bill ensures that funds are saved for 
Social Security, while at the same time allowing taxpayers nationwide 
to benefit from a Federal income tax cut in H.R. 4579.
  It is projected that we will have a $1.6 trillion surplus in the 
Federal budget. House Resolution 4578 would set aside 90% of the budget 
surplus, $1.4 trillion, to protect the Social Security system by 
depositing this amount into a new Treasury account entitled the 
``Protect Social Security Account.'' The Social Security system is a 
supplemental retirement benefit to recipients for their life of 
diligent service and dedication to their jobs, their families, and 
their community. Accordingly, H.R. 4578 will help stabilize the Social 
Security system from the threat of permanent insolvency. In turn, H.R. 
4578 will help to ensure that the future inheritors of the Social 
Security system reap a harvest from the seeds of hard work and toil 
that they will sow as time progresses.
  In closing, H.R. 4578 is certainly one important step forward in 
ensuring a sound Social Security system for future beneficiaries. This 
Member encourages a ``yea'' vote for H.R. 4578.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the 
Republican Social Security bill because it raids the Social Security 
Trust Fund in order to provide Republican tax cuts, six weeks before an 
election. These tax cuts are a short-term, one-shot use of the surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. Those working-class Americans who have 
paid into the Social Security Trust Fund deserve to have Social 
Security for them.
  Social Security has provided benefits to more than 160 million 
workers and their families since the program began in 1940. Without 
this vital program, half of our Nation's elderly would live in poverty. 
Two-thirds of our Nation's elderly depend on Social Security for one 
half or more of their income.
  Make no mistake about it. The issue is not whether cutting taxes 
aimed for reduction should or should not be cut certain reductions 
might be beneficial. The heart of the matter is, it is unacceptable to 
finance the tax cut package with Social Security funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand 
up for the elderly and the working poor--preserve 100% of the surplus 
for Social Security. They have been there for us, let us not let them 
down and leave them behind now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment numbered 1 printed in 
the Congressional Record.


  Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Rangel:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. RESERVATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES SOLELY 
                   FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury, before the 
     beginning of each fiscal year, shall estimate the amount of 
     the Social Security surplus for such year. For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `Social Security surplus' means the 
     excess of the receipts in the Trust Funds during the fiscal 
     year (including interest on obligations held in such funds) 
     over the outlays from such funds during such year:
       ``(2) If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that 
     there is a Social Security surplus for any fiscal year, such 
     Secretary shall transfer during such year from the General 
     fund of the Treasury an amount equal to the amount of the 
     surplus to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Such 
     transfer shall be made monthly on the basis of estimates by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury of the portion of the surplus 
     attributable to the month, and proper adjustments shall be 
     made in amounts, subsequently transferred to the extent prior 
     estimates were in excess of or less than amounts required to 
     be transferred. Amounts transferred under this paragraph 
     shall substitute for (and be in lieu of) equivalent amounts 
     otherwise required to be transferred to the Trust Funds.
       ``(3) The Federal Reserve Bank of New York shall hold the 
     amounts transferred under paragraph (2), and all income from 
     investment thereof, in trust for the benefit of the Trust 
     Funds. Amounts so held shall be invested in marketable 
     obligations of the United States with maturities that the 
     Managing Trustee determines are consistent with the 
     requirements of the Trust Funds. Amounts held in trust under 
     this paragraph (and earnings thereon) shall be treated as 
     part of the balance of the Trust Funds.
       ``(4) If, at any time, any obligation acquired under 
     paragraph (2) has a market value less than its acquisition 
     cost by reason of a change in interest rates, the Federal 
     Reserve Bank of New York may, at any time, present such 
     obligation to the Secretary of the Treasury for redemption, 
     notwithstanding the maturity date or any other requirement 
     relating to such obligation, and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall redeem such obligation for an amount that is 
     not less than such acquisition cost.
       ``(5) Upon request by the Managing Trustee, the Federal 
     Reserve Bank of New York shall transfer to the appropriate 
     Trust Fund the amount determined by the Managing Trustee to 
     be necessary to meet the obligations of such Fund.
       ``(6) All transfers to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York 
     under paragraph (2) shall be treated as Federal outlays for 
     all budgetary purposes of the United States Government, 
     except that such transfers shall not be subject to section 
     252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 and all transfers to the Trust Funds under paragraph 
     (5) shall be treated as offsetting receipts.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 
     1998.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to reserve 100 
     percent of the social security surpluses solely for the 
     Social Security System.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 552, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed, each will 
control 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.
  Earlier in the debate, somebody said the only difference between the 
bills is that I wanted 100 percent and the Republicans wanted 90 
percent. That is not the only difference, because, in this substitute, 
we take that 100 percent, not just merely put it in a separate 
accounting system in the Social Security trust fund, as I once 
supported, but we take it away completely from the opportunity of 
politicians, Republican or Democrats, and lock it into the Federal 
Reserve Bank so that it cannot be touched.

[[Page H8747]]

  But I would just like to say, with all of this display of currency on 
the floor, that we should recognize for those who have the $40, that 
the 40 bucks was owed to the Social Security trust fund. We have not 
used the money that has been collected for the trust fund. We have used 
it for other things.
  So if Members want to say the only difference between Republicans and 
Democrats is they want a total commitment to the system and Republicans 
want a partial commitment, then we may be closer to the facts, because 
we say that after we fix Social Security first, then we would trigger 
the exciting and the ever-inviting tax cuts, as my colleagues in the 
majority have suggested.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, do not question the reasons 
or demean the intentions at all of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), the Republicans and the former speaker the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich). I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is a great 
chairman, and I think America is very fortunate to have the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), 
two of the best.
  I want to talk taxes today. I voted for the previous tax cuts. They 
made sense. Social Security is funded by its own tax. That tax is to 
ensure the solvency of Social Security. I philosophically and in my 
heart believe that not one of those pennies should be used for anything 
else.
  Having said that, let us take a look at the situation in America 
today. I can remember from my devastated community, when the CEOs of 
the companies were so desperate to try and save their companies, they 
used the pension funds, maybe with good intentions. The economy 
slumped, and retirees lost their pensions, and Congress had to bail 
them out.
  Let me caution Congress today about this so-called booming economy. 
This just may be a paper tiger. It seems to me if Wall Street sneezes, 
the world catches pneumonia and Social Security, once again, needs an 
ambulance.
  The Archer plan is a good plan. The Rangel plan is a good plan. Today 
I am going to support the Rangel plan for one major reason: The Rangel 
plan is the safest and the most pragmatic for our country.
  I will support the Archer plan. It is one of the best tax packages 
brought before this Congress, without a doubt. I will support it when 
you find the money elsewhere or after you have implemented the 
safeguards brought forth by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  I think we should leave the politics aside today. This is not Rotary. 
Republicans are not trying to rip us off. Democrats are not trying to 
stop a tax cut. We have a difference of philosophy on this and a 
difference of opinion.
  I honestly believe there would be a budget deficit without the Social 
Security monies of surplus. Let us take care of Social Security. Let us 
make it solvent. Then let us go on to the Nation's business, to cut 
taxes or, if necessary, find that money elsewhere.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When I was first appointed to the Committee on Ways and Means in 
January of 1973, I took an immediate interest in Social Security. There 
was no subcommittee then, but I knew how vital it was, not just to 
current retirees but to future generations, the most important program 
the Federal Government has.
  As a result of that, I was appointed by Ronald Reagan to the Social 
Security Commission in 1982. No one in this body recognizes more the 
importance of Social Security and how sacred it is. So let it be clear 
that there is a determination on my part and the part of the majority 
to protect, to guard, to reform and to save Social Security.
  But what we are talking about today is a different issue. No one 
should be fooled about it. If I believed, as my friend from Ohio said, 
that this is the only safe way to move, I would not be here urging an 
alternative. But the Rangel scheme will not dedicate 100 percent of the 
surplus to Social Security. Why? Because surplus, in his definition, is 
only what is left over after all of the spending that is urged upon the 
Congress occurs in each year. It is an open door to pave the way for 
Democrats to increase government spending, reduce the surplus that is 
available in each year and, at the same time, expand the size of 
government and grow the bureaucracy, grow the power of Washington, as 
my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said.

                              {time}  1230

  Save 100 percent of the surplus for Social Security? How can they 
claim to support saving every penny when President Clinton is leading 
the charge to spend the surplus now? Extrapolated over a five-year 
period, the additional spending this year alone could well reach $100 
billion of surplus that will not be there when they are through. The 
President has already spent $2.9 billion from the surplus to help the 
people in Bosnia. That was not an emergency. We knew ahead of time, for 
at least a year, that those moneys would have to be spent. Yet it was 
okay to spend the surplus on the people of Bosnia. And already this 
fall the President has asked Congress to spend $13 billion in 
additional surplus money on other government programs some claimed to 
be emergency, and yet clearly were planned in advance, known in advance 
and should have been paid for in advance.
  Mr. Speaker, if it is acceptable for the Democrats to spend the 
surplus on the people of Bosnia, why do they oppose using it to give 
tax relief to the taxpayers of America who send it here in the first 
place? It is not our money. It is their money.
  Do not be fooled. This substitute is a risky scheme to squander the 
surplus on more government while denying tax relief to husbands and 
wives, farmers and ranchers, senior citizens and small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) our minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) that will truly save the surplus for Social Security. I 
challenge my Republican colleagues to put the money where their mouths 
are. Join with Democrats in using all of the surplus to save Social 
Security first.
  Republicans talk a big game in election years when it comes to 
protecting Social Security. Listening to their rhetoric today, one 
would have thought that they were the ones who came up with the idea of 
Social Security in the first place. They did not. Republicans fought it 
in the 1930s and they are fighting it again in the 1990s. They want to 
weaken it by eroding its financial stability. They want to starve 
Social Security so that it withers on the vine. That is exactly what 
the Republican bill does. It puts Social Security second. It raises and 
raids funds from the Social Security trust fund to further their 
ultimate goal, killing the system that lifts millions of our senior 
citizens out of poverty. This is the first step in their plan to 
transform Social Security from a guaranteed fundamental bedrock into a 
crapshoot in the markets. They are not really committed to saving 
Social Security.
  All one has to do is take a look at the Republican bill today to see 
how weak their commitment to Social Security really is. If you are 
really committed to something, you stand 100 percent behind it. You do 
not go halfway in fighting for your bedrock values. You do not go 
almost all the way. You go all the way. But the Republicans' 90 percent 
solution does not really protect the crown jewel of our efforts, to 
make sure that seniors can live in respect and dignity no matter what. 
Republicans only want to throw Social Security a string instead of a 
lifeline. And Republicans only want to go the whole eight yards to save 
Social Security. In baseball, 90 percent of the way only gets you a 
pop-out on the warning track, not a home run. We want to knock this 
ball straight out of the park.
  Democrats are 100 percent committed to Social Security. We are going 
to

[[Page H8748]]

dedicate the entire surplus to saving Social Security, not just part of 
it, not just 90 percent of it. It is important that we stop these 
Republican raiders in their tracks, because this year they will steal 
10 percent of the surplus from Social Security and next year they will 
come back and try to get more. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
has said so himself. ``As long as there is a Republican majority,'' he 
said in a press conference, ``we're going to have a tax cut every 
year.'' He said, ``We need to take a stand now.'' Well, I think we need 
to take a stand now and show the American people that we will save all, 
100 percent, of the surplus for Social Security.
  When you have a jewel, you do not keep it on your kitchen table. You 
lock it up in a safe deposit box. That is exactly what we want to do 
with the surplus for Social Security. Our substitute puts the money 
under lock and key, at the Federal Reserve Bank, so that neither 
Republicans nor Democrats nor anyone will be able to get their hands on 
it.
  Let us take the surplus away from the Republicans. Let us shore up 
the system and show the American people that we can save Social 
Security first.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) another respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, much of the debate here today has been 
misleading, to say the least, including the remarks of the previous 
speaker.
  Look. Democrats, I believe, do want to preserve Social Security. So 
do Republicans. There is no difference. We both want to preserve Social 
Security. The difference is that for 40 years of Democrat control, they 
ran a deficit. They spent more at the Federal level than we took in, 
mounting up a debt on which we had to pay interest and, of course, we 
could not use that money for Social Security or anything else. So if 
they had remained in control and continued 40 years of history, of 
spending more than they were taking in, the only solution to Social 
Security would have been to raise taxes. Thankfully Republicans gained 
control of the legislative branch 3\1/2\ years ago, and thanks to our 
fiscal policies getting government spending under control, we are now 
running a surplus. We are bringing more money into the Federal 
Government than we are spending for the first time in 30 something 
years. So, thanks to our policies, we now have an opportunity to save 
Social Security, to preserve Social Security that the Democrats want to 
do and that we want to do, but our way to do it is to use the surplus 
to finance a transition from the current Social Security program to one 
that will be smarter, use our money more wisely and even give people 
back more than they are getting now from the Social Security system.
  If we take a look at the solutions that have been proposed, none of 
them spend the entire projected surplus for the next 10 years. They 
range anywhere from about $650 billion to $900 billion. So we want to 
use that money to transition to a new Social Security system that will 
give people more and at least preserve what they have got now. That 
should be the debate, and that will be the debate, I hope, over the 
next couple of years, how to preserve the Social Security system. What 
we have heard here today is a bunch of poppycock and I am tired of it.
  Let us be honest. Republicans want to save Social Security, Democrats 
want to save Social Security. Thanks to our fiscal policies, we now 
have a chance to do that without raising taxes, and I am thankful for 
that. Dadgum.
  Let me just speak for a minute about the substitute that we are 
debating now. If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is correct and 
if the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) is correct and we are 
really going to lock that money up in the Federal Reserve in New York, 
well, guess what? Under the wording of the Rangel substitute, we are 
not only going to lock up the unified budget surplus, we are going to 
lock up the Social Security surplus. That is what it says. So if the 
Social Security surplus is more than the unified budget surplus, which 
it is over the next five years, you are going to have to come up with 
some spending cuts to finance your plan. What are you going to cut, 
Medicare? Give me a break.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of the strongest supporters of our Social 
Security system.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am holding up 10 one-dollar bills. But 
as you can see, there are none there. Because we do not have a surplus 
to distribute as yet from anywhere. All of what we are talking about 
today is projected. Projected.
  Let me remind all of us now the facts, because my colleague from 
Texas is a little sensitive about raiding, and I will not use that, 
because I agree with him, to a point. But when you have a projected 
surplus of $520 billion over the next five years, of which $657 billion 
of the $520 are Social Security trust funds, what else can you define 
the utilization of those funds other than misuse of Social Security 
trust fund?
  Now, my colleague from Louisiana, I happen to agree with the tone of 
his comments a moment ago, because I do agree. I have been working with 
a lot of folks on his side of the aisle on the long term of Social 
Security. That is why I stand here today absolutely supporting the 
Rangel substitute and absolutely supporting not supporting the tax cut. 
Because anyone that has spent any time at all looking at what it is 
going to take to transcend into a new and survivable Social Security 
system knows there are transition costs up front that have to be paid 
for. I challenge anyone, and I would be glad to yield to anybody that 
would challenge me on anything that I have said thus far. Because 
anyone, and I know the chairman of the committee has worked on this and 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) about to speak has worked on 
this and I believe he will agree. If we are going to solve the long-
term problems of Social Security, we have got to have some transition 
costs. That is why I oppose a short-term political fix of a tax cut 
because I want to spend the money on Social Security. Because we cannot 
get from where we are to where we want to be unless we do that.
  No one as yet has talked about the debt, $5.4 trillion, and we can 
point the fingers at what caused it. I am reminded when I point my 
finger, there are three pointing back at me. But no one also has talked 
about the $9 trillion unfunded liability of the Social Security system. 
That is why some of us are so opposed to a tax cut right now, 60 days 
before an election, because we want to start the day after the election 
working together in a bipartisan way with our colleagues to solve the 
long-term Social Security problem. That is why I am here. I do not want 
my remarks mischaracterized as some have done this morning on the rule. 
I want it to be perfectly clear why I oppose the tax cut today using 
Social Security trust funds, because no one can refute me when I say 
when the projected surplus over the next five years, that is projected, 
and look at the world economy and tell me that it may not happen.
  The conservative thing for us to do is to bank the surplus of Social 
Security, reserve it for the future of Social Security, and reserve it 
for perhaps an economy that may not be as good next year as it is 
today.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security.
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, 
the Democratic alternative is not a good deal for Social Security. On 
the face of it, one might think that putting aside $1.6 trillion in 
excess FICA taxes seems better than the $1.4 trillion the GOP would 
reserve at 90 percent of the total budget surplus. But the amendment 
adds risks to Social Security that are totally unnecessary. The 
Democratic substitute sends all excess FICA reserves and receipts to 
the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City where the central bankers are 
to invest them in marketable securities.

[[Page H8749]]

                              {time}  1245

  The Fed's job is to control inflation and provide market liquidity, 
not invest Social Security funds. This is not the role of the Federal 
Reserve and only creates a conflict of interest.
  When the Federal Reserve buys securities to keep financial markets 
steady, what will it do with the FICA receipts? Will the Fed's first 
priority first be to stabilize markets or getting the best deal for 
Social Security?
  After all, investing FICA funds in marketable securities introduces a 
new risk, market risk from the changing prices of bonds, from which 
Social Security, under current Treasury investment practices, is 
spared. While the Treasury Secretary is ordered in this bill to make up 
the losses, the trackings of trillions of bonds would be so complex 
Social Security might not receive what it is due.
  The Republican plan avoids all this by using the current investment 
procedures in special Treasury securities that have no price 
volatility.
  For all the increased risk in complexities to Social Security, the 
bill still has the same budgetary outcome as current law. The surplus 
would still be on the Federal books and still considered Federal money 
available for Federal purposes according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. And if there is a budget surplus other than FICA receipts, is 
it the intention of the minority to give a tax break to the working 
Americans, as this Congress will do tomorrow in the tax bill, or spend 
it away?
  Perhaps, however, the intent of the Democratic proposal is larger 
than what is written here. Is this the prelude, as some Democrats have 
proposed, of government bureaucrats investing Social Security funds in 
the private capital markets?
  As my colleagues know, Fed Chairman Greenspan fears the interference 
of government ownership of American businesses and the financial and 
competitive penalties this could bring to workers and investors.
  Private investment of Social Security funds is something we should 
debate as part of the Social Security reform, not a tax bill, and I, 
for one, want to take no step, no matter how innocuous it might seem 
now, to give government, not individuals, control over such enormous 
sums of money.
  When the President spoke to us about reserving the surplus to save 
Social Security, I believe he meant all types of excess revenues, not 
just FICA receipts as in the Democratic bill. Under their amendment, if 
the surplus gets larger due to the historical rise in individual and 
business income taxes, not a penny of it will be saved for Social 
Security. The Republican bill captures every penny of this increase and 
could actually end up reserving greater amounts than the Democratic 
plan.
  Finally, let us put this in perspective. Under current CBO 
projections, our bill reserves $1.4 trillion over 11 years, and the 
Democratic plan, $1.6 trillion. For no change in the bottom line, are 
we willing to have the system take on more risk, alter the income the 
funds receive and upset the important financial operations of the 
Federal Reserve? It is just not worth it.
  The Democrat substitute introduces new risk for Social Security that 
we do not need. It creates uncertainty that we cannot justify. The 
Republican bill is straightforward, honest and safe. It sets aside $1.4 
million to save Social Security, using tried and true methods.
  Please stick with the Republican bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), a member of the committee.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I must say I am confused by some of the 
discussions here. I had assumed that the Republicans were pushing to 
privatize Social Security and invest in things like the long-term 
capital corporation on Wall Street, but they are sending conflicting 
messages. They have been for Social Security since 1973, but none of 
them were around when it came into being, voted for it, and now they 
want to privatize it, and all I have got to do this morning is convince 
my mother that her Social Security benefits will continue.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can tell her is to not vote Republican, 
because the record of the Republicans has been to dismantle Social 
Security since 1935 when they opposed it, and they still do.
  But the real issue that we are here debating today is how we are 
going to pay for the tax cut that we are going to debate tomorrow. And 
the only way that the Republicans could pay for their tax cut that they 
want to bring up tomorrow is to endanger the Social Security moneys 
today. They have got to take 10 percent. Let us forget about the 90 
percent, and let us assume that is safe. Let us assume that nobody is 
going to steal that money. But the 10 percent we are talking about is 
going out for a tax cut.
  Now between now and tomorrow, with the way Republicans write bills in 
secret and pass them out of the Committee on Rules, they could increase 
that to 20 percent. Would not make any difference how we vote today, 
unless my colleagues support the substitute of the gentleman from New 
York who would lock away that money and take it out of the reach of 
these spending-crazed Republicans who would like to take this money and 
have a huge tax cut and increase the deficit even further than their 10 
percent will do.
  So let us try and not confuse the public with whether we are better 
off having the Federal Reserve buy government bonds, which are indeed 
supported by Federal Reserve activities so that they are better 
investments, or whether we should leave them in a lower interest rate 
account at the Treasury, which has a fixed maturity value. I think that 
is splitting hairs. The truth is, the Republican plan gives us no 
protection beyond today. They say they are going to save 90 percent, 
but there is nothing in their bill that prevents them from changing 
their mind the very next day and spending 20 percent instead of 10 
percent. And there is nothing in their past history of actions that 
would give us any confidence that that is not exactly what they will 
do.
  So what I am suggesting to my mom is that if she is worried about 
Social Security is to support the Rangel amendment which will limit the 
Republicans, at least, to only spending 10 percent for the tax cut that 
they want tomorrow, unlike the Democrats who would say, ``Let's wait, 
eat your spinach first, and then get your desert until there is a true 
surplus, and then we'll all support the tax bill.''
  So please support the Rangel substitute so that the seniors can be 
secure that their old age retirement will be there and that my mother's 
grandchildren can also be secure in the knowledge that when they pay 
their taxes out of each paycheck there will be a retirement plan for 
them as well.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
simply to briefly comment on what some of the previous speakers have 
said.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
is making a good-faith attempt to accomplish his purpose. His scheme, 
as designed in statutory language, will not do it, number one. And, 
number two, it will take an even greater risk with the very sacred 
Social Security funds because it will take those payroll taxes 
dedicated to Social Security and give them to the Federal Reserve, a 
Federal Reserve bank that is not accountable to the people, that is not 
accountable to the Congress, and that is a highly risky activity to 
take with these sacred funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rangel 
substitute, and I stand here in support of the Protect Social Security 
Account legislation offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
which sets aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security.
  This is what this debate really is all about. Today we are asking a 
pretty basic question: Can we save Social Security and can we eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty at the same time? The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) says no; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) says yes, 
and he has offered a plan.
  When I think of Social Security, I think of my mom and dad, I think 
of my Aunt Mary, my Aunt Eileen, my Uncle Jack, my Uncle Bob, all on 
Social Security, and when I think of the marriage tax penalty I think 
of my sister Pat and her husband who, like 28 million married working 
couples, suffer higher taxes just because they are married, and I think 
we all agree we

[[Page H8750]]

need to do both. We need to save Social Security and eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty for married working couples.
  What is, I think, a great victory about legislation offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is that we are setting aside $1.4 
trillion, which is more than twice what President Clinton said we 
should set aside back in January. The President said we should set 
aside the $600 billion surplus at that time. Today, we have the 
opportunity to set aside more than twice what the President called for, 
$1.4 trillion.
  One clear message that I hear back home and that is, let us keep the 
politics out of Social Security. Let us be honest about it. We need to 
work together. Republicans and Democrats need to work together. We have 
an opportunity today to set aside $1.4 trillion to save Social 
Security. We also have an opportunity tomorrow to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty for people like my sister Pat and her husband, 28 
million married working couples who are punished under our Tax Code 
just because they are married.
  Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. Let us vote yes for Mr. Archer today. Let us vote yes for Mr. 
Archer tomorrow. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) a member of the committee.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Point one:
  Let us remember history, where the deficit came from. I heard one of 
our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means talk about it as if 
it came when the Democrats were running the show.
  Most of the deficit occurred in the 1980s when there were Republican 
Presidents, and we appropriated no more than those Presidents asked 
for. And the two major deficit reduction bills before last year, in 
1990 the majority of Republicans voted no, and in 1993 every single 
Republican voted no.
  Secondly, the emergency argument is pure bootstrap. If it is not an 
emergency, do not include it within the bill. The Budget Act provides 
for emergency expenditures. It does not provide for raiding the Social 
Security fund, and we have to amend the Budget Act in order to do it.
  This bill before us is nothing more than an accounting gimmick, a 
bookkeeping contrivance that does nothing to protect Social Security. I 
support the Rangel substitute. Our colleagues are in a box on this, so 
they come up with a phony lockbox. Ours is a real one.
  What it does, the Rangel substitute, it takes a hundred percent of 
the budget surplus each year and transfers it aside to the Federal 
Reserve Bank to be held in trust for Social Security. But the important 
point is we should not spend any of the budget surplus until we have 
first taken action to assure the long-term health of Social Security. 
Without the surplus in Social Security, there is no budget surplus this 
year. Without Social Security, the general fund of the Treasury will 
not post a genuine surplus of any size until 2006.
  Look, this bill and its companion tomorrow divert 10 percent of the 
budget surplus, the Social Security surplus. When it comes to Social 
Security, my constituents and I think theirs say being a 90 percenter 
is not good enough.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel lockbox substitute. This 
is the time to make saving Social Security the first, not a second or 
third priority. We must not divert Social Security funds. Let us fix 
Social Security and then enact a tax cut for American families.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
simply to reiterate what I said earlier. I cannot believe that senior 
citizens in this country or the Association of Retired Persons could 
support this Rangel substitute to take greater risk with the sacred 
funds of the Social Security trust fund and put them in the hands of 
the Federal Reserve, particularly the Federal Reserve Bank that 
recently bailed out a losing hedge fund in order to save bankers and in 
order to try to reduce the threat of that, and used, of course, dollars 
within their control. This is highly risky. I do not know where it came 
from, we have not had hearings on it, but I am sure that ARP would not 
support this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman of the 
committee, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, to expound upon the comment just made by the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, we must rise in strong 
opposition to the Rangel substitute precisely because of its method of 
devising a so-called lockbox, because it does nothing to serve as 
stewards or protectors of Social Security. Oh, no, it gives the 
consideration to the central bankers. The Federal Reserve Bank of New 
York City. New York City? Why on earth would we devise this legislative 
sleight of hand?
  We understand the desperation of those on the left. Not only intent 
on bankrupting the Nation fiscally, they are bankrupt and bereft of 
ideas. So this extension of the politics of fear is made manifest in 
the Rangel substitute. You see, Mr. Speaker, the left so mistrusts the 
American people with their own money that they will devise any scheme 
to put the government in the way of hard working people and their 
money.
  There is another fatal flaw that we should point out, and I listened 
with great interest to the revisionist theory of my friend from 
Michigan who comes down with his tired old recitation of government 
spending, as if history occurs in a vacuum, about the 1980's, and we 
did not have our defenses fall into great disrepair and we did not 
confront a superpower intent on enslaving all the world; as if all that 
was brushed away with a sleight of hand, as if the world was not a 
dangerous place and it was not incumbent upon President Reagan and 
others to provide for the common defense.
  But the spending question is very interesting here, because we had no 
less a personage than the President of the United States come to this 
chamber and stand in that podium for his State of the Union message and 
say to us all in sterling rhetoric that we should save every penny for 
Social Security.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, the facts are these: He has already taken $2.9 
billion of that surplus to support a misadventure in Bosnia. Those are 
the facts. And the simple distinction is this: Do we allow the left, 
thankfully these days the minority, to continue to stand in the way of 
the American people and their money, in holding onto a small portion of 
their money through tax relief, or do we allow them to spend it and put 
the money in the hands of the central bankers?
  Reject the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has one effect and one 
effect only, and that is to allow us to vote on the tax cut bill 
tomorrow. It does not protect Social Security, it sets up an accounting 
gimmick. We should be honest with the American people as to the purpose 
of this bill.
  There are no guaranteed projected surpluses, yet the tax bill we are 
going to be asked to vote on provides for permanent changes in our tax 
laws. There is no assurance that only 10 percent of the projected 
surplus will be used for a tax cut; it could be 20 percent, it could be 
30 percent, it could be 100 percent.
  The projected Social Security surplus today, that is, payroll taxes 
and interest, is about $1.5 trillion. But if you ask our actuaries how 
much money we should have in it to provide for a 75 year solvency of 
the Social Security system, they will tell you that we need $3.3 
trillion, or twice what we have today. So the assumption that we are 
flush with money just is not true. We do not have enough money to deal 
with Social Security in the long term, and yet we are asked to vote on 
a tax bill.
  We are going to have the first balanced budget in 30 years, and yet, 
as the President said, before we even have

[[Page H8751]]

an opportunity to transfer from red ink to black ink on our accounting, 
there are those who want to start giving money away.
  Let us be fiscally responsible. The tax cut that we voted last year 
was fully paid for under the budget rules. We did not have to waive the 
budget rules. Yet the bill we are being asked to vote on tomorrow will 
violate the budget rules and our discipline.
  We talk about emergency spending. Emergency spending is not budgeted. 
One-time-only emergency spending is consistent under our budget rules. 
Ninety-eight percent of the budget surplus projected during the next 10 
years comes as a result of our Social Security system. Let me put it 
differently. Without the Social Security system, we would not have any 
budget surplus. We would not be able to consider a tax bill. No one can 
dispute that.
  So let us be honest: If it were not for Social Security, we would not 
have a budget surplus and we would not be considering a tax bill 
tomorrow.
  This bill claims to protect 90 percent of the funds for Social 
Security. It does not do that. If we did not pass any bill, 100 percent 
of the funds would be in the Treasury, preserved, for preserving Social 
Security first. The Rangel substitute protects 100 percent of the funds 
until we have resolved the Social Security problem. It is the right 
bill to vote on.
  I urge my colleagues to support the substitute, so that we can really 
protect Social Security first and use the surplus monies that have been 
generated as a result of our Social Security system to resolve the 
problems of Social Security first, before we consider a tax cut.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is always dangerous around here to read 
legislation that you are looking at, but if you were to look at the 
substitute that the gentleman from New York is offering, it says on the 
first page, line 15, ``If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that 
there is a Social Security surplus for any fiscal year, such Secretary 
shall transfer''--transfer--``during such year from the general fund of 
the Treasury an amount equal to the surplus to the Federal Reserve Bank 
of New York.''
  Transfer. If there is a surplus, take the money and transfer it to 
the Federal Reserve Bank. The Social Security surplus is to be 
transferred.
  I would ask my colleague, the gentleman from New York, if he is going 
to transfer Social Security surplus monies, and we have been talking 
about the trust fund involving billions and trillions of dollars in 
terms of obligations. The Congressional Budget Office, is the facility 
that we use to estimate the cost of legislation, therefore I would ask 
the gentleman from New York, does he have a cost estimate of this 
transfer?
  Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will yield, I will tell him how this 
works.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman have a cost estimate? 
Yes or no? I am asking a question. If the gentleman has a response, I 
would like to hear it. I have very few seconds left here. Does the 
gentleman have an estimate, yes or no?
  Mr. RANGEL. It does not respond to a yes or no answer.
  Mr. THOMAS. It does not respond to a yes or no answer. I will tell 
the gentleman why, because the Congressional Budget Office said this 
has no budgetary consequence. It is an intergovernmental transfer. The 
gentleman's argument is they are saving the Social Security trust fund 
by shipping off, according to the Treasury's recommendation, an amount 
equal to the Social Security surplus to New York City to a Federal 
Reserve Bank, and that they are lockboxing, saving Social Security, 
removing the money so it cannot be spent and sending it to New York 
City. And the Congressional Budget Office, the agency we use to 
determine the costs of these actions, says there is no cost. There is 
no cost because it is an intergovernmental transfer.
  This is hogwash, vote no.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I actually thought that the Congress 
was going to address the Social Security shortfall in a bipartisan 
manner. Well, I guess we are not going to see that. I want to tell you 
that when I came to Congress, I told my constituents that I was going 
to put our house in order by reducing the deficit, providing tax relief 
and saving Social Security.
  Well, guess what? We have reduced the deficit, and, last year, we 
gave tax relief, $95 billion over five years. And do you know what? We 
gave tax relief that we paid for, the right way, without using the 
surplus.
  In my six years, I have rarely seen a bill so inaccurately titled, 
``Protect Social Security Account Bill.'' Let us get something 
absolutely straight: What they intend to do is take 10 percent of the 
total budget surplus, which is nearly all due to the contributions that 
American workers have invested in Social Security, and use it to fund 
tax cuts. In return, they will reserve 90 percent of the budget 
surplus.
  This is simply irresponsible. Congress does not own the trust fund. 
The American people, who have paid the taxes into the trust fund, own 
the trust fund, all of it. Not 90 percent, not 95 percent, not 99 
percent, the American people own 100 percent of it. So when you tell 
the American people that you propose to reserve 90 percent of the 
surplus, you are in fact robbing them. That is wrong.
  I and my democratic colleagues have committed to save Social Security 
first. We believe that reserving the entire budget surplus until we 
have resolved the shortfall will have positive results for the entire 
economy, far outweighing any election year tax cuts.
  Let me remind my colleagues: March 5th, before the Committee on the 
Budget, be cautious about spending it, Greenspan said, adding that the 
best way to ensure continued economic expansion would be to put the 
Federal budget into ``significant surplus.'' Doing so, he said, would 
encourage better saving habits among Americans. Greater savings would 
promote lower interest rates for borrowers and spur productivity, 
enhancing investments by business.
  Think what that would mean for working Americans who have mortgages, 
credit card bills and college loans. And to my friends with farmers, 
certainly they would appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, the old tax-and-spend days are over. I have not been 
here for 40 years. This is a new Congress. By supporting the Rangel 
substitute we can finish a process we started in 1993 and uphold our 
commitment to the American people.
  My constituents have told me time and again, take Social Security off 
budget. Quit spending the Social Security surplus. The Rangel 
substitute would save Social Security by setting aside 100 percent of 
the trust fund. Let us vote for the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our television audience 
and the people in the gallery, we are not today going to convince a 
single Member of Congress of the rights or wrong or merits or demerits 
of this issue. But keep in mind, I have something that I think both 
sides will agree with, which we need some bipartisan agreement on here.

                              {time}  1315

  The American people watching this today, and especially senior 
citizens, are going to be deluged in the next couple of weeks with 
letters from organizations here in Washington and outside Washington 
telling them that Social Security is endangered, and it is going to be 
filled with a lot of misinformation.
  The bottom line, usually the postscript, is going to say, send $15 or 
$25 or $50, and let us save Social Security. We in Congress will work 
on Social Security. It will be saved. It will be solvent,

[[Page H8752]]

but there is no need for anyone listening to send one dime to any 
organization in order to save Social Security. Rely on your Member of 
Congress.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Ms. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Rangel substitute. I am 
a senior citizen. I am speaking on behalf of those who come after me, 
those who will not have the opportunity to share in the resources of 
the Social Security Act.
  When I came to Congress, I served on the Committee on the Budget 
under the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). We talked about the budget 
agreement. There is a budget agreement. So what the Republicans are 
doing, Mr. Speaker, they are breaking their promise to the American 
public. The American people do not like broken promises. They have 
heard them too many times.
  Social Security is extremely important to all of us. It is extremely 
important to senior citizens. When Members go back to their districts 
and walk the byways and trailways of this country, every American will 
tell us, leave Social Security alone. What this Rangel substitute does 
is it puts it aside so we as politicians can leave it alone for a while 
and leave it there, where it purports to be from the very beginning.
  By their actions, it appears to me that over the years, and I have 
been here longer than a lot of people, the Republicans do not seem to 
like Social Security. They have used every kind of methodology to make 
it look remiss. They have tried their very best to show that it is 
failing and it should be put aside, or to privatize it.
  I am here to say to the American public, on behalf of this country, 
let us stick to our word. This bill is too risky. It takes too many 
promises that they cannot submit. Some of us may not even be here when 
this comes up. I say, take the Rangel substitute and turn down the 
Archer.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I admire the intention of my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) on this proposal, but I would respectfully 
ask that my colleagues reject it. I would say that for four different 
reasons.
  I would say, first of all, that the notion here is that this time it 
will be different. How many times have we heard that in Washington, 
D.C., this time it will be different? In other words, what we have been 
doing in Washington is borrowing against trust fund balances for the 
last 30 years, and what is proposed with this super-duper trust fund, 
if you will, is that this time it will be different. What people back 
home tell me is that they do not buy into the idea that this time 
things will be different.
  Two, I think it offers false hope. If we look at what the trustees 
have said, the trustees would say, whether this proposal went through 
or not, Social Security would begin to run shortfalls in about 15 
years, and it would be out of money, unable to pay its obligations, in 
about 30 years. That would not change with this.
  Thirdly, I would say that it moves us in the wrong direction. We are 
going to go in one of two directions in this debate, over the long run, 
on Social Security. We are going to either move towards greater 
personal control of one's savings, which I think is the real way we 
keep politicians' hands off our money, or we are going to move toward 
collective investment.
  I think there is nothing more dangerous than the idea of collective 
investment. This sets up the mechanism for collective investment, 
wherein $400 billion a year could go into the private sector. What 
people back home who care about limiting the size and scope of 
government tell me is that that is not a good idea.
  For these reasons I would ask that we reject the Rangel proposal.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, Social Security is one of our Nation's greatest success 
stories. It really is financial bedrock for our country's elderly, for 
hardworking American families who want to retire with some peace of 
mind. I think it is important to note that two-thirds of our seniors 
depend on Social Security for more than half of their retirement 
income. But in fact, Social Security is under attack. This bill would 
raid Social Security to pay for a tax bill.
  I believe in tax cuts. Too many parents today sit at their kitchen 
tables trying to figure out how to pay their bills. They are raising 
their children, they are working harder to making ends meet. I also 
believe when they sit there that they have a certain relief knowing 
that Social Security will be there when they retire. The American 
public overwhelmingly wants to make sure that the Social Security trust 
fund is there to pay for Social Security and nothing else, not tax cuts 
today that jeopardize Social Security tomorrow.
  Do not take my word for it. Martha Phillips, with the conservative 
Concord Coalition: ``Policymakers who are lining up to spend those so-
called budget surpluses should keep in mind that the money they are 
talking about consists entirely of Social Security's annual trust fund 
surpluses.''
  Steve Moore of the Cato Institute, another conservative organization: 
``The solution is simple: Formally wall off Social Security from the 
rest of the budget to prevent continued thievery from the trust fund.''
  Vote for the Rangel tax cut proposal. It says, let us not raid Social 
Security to pay for tax cuts. We can have our tax cuts when Social 
Security is safe and secure for the future.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I robbed a bank of 10 percent of its 
cash or its revenues, I seriously doubt the police and judge would 
accept my excuse that, Officer, Judge, I was really trying to save the 
bank. Yet, incredibly, that is what my Republican colleagues are doing 
today. They are saying, we just want to take 10 percent out of Social 
Security taxes that should be used to protect Social Security, and use 
that money for election-year promises and gimmicks.
  Mr. Speaker, a judge would never believe my excuse as a bank robber. 
I do not think the American senior citizens are going to believe this 
explanation of the bill today. The fact is, the American people will 
have to choose today, who do they trust better to protect Social 
Security, Democrats or Republicans.
  In my brief time, I would only point out that the number two ranking 
Republican leader in this House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), 
said on September 28 of 1994, ``I would never have created Social 
Security.''
  I think the American people will answer the question today. That 
answer will be, resoundingly, we trust the Democrats to protect our 
Social Security retirement.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in response to the gentleman who 
just spoke, it is a good question, whom will senior citizens trust, the 
Treasury of the United States or the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on the issue before us, this Congress 
stands at a very important crossroads: Do we go down the easy path of 
dissipating the Social Security surplus on election year gimmicks like 
this proposed tax cut, or do we brace ourselves for the tough march 
that lies ahead to secure Social Security, to address the long-term 
solvency problem in Social Security so it will work as well for our 
grandchildren as it has worked for our parents and grandparents? It is 
a critical question.
  Dissipating Social Security trust funds makes our problem worse. We 
already have bills before this session that would require someone to 
work until they are 70 years old before they would get their Social 
Security payment, or that would raise the tax on Social Security, 
making wage-earners pay even more into Social Security. Both of these 
measures are to fill the solvency hole we already have.

[[Page H8753]]

  Mr. Speaker, a tax cut on the Social Security surplus would only make 
the problem worse. The question before us is one most of us have never 
faced before, the first surplus we have seen in 30 years. Let us hold 
the Social Security surplus for Social Security. Pass the Rangel 
substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in order to save Social 
Security and instill trust, I rise to support the Rangel amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Democratic amendment. Only by 
transferring 100% of any Social Security Trust Fund surpluses to the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, can we look our constituents in the 
eye and say, ``Yes, you can trust in us. We have protected your future, 
your children's future, and your grandchildren's future.''
  The Republican bill appears to save 90% of the budget surplus, 
leaving 10% to Congressional discretion. Although this figure seems 
fair at first, I do not believe that we should have the discretion to 
use 1% of our citizens' futures, much less 10%.
  I fear that stealing 10% from the Social Security will create a 
dangerous precedent. What will stop Congress from taking out a higher 
percentage of the surplus in subsequent years? I may be 10% this year, 
but it could be 50% within two or three years. We should not give 
Congress free reign over this money.
  Worse yet, it does not appear that the Republican plan protects the 
remaining 90% of the budget surplus. Unlike the Democratic amendment 
that places the surpluses in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the 
Republican bill does not ensure that the Social Security surplus is 
off-budget. In other words, Congress may still choose to delve into 
these funds when the next election comes around. This approach is 
simply unfair to the American public, and it deceives our citizens into 
thinking that their futures are secure.
  We must put these funds in a lock box where political maneuvering 
cannot reach them. By placing 100% of the surplus in the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York, the Democratic amendment would properly lock 
away this valuable resource.
  Moreover, the Republican measure relies upon the spending of $200 
billion of the surplus, money that may not exist. As recently as last 
month, we did not have a surplus. The Republicans rely solely upon a 
projected surplus, and the Republicans even admit that their 
projections may be erroneous. Our constituents, our citizens, deserve 
better treatment than this. What kind of message do we send when we 
attempt to spend what we do not have?
  Even if we had a surplus, who are we to spend this money? It is not 
for us; it is for our retiring citizens. The money found in the surplus 
comes from payroll contributions. The money should be returned to the 
people who originally invested it.
  The Republican measure endangers the future of Social Security 
itself, not just the people who rely upon this fund. It is well-known 
that Social Security will face a fiscal crisis early in the next 
century as the baby boomer generation retires. Too many of our citizens 
drink from this well, and the Republican bill would allow politicians 
to spill this precious resource, drying up the sole reservoir for those 
who truly need it.
  Please do not think that I am against tax cuts. I strongly favor 
``fiscally responsible'' tax relief. Democrats have proposed and voted 
for many tax cuts this year. The bipartisan 1997 Tax Cut bill included 
almost $300 billion in tax cuts over a ten-year period, and many 
democrats support even greater tax relief for the middle-class than was 
contemplated by that bill.
  I just believe that tax cuts should be based upon sound reasoning. 
Haphazard legislation such as the Republican bill simply does not 
fulfill this notion of fiscally responsible tax relief.
  Instead, I strongly support sounder approaches such as this 
Democratic amendment. I also support approaches such as the Democratic 
amendment to H.R. 4579 that delays tax cuts until we know for sure that 
the Social Security Trust fund will be available to our citizens for 
years to come. This idea is the true embodiment of fiscally responsible 
tax relief.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is the only way 
we can ensure that our American citizens have a financial future as 
they reach their golden years.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I heard a Republican colleague earlier 
defend the Republican bill by saying, ``in this case, less is more.'' 
Only in Washington would someone say ``less is more'' with a straight 
face, that less protection is more security. But I am glad that at 
least we have one Republican on the record who admits that their bill 
in fact does less. It does less to protect Social Security, it does 
less to protect our seniors, and it puts aside less of the surplus. 
Less in this case is not more.
  The Democratic bill saves 100 percent of the budget surplus for 
Social Security, because seniors put 100 percent into their 
contributions over years and years of work. They did not put 90 percent 
in, they did not put 95 percent in, they put 100 percent in. That is 
what we should protect, not a penny less.
  Republicans should be ashamed to come down here to the floor and 
convince seniors that less is more. Our seniors know that less is not 
more, that less protection is not more security. They know who is on 
their side. They know it is the Democratic plan. Let us pass the Rangel 
substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the most important program that we 
have that is working. It makes the difference between the elderly 
living in poverty, and to convince them that taking 10 percent of their 
safety net, that they are helping them, they do not buy that.
  I would say to the Members, if they really want to help Social 
Security, they would put 100 percent in. Support the Rangel substitute. 
That is the only way we can convince the American seniors that we are 
sincere.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio) is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, as we look to the next 
Congress, the one that will fix the Social Security system for the out 
years, the baby boomers, we need to maintain every dime we can so that 
we do not end up forcing people to work longer or live longer to 
benefit from the same Social Security system that those that preceded 
them have.
  We also need to think about this election year tax cut in another 
context. The average working family, paying the most regressive tax on 
income that we have, the FICA tax, would be, in effect, asked to take 
their taxes and transfer them to the proposed beneficiaries of this 
Republican election year tax cut. We are therefore asking our working 
families to take their hard-earned dollars to provide tax breaks for 
others.
  However valuable they may be, however worthy they may be, those tax 
breaks must wait for the day when we have a surplus in the general 
fund, and that, Mr. Speaker, is 5 or 6 years away. To go for the cotton 
candy of a tax cut in an election year out of the hides of working 
American families is unconscionable.
  This Congress should support the Rangel substitute and avoid doing 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican misses the point of what Americans 
really want.
  We do not want to take money out of the Social Security Trust Fund 
for purposes other than Social Security.
  The American people pay Social Security taxes and expect that money 
to go to Social Security.
  Democrats believe that any future surplus should go to insuring the 
solvency of Social Security.
  So, why now are we specifying that only 90% of any surplus should go 
to saving Social Security and 10% can go elsewhere?
  Let's look at numbers.
  If in fiscal year 1999 we have an $80 billion Social Security Trust 
Fund surplus and a $37 billion general fund deficit, why should $8 
billion of the surplus for that year go somewhere other than to Social 
Security?
  Over the next 10 years, we'll need over $1.55 trillion to pay the 
future beneficiaries of the Social Security system--the elderly; the 
children, widows and widowers receiving survivor benefits; and the 
disabled--not prop up our budget.

[[Page H8754]]

  We need all 100%--not just 90%--of future budget surpluses to ensure 
that this anti-poverty program continues beyond 2032.
  Let's be fiscally responsible and use the Social Security Trust Fund 
for who it was intended--the elderly, disabled and children--not to 
provide tax cuts.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Archer), my friend, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say, during the time I was on the floor, I 
listened to a series of Members with amazement. The distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, had an opportunity recently to vote on the 
question of spending part of the surplus, and he voted ``yes.'' He 
would spend part of the surplus. This is House vote number 430 on 
September 15. He voted to spend part of the surplus, but it was on 
government, not the taxpayers.
  The gentleman from California who just spoke had a chance to vote on 
that day. He voted ``yes'' to spend part of the surplus, but it was on 
government, not the taxpayers.
  I will say the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) did not 
vote ``yes.'' She did not happen to vote that particular day. But the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) voted ``yes'' to spend part of 
the surplus, but on government, not on the taxpayers.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who spoke a few minutes 
ago, voted ``yes'' to spend part of the surplus, but on government, not 
on the taxpayers. And the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) 
who spoke voted ``yes'' to spend part of the surplus, but on 
government, not on the taxpayer.
  Every person but one who just finished this debate on the other side 
voted to spend part of the surplus on September 15 on government.
  The Clinton administration has sent up a proposal, in between fund-
raising trips, and they sent up a proposal that said, spend money on 
Bosnia, but not the taxpayers. They said, spend money for the 
government to fix Y2K, but do not let the taxpayers have money to fix 
their own commuters. They said, spend money on Africa, but not the 
taxpayers.
  Again and again and again the liberal Democrats get up, and I will 
bet that between now and the time we leave there are several votes 
where liberal Democrats vote ``yes'' to government spending out of the 
surplus, because if it is government money, that is okay. But now this 
idea of letting the taxpayers have some of that, that is dangerous. 
Then they would not be dependent on government. Then power would not be 
in Washington. Then they would not need the bureaucrats.
  Now, they raise this phony issue about Social Security. And it is 
phony on three grounds. It is phony, first of all, because the fact is 
we are setting aside more money for Social Security than the President 
requested in January. Now, that is a fact and the gentleman knows it. 
The gentleman knows when the President stood up here in January he was 
talking about a surplus whose total was around $650 billion. This 
proposal sets aside more money, 60 percent more money, than the 
President requested.
  Second, the gentleman knows that when asked as a result of the tax 
bill being considered by the committee today, will there be any impact 
on the monies in the Social Security trust fund, the Clinton 
administration's Deputy Commissioner for Social Security said, ``no,'' 
there is no impact to the trust fund from this particular vote.
  But the other part I have to say to my good friend, to suggest, as 
his substitute does, that instead of keeping the money in the U.S. 
Treasury we send it to the New York Federal Reserve Bank, I just had 
the numbers run on the last great crisis in the price of treasuries 
which was 1973. Over the period we are considering, we would put $750 
billion in the New York Reserve Bank. That money would be of a floating 
value of the nature of money held in the New York Reserve Bank.
  In the 1973 oil crisis, U.S. treasuries declined 20 percent in value. 
That would be $150 billion lost in the value of the notes held by the 
New York Federal Reserve Bank. So, I cannot believe my good friend from 
New York really wants to risk losing $150 billion in Social Security 
value by putting this money in notes that would have a floating value.
  So, I would understand if at some point before we get to a vote the 
gentleman wants to withdraw his substitute. Because I cannot imagine 
that he wants his colleagues to vote for a proposal to put at risk all 
of the excess FICA tax money by putting it in notes that would be of a 
floating value.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York briefly.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, because these Treasury notes, these notes 
that will be in the Federal Reserve are always redeemable, they are not 
at risk. And if they ever became at risk in the Federal Reserve Bank, 
it would mean the Republic would be bankrupt.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say to the 
gentleman from New York, and I am not the expert that he is on much of 
this, but I am assured by the experts, and I am sure later if he would 
like to check with the folks that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
has assembled on this, there is a big difference between the New York 
Reserve Bank holding the notes where they do change and fluctuate in 
value and the rest of the system.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just wrap up for a minute. Let me just say we 
have a surplus because we have consistently worked through welfare 
reform, through controlling spending, through cutting taxes, to 
encourage economic growth.
  We have proposed to set aside over a trillion dollars. My good 
friends on the left in the 40 years they were in charge of the House 
set aside zero. Let me make it clear. All of our good friends who are 
complaining today, during the 40 years they were in charge set aside 
zero for Social Security.
  We are setting aside today over a trillion dollars, 60 percent more 
than President Clinton asked for in January. And we are setting it 
aside in the safest possible Treasury notes held by the U.S. Treasury, 
not put at risk in New York City.
  My other point is very straightforward. All of our friends on the 
left are going to vote to spend part of the surplus on government. All 
of our friends on the left but one of those who voted on September 15, 
all but one voted to spend money on government out of the surplus.
  The only time they start to yell about the surplus is if the money is 
going back to the taxpayer, because from their standpoint that is 
dangerous since that means the money is not available for bureaucracy.
  Let me note what the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Archer) does. It begins to phase out the marriage tax, so we 
are not punishing people when they get married. It accelerates lifting 
the amounts Americans can earn over the age of 65 without being 
punished, so we are not punishing senior citizens.
  It goes immediately to a million dollar exclusion for the death tax 
to save family farms and small businesses. It has a savings proposal 
that helps 10 million senior citizens by eliminating the tax on the 
first $200 of interest and dividends.
  It allows small business owners who are self-employed to buy health 
insurance with the same tax break as big corporations, which helps 
people buy health insurance and helps children have health coverage. 
And, finally, it eliminates the Federal tax on local school boards, so 
local school boards have $1.4 billion more for local school 
construction, something my good friend from New York has said he 
favors. Here is a chance to have those local school boards have $1.4 
billion more at home to build schools without any new Federal 
bureaucrat, any new Federal red tape, any new Federal regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of positive tax cuts that help the 
American family, help senior citizens, help farmers, help small 
businesses and help local schools. It is done within a framework based 
on welfare reform, controlling spending and economic growth

[[Page H8755]]

through tax cuts that has allowed us in 3\1/2\ years to move from a 
projected $3,100 trillion deficit to a projected $1.6 trillion surplus.
  We can say to the American people for the first time in their 
lifetime that we are prepared to set real money aside from a real 
surplus. None of our Democratic friends who are complaining can say 
that. We are simply saying to the Democrats, if they vote against the 
taxpayer having the surplus, then they ought to vote against the 
government having the surplus. But it is wrong to increase spending on 
Bosnia, to increase spending in Africa, to increase spending on 
government commuters, to increase spending on government programs, and 
then say to the taxpayer that they are not good enough to get their own 
money back. We need to keep it in Washington for the Washington 
bureaucrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute, 
vote in favor of protecting Social Security in a real way by setting 
aside over a trillion dollars in the surplus.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 216, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     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)
     Kennedy (RI)
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     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
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--216

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     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)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     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
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Burton
     Cox
     Goss
     Kennelly
     Linder
     Moakley
     Pryce (OH)
     Waters
     Yates

                              {time}  1359

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Burton of Indiana against.

  Mr. REDMOND and Mr. WAMP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DIXON, MATSUI and SHERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 552, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 188, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No 464]

                               AYES--240

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     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
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter

[[Page H8756]]


     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     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
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Goss
     Kennelly
     Moakley
     Pryce (OH)
     Yates

                              {time}  1420

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Burton of Indiana for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mrs. BONO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________