[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H848-H856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SOCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEE INITIATIVE

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 32) expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
President and the Congress should join in undertaking the Social 
Security Guarantee Initiative to strengthen and protect the retirement 
income security of all Americans through the creation of a fair and 
modern Social Security Program for the 21st Century, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 32

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Social Security 
     Guarantee Initiative''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Social Security program provides benefits to 
     44,000,000 Americans, including more than 27,000,000 
     retirees, 5,000,000 people with disabilities, and 2,000,000 
     surviving children, and is essential to the dignity and 
     security of the Nation's elderly, disabled, and their 
     families;
       (2) the Social Security program's progressive benefit 
     structure is of particular importance to women, due to their 
     (A) longer life expectancies than men, making the Social 
     Security program's lifetime, inflation-adjusted benefits a 
     critical income support especially for widows; (B) lower 
     average earnings; and (C) lower pension and other retirement 
     savings, stemming in part from their lower incomes and their 
     spending an average of 11 years out of the paid workforce 
     caring for families;
       (3) the approaching retirement of the Baby Boom Generation 
     will result in the Social Security program's benefit costs 
     exceeding its tax revenues beginning in 2013;
       (4) the Social Security program faces looming insolvency 
     and instability in the next century so that by 2032 the 
     Social Security Trust Funds will be fully depleted and the 
     program will be able to honor less than 75 percent of benefit 
     commitments; and
       (5) prompt action is necessary to restore Americans' 
     confidence that their retirement benefits will be protected.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       The President and the Congress should join in strengthening 
     the Social Security program and protecting the retirement 
     income security of all Americans for the 21st century in a 
     manner that--
       (1) ensures equal treatment across generations to all 
     Americans, especially minorities and other low-income 
     workers;
       (2) recognizes the unique obstacles that women face in 
     ensuring retirement, disability, and survivor security and 
     the essential role that the Social Security program plays in 
     protecting financial stability for women;
       (3) provides a continuous benefit safety net for workers, 
     their survivors, their dependents, and individuals with 
     disabilities;
       (4) protects guaranteed lifetime benefits, including cost-
     of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation, for 
     current and future retirees; and
       (5) does not increase taxes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.J. Res. 32.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our work on Social Security is well under way. We have 
held numerous Social Security hearing already this year, and the 
President has provided us with a framework for the Congress to consider 
as we work towards a bipartisan solution to Social Security's problems.
  In fact, we are in agreement with President Clinton on many of the 
major issues relating to preserving and strengthening our Social 
Security system; namely, one, action is necessary now to shore up 
Social Security's financial underpinnings; two, 62 percent of the 
Federal budget surplus should be set aside until Social Security is 
indeed saved; three, investment in markets can be a part of the long-
term solution for Social Security; and, four, personal savings accounts 
are both technically feasible and a necessary part of the solution.
  Passage of H.J. Res. 32 will add to this strong start and will 
further strengthen our bipartisanship as we face the challenges ahead. 
The joint resolution says that Congress and the President should 
protect benefits for current and future retirees while avoiding any tax 
increases.
  On a program as vital to our country as Social Security, I am sure 
all of my colleagues will agree that we must work together, and H.J. 
Res. 32 is a measure that deserves all of our support. I hope they will 
join with me in showing the American people that Congress is committed 
to strengthening and preserving Social Security for the future and for 
future generations.
  Let me also add that I view this resolution as a test of whether the 
two parties can work together. We certainly

[[Page H849]]

did in the passage of this in the full committee. If we divide into 
partisanship over a simple, noncontroversial resolution affirming our 
support for Social Security, why should the American people expect us 
to be able to work together to actually save Social Security.
  Whatever our differences may be, and I am sure we will have plenty of 
differences, surely we can agree on this resolution as it is vitally 
necessary to the future of Social Security that we do work together and 
we work together in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the old partisan days, I would say this resolution is 
good because Santa Clause is coming through. But recognize that we have 
not had too many legislative accomplishments. Being very anxious to 
display some degree of bipartisanship, let me congratulate the majority 
for this resolution for whatever it means.
  In the olden days, when people saw a problem, they started 
legislating. But if this is a new thing, where you send a message that 
I recognize the problem and I do intend to legislate, well, who can be 
against that?
  So let me join with my Republican colleagues and say we have a very, 
very serious problem with Social Security in its present form. The 
majority party is acknowledging that it is going to do something about 
it. They have met the President halfway in terms of identifying the 
set-aside of the 62 percent. But they have a great deal of difficulty 
in stating that they will not entertain a tax cut from using the 
surplus until such time as we take care of the Social Security system 
and the Medicare trust system as we know it.
  Now, I do not know why these things are omitted. I have no idea as to 
why they are difficult to talk about. But let me join with my friend 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and say that half a loaf is 
better than nothing. I sincerely hope that we get beyond these 
resolutions and see what we can do in a bipartisan way to find a 
solution to this serious problem.
  The reason I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I know that this problem does not lend itself to 
a Republican answer or to a Democratic answer. If it is going to be 
done, and we both hope that it will be done, it has to be done in a 
bipartisan way.
  What has been done to move us closer to a bipartisan effort besides 
this resolution, I do not know. But if, with a great deal of 
imagination, I can say that let this be that one first step toward a 
journey which has to be concluded this year if we are going to do 
anything at all, then I want to be on the floor to join with the 
gentleman from Florida in this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the architect of this joint resolution.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
and the comments that were made. We do have to get beyond resolutions 
and get to real solutions. But as we debate what we are going to do on 
Social Security, we need to send a message to our Nation's Social 
Security retirees, our current beneficiaries, that they will be held 
harmless in this debate as we move forward on Social Security.
  I authored this resolution because I believe it is vital that 
Congress send a very clear message to the millions of Americans who 
rely on Social Security today.
  As we debate how best to fix and preserve Social Security, we must 
also commit ourselves to guaranteeing this generation of retirees that 
their benefits will be there when they need them.
  I recently completed 21 town hall meetings over the Congressional 
recess on Social Security throughout southern Wisconsin. At every 
single one of these meetings, I had constituents who are concerned 
about the talk they hear on Social Security. Whether it is 62 percent, 
38 percent, whatever percent, they are concerned that their current 
level of benefits will be diminished.
  I think it is very important that we, as a conference, on a 
bipartisan basis, send a signal that their benefits will not be cut; 
that we have to preserve guaranteed benefits for current retirees and 
people who are about to retire. Then we have to look at how we are 
going to keep Social Security solvent for future generations.
  This is the most important task that is facing this Congress this 
year. I think that this resolution gets us off to a good start, gets us 
off to a bipartisan agreement.
  From the western edge of my district in Brodhead, Wisconsin, to the 
shores of Lake Michigan in Racine, at every stop, I heard these types 
of comments. There was one thing that I learned, that I heard from an 
older gentleman in Evansville, Wisconsin; and this is a remarkable 
recommendation. I want to quote him. He said, ``If Congress allows 
Social Security to go broke, and seniors can no longer receive their 
benefits, then Members of Congress should not be allowed to receive 
their pensions.''
  The people will hold this Congress and this administration 
accountable, and they should. Thousands of other seniors throughout my 
district have echoed these concerns. They have great concerns about 
whether Social Security will be there as we negotiate and as we put 
together a bipartisan agreement to fix this program for the seniors in 
the future.
  But I want to be very clear about what this resolution does. One, for 
current and soon-to-be retirees, there will be no loss of benefits, no 
additional costs to beneficiaries, and no increased payroll taxes. Two, 
for the next generation of retirees who are now paying into the Social 
Security program, we must guarantee that the program will be saved and 
that their benefits will be there in their retirement years.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a historic opportunity to preserve what has been 
one of our Nation's most successful programs. I look forward to working 
with both seniors in my district and my colleagues in Congress on this 
important issue.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of the 
resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the most successful 
domestic program in the history of our Nation, keeping 40 percent of 
our elderly out of poverty and 800,000 children out of poverty.
  I support this resolution. But the real issue is whether Congress 
will finish the work begun by the President when he introduced the 
framework for Social Security, strengthening our system. The 
President's plan lays out a good foundation of reducing public debt and 
shoring up the program's assets.
  Social Security is too important of a program to play partisan 
politics. We must focus on improving the Trust Fund rate of return, 
restoring long-term solvency, and protecting benefits for current and 
future retirees. We should also focus on helping Americans save for 
their retirement to supplement the guaranteed benefit they receive from 
Social Security.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should make strengthening Social Security 
and Medicare our top fight and enact those reforms before any other 
aspect of our budget. Let us make it our top priority. Let us get it 
done. Let us get it done in a bipartisan way, and let us move on, 
really, to the bill itself rather than just this resolution.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of House 
Joint Resolution 32. I want to thank my fellow freshman, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his leadership on this issue.
  This bill is our opportunity to stand up and say our government will 
pay what it owes the people. We are committed to keeping the promise of 
Social Security.

[[Page H850]]

  When our constituents look at their pay stubs, they see a large 
portion of their hard-earned money going to Social Security. Ninety-six 
percent of all workers pay 12.4 percent of payroll taxes. That is 148 
million workers and their employers.

                              {time}  1400

   Every one of those workers sees the exact dollar amount on the 
Social Security portion of their paychecks. In exchange for that money, 
they expect a certain amount of help in their retirement years. They 
expect that money to come back to them in later years. I repeat, they 
expect that money to come back to them in later years. They do not care 
about charts and graphs here in Washington, they just know that money 
is going out of their pockets and expect to have some of it come back. 
They have paid for Social Security, they have been promised the money 
will come back to them when they retire, and we are committed to making 
sure that promise is kept.
  I know that some changes, some of them possibly difficult changes, 
will have to be made to make Social Security solvent, but we need to 
keep our promise.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the historic 
importance of Social Security and commits the Congress to protect 
guaranteed lifetime benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments that 
fully index for inflation, for current and future retirees. For this 
reason, I will vote for it, but I must note several flaws in the 
resolution.
  We should have included a provision that states that Social Security 
should be strengthened in a way that does not cut benefits, does not 
raise the retirement age, and does not place individuals at financial 
risk in their senior years by diverting Social Security tax revenues to 
individual private accounts. These ought to be the guiding principles 
of the Social Security debate.
  This resolution also states as fact the prediction of the trustees 
that by 2032 the trust funds will be fully depleted and the program 
will be able to honor less than 75 percent of benefit commitments. But 
this prediction will be correct only if the trustees' other prediction, 
that our economic growth rate will decline from 3.8 percent to 1.5 
percent, and stay at that absurdly low level for 70 years, is also 
correct.
  All of the budget calculations of the administration, the House 
Committee on the Budget, the Senate Committee on the Budget, and CBO 
assume much higher growth rates. Nobody really believes that the 1.5 
percent prediction of the trustees is anywhere near correct. So we 
should not make a congressional finding of fact we do not really 
believe to be true.
  But even granting the trustees' projection for the sake of argument, 
the shortfall predicted by the trustees is still small and manageable, 
can be completely funded in a way that does not cut benefits, raise the 
retirement age, raise tax rates or shift economic risk to individuals 
by shifting to a system of individual accounts.
  I plan on introducing legislation later this week that will do just 
that.
  Raising the retirement age, which is a key component of many so-
called ``reform'' proposals, is cruel and unnecessary, especially for 
those whose careers demand hard physical labor, and this resolution 
ought to say so.
  Cutting benefits, either directly or by replacing the defined benefit 
nature of Social Security with a defined contribution program, would 
devastate millions of Americans who are just barely getting by right 
now. Benefits should not be reduced and the basic guarantee of Social 
Security must not be undermined in any way. This is crucial, and it 
ought to be included in this resolution.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), who has early on been working very hard on a 
reform package.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
good words.
  This resolution is good. All resolutions are good that move us ahead 
with a commitment to fix this significant problem. I think maybe we 
will start believing these resolutions and we will do it.
  But, look, everybody needs to understand it is not easy. A Committee 
on the Budget staffer just figured out if we put every cent of the 
surplus into Social Security at a nominal return of 10.5 percent, every 
cent of the surplus over the next 5 years, it would only keep Social 
Security solvent until the year 2040.
  I mean this is a tough question. It is so easy to demagogue. I hope 
there will be a commitment by both sides of the aisle and the President 
of the United States to not criticize parts of the program as we try to 
move ahead with a very serious effort to make a solution. I would ask 
the Democrats to give us their ideas and their proposals that can be 
scored to keep Social Security solvent and, likewise, Republicans do 
the same, to try to seriously move ahead with saving a very important 
program.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time, and I wish to use this opportunity for a little prekindergarten 
101 budget talk.
  Through all the rhetoric we hear today and we are soon to hear as we 
anxiously await the budget for 2000, let us remind ourselves today 
there is no surplus to be divided for any purpose for the next 2 years, 
other than by using Social Security Trust Fund. And for the next 5 
years there is $82 billion that are non-Security Trust Fund.
  Let us remind ourselves of that and use this opportunity in a 
bipartisan way, as we unanimously vote for this resolution today, that 
what we are saying is, unequivocally, that a lot of the rhetoric we 
hear about who and how much we are going to spend, and how much we are 
going to cut taxes, will not fit within the spirit of the resolution 
that is voted on today.
  Let us remind ourselves of that today as we vote for this and use 
this in a positive way to do what all of us want to do, both sides of 
the aisle. And I agree with the gentleman from Michigan, there are some 
of us on this side, as on that side, that are willing to make some of 
the tough choices. That will come through committee work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This resolution 
doesn't do anything to actually strengthen Social Security, but I hope 
that it is the beginning of a bipartisan process to honestly address 
the financial problems facing Social Security.
  Social Security reform should start by walling off the Social 
Security surplus and saving it for Social Security. We shouldn't even 
talk about budget surpluses until we have truly taken Social Security 
off-budget by balancing the budget without counting the Social Security 
surplus. All of the Social Security surplus should be saved for Social 
Security by using them to reduce the debt held by the public.
  There is no surplus today unless you count the Social Security 
surplus. A tax cut that is not paid for will require us to increase 
borrowing from Social Security trust fund for purposes other than 
saving it for Social Security.
  I want to remind all of my colleagues that there is no free lunch. 
The promised benefits under Social Security will cost $9 trillion more 
than we can afford over the next 75 years--that money will have to come 
from somewhere. The Directors of the Congressional Budget Office and 
the General Accounting Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan have all testified that Congress and the President must make 
tough choices to bring Social Security costs in line with revenues. 
Many proposals that appear on the surface to offer painless resolutions 
have significant hidden costs and shortcomings which must be taken into 
consideration.
  I have been critical of the President's plan for avoiding the heavy 
lifting of proposing reforms to deal with the unfunded liabilities of 
the system. I am equally troubled by the proposals being floated by 
some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that suggest that 
individual accounts are a magic bullet that offers a painless solution 
to save Social Security without making any structural reforms.
  Rhetorically acknowledging that tough choices are inevitable is not 
enough. Reaching agreement on fiscally responsible legislation that 
truly makes Social Security financially sound without simply shifting 
costs to future taxpayers will require leadership by the President and 
Congressional leadership. I encourage both the President and the 
Leadership hear in Congress to provide the leadership necessary to move 
the debate beyond the misleading suggestion that projected surpluses

[[Page H851]]

alone will save Social Security and begin a serious discussion about 
the tough choices that remain.
  There is a bipartisan bill that meets all of the principles in this 
resolution which makes Social Security financially sound and gives 
future generations the flexibility to address other priorities. Jim 
Kolbe and I have proposed legislation, the 21st Century Retirement 
Security Plan, which would preserve the best features of the current 
system while modernizing it for the 21st century. Our plan would 
strengthen the safety net, restore the long-term solvency of the Social 
Security Trust Fund, reduces future liabilities and increase individual 
control over retirement income, all without increasing taxes.
  The plan would create individual security accounts, funded through a 
portion of the current payroll tax, to explicitly replace unfunded 
liabilities by prefunding a portion of future retirement income. The 
plan also establishes a minimum benefit provision which, for the first 
time, guarantees that workers who work all their life and play by the 
rules will be protected from poverty, regardless of what happens to 
their individual accounts. We make benefit changes in a progressive 
manner through bend point changes that affect middle and upper income 
workers, who will benefit from individual accounts. Perhaps most 
importantly, our legislation ensures that future governments will have 
resources to deal with other problems in addition to providing Social 
Security by honestly confronting the future unfunded liabilities of the 
system that will threaten other budgetary priorities if we do not take 
action.
  I encourage all my colleagues to follow through on the bipartisan 
rhetoric embodied in this resolution and roll up our sleeves to tackle 
the tough choices necessary to strengthen and preserve Social Security 
for the 21st Century.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a daunting challenge at hand, and part of that 
challenge of saving Social Security is to approach this problem not as 
Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans; understanding the 
dependence of many in their old age on this program, understanding the 
concerns of those of generations just entering the work force, 
understanding the concerns of baby boomers who have paid into the 
system and hope to see it continue.
  As we begin this debate, as we work to solve this problem, this 
resolution is a good starting point. In committee we accepted many 
amendments from our friends in the minority. Now, there is not 
unanimity, to be sure, but with this resolution we reaffirm the 
primacy, necessity and commitment of this Congress to the Social 
Security program. And, more importantly, we say, let us save it without 
increasing taxes and protecting against inflation. So that is where we 
start.
  I would echo the comments of my colleague from Michigan; that we 
should avoid the temptation to point fingers, to engage in fear rather 
than facts. And the reality must be borne out by our rhetoric and, more 
importantly, our resolve. The American people look to us and count on 
us, and in this spirit today it begins now with the passage of this 
resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I basically support this resolution. 
Americans have been misled by some to doubt that Social Security will 
provide retirement security. In fact, Social Security does not face a 
financial crisis. A projected shortfall occurring 34 years in the 
future is not a crisis, it is a projection. No other organization, 
public or private, has a plan for operation nearly two generations into 
the future.
  Social Security does face a political crisis if Congress abandons its 
commitments to guarantee benefits. This resolution is a good first move 
and should put to rest whether Social Security will pay full benefits. 
With this resolution Congress pledges to guarantee paying full benefits 
to current and future retirees.
  A pledge is good. Making it the law would be better. Congress will 
have to add this concept in any reform legislation we adopt to make the 
words of this resolution meaningful. We must work to ensure that any 
reform legislation Congress passes also upholds the Social Security 
guarantee that promised benefits are as good as money and are backed by 
the full faith and credit of the United States, just like our currency 
and bonds.
  I hope everyone will join me in adding meaning to this resolution by 
writing the Social Security guarantee into law.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of my colleague from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his introduction of a resolution that 
undertakes the Social Security Guarantee Initiative. Through this 
resolution we establish a framework for debate and reaffirm our 
commitment to the long-term solvency of Social Security.
  It is clear to me that the moment is prime for a national debate on 
Social Security. The citizens of our Nation understand the importance 
of Social Security's fiscal health, not only for the time being but for 
generations yet to come. They expect their elected officials to come 
together in a bipartisan fashion to provide solutions.
  I recently had the opportunity to lead a forum on the future of 
Social Security reform. What struck me the most about this particular 
event was that its main participants were not a panel of experts or a 
group of politicians. Instead, those most interested were concerned 
North Carolinians who have a stake in the system and expect a fair 
return on their investment. They do not need policy experts from 
Washington to explain to them that in a few years the government will 
not have enough money to keep the promises it made when the program 
began.
  Mr. Speaker, ensuring the viability of Social Security is a tall 
challenge, and I realize there is no silver bullet, but we must take 
one step at a time. I support the resolution before us now and the 
spirit of cooperation that it represents. Citizens from my district, 
the Eighth District of North Carolina, expect their elected officials, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, to work together for a better future.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  The resolution calls for equal treatment in Social Security across 
generations, especially for workers of minorities. It says Congress 
must recognize the unique obstacles facing women and the disabled. The 
resolution says we must guarantee a lifetime benefit for America's 
elderly and those future retirees and avoid, in the process, increasing 
taxes.
  Now, I support these principles, and I believe the President's 
framework also advances these principles in the administration's 
proposal for dealing with Social Security. I am, therefore, going to 
vote for this resolution. But I want to note the resolution, in and of 
itself, does nothing.
  A point of concern I would have about it is that sometimes I have 
seen resolutions offered by majorities that have no intention on 
actually advancing legislation to get something done. I have also seen 
resolutions extolling principles advanced when the plan is to advance 
legislation that actually achieves something quite different.
  Now, the ultimate question, and the point of uncertainty, can only be 
addressed by a plan. So I say to the majority, give us a plan. Let us 
move the debate past meaningless resolutions to actual debate.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution because 
it involves the most important of all issues, preserving Social 
Security and Medicare. But while I appreciate the sentiments, I think 
it is most important we really get down to legislation.
  In a sense, this is a baby step when we need a great leap forward. It 
is entitled Social Security Guarantee Initiative, but it really 
guarantees nothing. We have to get busy on legislation. The President 
has proposed his position, now we need to hear from the majority and 
then begin to compare notes and to act.
  This resolution would be more meaningful if it had said that the 
first priority should be to save Social Security

[[Page H852]]

and Medicare as we proposed in the full committee. But in any event, 
let us pass this resolution and then get down to a bipartisan effort to 
secure Social Security and Medicare for the long run.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this 
resolution, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for the statements they 
have made publicly to work together in a bipartisan way.
  One statement we will make very clear today is every Member of the 
House, I expect, will vote for this. Because even though we may 
disagree a little bit on how to do it, we all stand here because we 
want to save Social Security. In fact, we are committed to saving 
Social Security not just for today's seniors but for future 
generations, the next three generations, who depend on Social Security.
  When I think of Social Security, I think of my own mom and dad, now 
in their 70s. I think of my nieces and nephews that are college age and 
entering the work force out of high school. They all look for Social 
Security. They have paid their dues into Social Security, and they want 
Social Security to be there when it is their turn.
  Social Security today, as some have pointed out, is sound for today's 
seniors. But the question is how are we going to make Social Security 
sound for future generations. That is the challenge that is before us.
  I hope we remember as we go through this process the importance of 
looking at how Social Security impacts women as we look at the numbers; 
as we look at ways to ensure that we treat women equally and fairly 
when it comes to Social Security. Because it is clear that statistics 
show that elderly women have been almost twice as likely as elderly men 
to live in poverty. That is a challenge we need to meet, and I hope we 
can do it in a bipartisan way.
  Once again, I also plan to offer an additional solution to help 
supplement Social Security. I believe that we should reward retirement 
savings. I believe that we should eliminate discrimination against 
retirement savings and allow people to contribute more to their 401(k)s 
and their IRAs.

                              {time}  1415

  We should also allow working moms to make up missed contributions 
through catch-up IRAs, allow them to make up the contributions for 
their retirement accounts that they could have made had they stayed 
working and instead chose to stay home with their children.
  We should allow working moms to have that opportunity. Catch-up IRAs 
will be a big help for women. Let us work in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Social Security Subcommittee, I 
strongly support H.R. Res. 32. This resolution expresses the willingess 
of Congress to work with the President to strengthen and protect the 
Social Security system for current and future generations. Just last 
week, this resolution passed the Ways and Means Committee with a 
unanimous, bipartisan vote of 32-0.
  Social Security affects the majority of Americans, whether it be a 70 
year old retiree, a 40 year old parent, or a 19 year old college 
student. We all pay our Social Security taxes with the promise that 
when we retire, we will collect the benefits that are due to us. 
Unfortunately, our Social Security system is in dire straigths and it 
is our responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure that the 
program remains healthy and stable far into the 21st century.
  As we discuss ways to change the system, we must also remember that 
women, even more than men, rely on the Social Security system for 
financial security in their golden years. Over their lifetime, because 
of family commitments, many women cannot accumulate adequate pension 
savings. By the mid-1990s, only 18 percent of women over the age of 64 
received their own pension benefits and their pension benefits were 
less than half of those received by men.
  Additionally, we must keep certain important statistics in mind. In 
1997, elderly women were almost twice as likely as elderly men to live 
in poverty. Additionally, the poverty rate for unmarried elderly women 
was 19 percent in 1997. This is a crucial statistic because 60 percent 
of elderly women are unmarried. Also significant, nearly 30 percent of 
elderly black and Hispanic women lived in poverty in 1997, making 
Social Security especially important to minority, elderly women.
  To help women save for their later years, I plan to again offer 
legislation to help improve retirement savings opportunities for women 
and other individuals who opted out of the workforce to raise families. 
These Catch-up IRAs will also allow individuals approaching retirement 
the ability to save more for their golden years, and for all savers the 
ability to make additional ``after tax'' contributions to their savings 
plans.
  I am encouraged by H.J. Res. 32 and I hope that President Clinton 
will join us in finding bipartisan solutions to the problems that 
plague our Social Security System. Additionally, I hope that we can 
continue to work together to find Social Security reform solutions 
which protect the special needs of women in their retirement years.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important 
resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate on H.J.Res. 32 in the Committee on Ways and 
Means was not a debate about whether we should save Social Security or 
give the American people a tax cut. Both the Democrats and Republicans 
favor tax cuts so long as they are paid for. The debate was about 
whether we would memorialize our commitment and then keep our promise 
to the American people not to touch a dime of the surplus until we have 
saved Social Security for future generations. This resolution does not 
make that commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, the Social Security system is the most respected and 
successful system in U.S. history. While my remarks will not change the 
resolution, I want to let the American people know that I, along with 
my Democratic colleagues, are serious about addressing the long-term 
solvency problems facing the Social Security system and stand by our 
commitment to save Social Security first.
  We owe it to the over two-thirds of older Americans who rely on 
Social Security for 50 percent or more of their total income. We owe it 
to the hard-working American families who rely on Social Security for 
continued prosperity as they enter into retirement. And, most of all, 
we owe it to our children who deserve to know that Social Security is 
going to be there for them.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Today, this Chamber 
takes an important step towards strengthening our Nation's Social 
Security system. However, this goal can only be achieved if we work 
together to find a permanent solution to the problems facing this 
important program.
  The American people deserve more than Washington simply placing a 
Band-Aid on the problem by offering a temporary solution. This would 
not be leadership. It would be politics as usual. In order to assure 
retirement income security for all Americans, both sides of the aisle 
will have to work together, not against one another.
  Ronald Reagan once said, there is no limit to what a man can do or 
where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.
  As we debate Social Security reform, it must not be about who gets 
the credit but how can we shore up the system, provide equal treatment, 
protect benefits and avoid tax increases for our fellow Americans.
  Citizens of the Sixth District of Kentucky and across America want 
genuine leadership. Let us give them just that and let us support this 
resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding; and I want to thank the committee for bringing this 
resolution to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, but let us 
understand that this resolution is only the beginning. It pledges all 
of us to save Social Security. That pledge will also have to include a 
decision not to invade those Social Security trust funds.

[[Page H853]]

  This week, on the cover of Barron's Magazine, they have the headline 
which screams to people in Washington, D.C. This week, the Dow Jones 
financial magazine says there is no budget surplus. And they are quite 
correct; there is no budget surplus. There is only money that is in 
excess in the Social Security trust fund, and whether or not we save 
Social Security will depend upon the decisions we make in this Congress 
about whether we are going to break the budget caps that restrain 
spending in this Congress; whether or not we are going to invade these 
trust funds for a whole range of spending proposals that are currently 
before the Congress.
  If we do that this year and if we do that before 2001, every dollar 
we spend will come out of the Social Security trust funds. Because 
Barron's has it right. There is no other surplus. There is only the 
Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today and just heard from the previous 
speaker, both in terms of politics and substance, reforming Social 
Security and making the needed changes to preserve the system over time 
is going to be very, very difficult. It is going to require 
bipartisanship; it is going to require trust; and it is going to 
require small steps, many small steps, to get us there.
  That is what I see this resolution being all about, it is a small 
step in the right direction. It is not a solution. It is not the plan 
to save Social Security. But it does lay out for the first time in this 
Congress principles, basic principles, that I hope we can agree on, on 
a bipartisan basis. That seems to me to be a very good starting point.
  I would say also that there is a need to supplement Social Security 
with more private retirement savings, and I hope that we can work on a 
bipartisan basis on that as well. This is our 401(k) plans, our IRA 
plans and so on. Because, ultimately, that is an important part of 
retirement security for all Americans.
  There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot get this done and get 
it done this year, so long as we reach out across the aisle and work on 
a bipartisan basis. And I see us beginning to do that with this 
resolution today; and, therefore, I strongly support it.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that here in Washington a 
promise is never really a guarantee. And so the resolution that we have 
before us today has been self-styled by the Republican leadership as 
the ``Social Security Guarantee Initiative.'' But it is important for 
every American to understand that there is no guarantee in the 
Guarantee Initiative. It guarantees absolutely nothing in the way of 
any substantive improvement in the Social Security system.
  I believe it was not a Democrat but a Republican member of the 
committee that studied this measure, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), who conceded that this resolution, H.J. Res. 32, is solely, in 
his words, and I quote, ``a political document. It has no teeth.'' No 
teeth, indeed. I would suggest that this resolution offers less promise 
than an ill-fitting set of dentures.
  On day one of this Congress, we Democrats proposed a rule to save 
Social Security first, to see that the surplus was not dissipated, that 
we utilized it to preserve the future of the Social Security system. 
That was rejected on day one of this Congress; and, since that time, 
now entering month three of this Congress, not much progress, a few 
hearings but not much progress, has been made towards strengthening and 
preserving Social Security.
  Instead of meaningful action, as Americans will remember in 1995 our 
Republican colleagues said they wanted a revolution. We have now come 
another 4 years, and they present us a resolution. I believe what we 
really need is a bipartisan solution to preserve and protect and 
strengthen the Social Security system.
  What might that bipartisan solution, not a meaningless resolution 
like we are considering today, what might it include and what might it 
exclude? We have an excellent idea of that today in a new report.
  One of the groups that has been working toward a solution of this 
problem is the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare. They turned to a Republican economist, who did a simulation, 
looking at various proposals to reject the Social Security system as we 
have known it for the last many decades and substitute for it some type 
of private system. This study is entitled ``Winners and Losers from 
`Privatizing' Social Security.''
  What this study concluded was that there are many losers and not very 
many winners. In fact, the conclusion of the study is that, with these 
various schemes to reject our current Social Security system, instead 
of to strengthen and preserve it, that every person alive today, in 
these United States or anywhere else, who is drawing Social Security or 
could draw Social Security in the future, every person will lose under 
the various schemes to privatize fully or partially the Social Security 
system instead of to strengthen and preserve it.
  The only people who might stand to gain, we were told in this 
simulation, which fortunately is just that, a simulation instead of an 
experiment on the American people as some have advanced, but the only 
people who would gain are a few high-income males to be born somewhere 
20 or 30 years from now after the full transition costs to a private 
system are effected.
  So with that kind of information now available, it is time to reject 
ideology and focus on real, meaningful changes in this system that will 
strengthen and preserve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an important study with important 
findings. There has been so much held out about how if we had a 
revolution in Social Security and we rejected the system as we have 
known it for the last many decades, that everybody would be the winner. 
But when one looks at the facts, the winners just are not there.
  Everyone loses if we reject this system and substitute the kind of 
revolutionary system that some of these Washington think-tank 
ideologues have been advancing. So I hope we will come together behind 
some of the proposals the President has advanced to strengthen and 
preserve Social Security in a truly bipartisan manner.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just comment on the comments of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) with respect to what the 
Subcommittee on Social Security has been doing and what the full 
Committee on Ways and Means has been doing since the beginning of this 
Congress.
  We have already had more hearings on Social Security than we did on 
welfare reform, and that is just from the beginning of this year, than 
we had in drafting the welfare reform bill.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a valuable member of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security, knows this well. He has attended these 
hearings, and he has been very attentive in these hearings, so I would 
not want anyone listening to this proceeding to in any way think that 
Congress has been sitting on its hands. It has not. There will be 
proposals out there, and these proposals will be in the form of draft 
legislation.
  I would hope and I intend to, as the subcommittee chairman, to be 
part of a majority bill that will be put in place and hopefully will 
become the framework for moving forward on a bipartisan solution.
  I would also invite the minority to put forth their bill. I would 
also invite the President to put forth his bill. They will be received 
with great courtesy and cooperation, and I would pledge hearings on any 
such bills that would come before my subcommittee that have the backing 
of the minority party or the White House.
  I believe this is very important. That is how strongly I feel about a 
bipartisan solution and a bipartisan effort. The Committee on Ways and 
Means is working very, very hard. The system is in crisis and we do 
need to find a solution, because we can avoid this crisis very early 
and be sure that the Social Security system is in place and continues 
to be a very safe system for all

[[Page H854]]

Americans, both of this generation and generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on the comments of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  First of all, the gentleman is correct. We have had four full 
committee hearings and we have had three, I believe, subcommittee 
hearings. But I have to say, and I think most people would confirm my 
comments, and I have sat through almost all of the hearings except 
maybe 3 hours of the 20 hours of hearings, and most of the purposes of 
these hearings and most of the people talking at these hearings have 
been basically just trashing the President's proposal.
  The Republicans asked that the President come up with his proposal 
last year. The President has come up with an outline that everyone 
understands. There is no complexity to it. We have just been spending 
all our time just trashing the President. We have spent very little 
time on real substance.
  And I think what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) was referring 
to is a comprehensive study that actually was done by John Mueller. 
John Mueller, for those who were here in the 1980s, was the economist 
for the Republican Conference under the leadership of then Jack Kemp; 
and Mr. Mueller came in with the idea of doing this study with a bias 
actually toward private accounts.
  What basically happened is that he completed the study and now he 
believes that private accounts would really do bad damage. This was 
commissioned, by the way, by Martha McSteen, who happened to be the 
administrator for the Social Security Administration in 1983 to 1986, 
under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.
  So we had two Reagan people, one Reagan and one Jack Kemp, and they 
basically have said private accounts are the wrong way to go. It is 
easy to figure out why. There is $8 trillion of unfunded liability, $8 
trillion of unfunded liability. If we go with private accounts, we have 
those people living today in the workforce and paying for the 
retirement of their parents or grandparents.

                              {time}  1430

  That means they are going to be paying twice the amount for half the 
benefit. That is the real problem with private accounts. You can talk 
about private accounts all you want, but the real person that is going 
to benefit from private accounts will be born 25 years from now in the 
year 2025, and he will be a single male. Every other economic group 
will lose. The biggest losers, believe it or not, are going to be 
women. Because women live longer than men, they are going to have to 
set up an annuity, they will get less even though they may have made 
the same amount in the workforce.
  In addition, we all know that women make about 70 percent of what men 
make normally in the workforce. So they are going to start off way 
behind, anyway. This is going to do damage to Democratic women, 
Republican women, conservative women and liberal women.
  This is not an issue of ideology. It is a question of getting the 
facts and making sure we know the facts before we move. I am afraid all 
those hearings and everything we have been doing over the last 2 months 
have been basically to create a partisan division against the 
President's plan rather than to do anything really substantive and 
trying to understand this issue. But I do appreciate what the gentleman 
has done. He has come up with this resolution. I think, as the previous 
speaker said, resolutions really do not mean much. On the other hand, I 
guess we might as well do something since we are not doing much else. 
We are going to be out at 3 o'clock today so we might as well use some 
of that time at least pretending like we are doing something 
significant, but we all know that this resolution will not advance the 
cause of reforming the Social Security system one second.
  As a result of that, we will pass it with a unanimous vote, but let 
us not kid ourselves. We have got to come up with a proposal. The 
President has. I like the President's proposal. Let us hear from the 
Republicans and let us see how they deal with an $8 trillion transition 
cost if they want to go to private accounts and protect women and 
minorities and middle-income people and suburban people at the same 
time. You will not be able to do it. I hope you try but you will not be 
able to do it. Instead what we should be doing is picking up the 
President's plan, moving forward with it and at least solving this 
problem for the next 55 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would like to respond to the gentleman from California with regard to 
the remarks that he has made. We have heard the minority trash a 
proposal which has been characterized as a Republican proposal which 
has not been made as yet. There is no Republican proposal out there. We 
have had hearings, we have had statements with regard to the direction 
we should go, but there has not been a concrete proposal laid upon the 
table.
  By contrast, I think it is interesting to note that on this side not 
one single speaker has gotten up and trashed the President's proposal. 
The President's proposal is out there. I am treating it with great 
courtesy. I want to encourage the President and his staff and the 
Treasury Department and all those connected with the Social Security 
system to come forward with a concrete proposal in writing that we can 
receive. So I am hopeful yet that we do receive a formal proposal from 
the President.
  The purpose of this resolution is to bring us together, to show that 
there is some unity in this House between Democrats and Republicans. I 
am not going to spoil the day by going out and trying to retaliate and 
bring about argument or try to accent what separates us, because this 
resolution is what brings us together.
  Both sides have said that we are going to preserve the Social 
Security system. Both sides have said that we are not going to raise 
payroll taxes. Both sides have said that we are not going to cut 
benefits. When you have that as a perimeter, there is not too many 
other places you can go except to look at the investment of the system 
itself. That is where we are going to concentrate. That is where we are 
going to have to move forward.
  This resolution is a good step forward, albeit a single step forward, 
but it is a good step forward in trying to show that there is unity in 
this House, that we do have unity of purpose and that we are going to 
draw together.
  I will be actually out there soliciting help from the minority side 
in trying to craft this legislation to see that we can come up with 
something that is quite meaningful. This task is far too important than 
to bicker in a partisan manner. This is the most important item to come 
before this Congress either this year or next year. It would be a 
terrible tragedy if we were to back away from this point of history. We 
have a surplus. We have divided government. Both of those are very 
important. Because we need the divided government to be sure it is 
bipartisan, and we need the surplus to be sure that we save Social 
Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the resolution.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 32, which 
expresses Congress' desire to strengthen and protect Social Security. 
Saving Social Security must be our top priority as we prepare America 
for the next century.
  Without fundamental changes in the Social Security program, either 
massive tax increases or a reduction in benefits will be required or 
the program will reach financial crisis by 2013. This is of special 
concern for most women, who have a vital interest in Social Security. 
The fact is, on average, women live longer than men, earn less, and are 
more likely to be dependent on Social Security for most or all of their 
retirement income.
  Mr. Speaker, having paid into Social Security myself for over forty 
years, I will never support hasty reforms that threaten the financial 
futures of those who have committed a lifetime of earnings to the 
system. As a father and a grandfather, I will insist that our reforms 
provide more choices for those now entering the workforce. It is time 
we take action to ensure this program will be available to our children 
and grandchildren.

[[Page H855]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 32 to ensure a 
stable future for Social Security.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 32, 
the ``Social Security Guarantee Initiative.'' As we all know, one of 
the most important questions facing Congress today is how best to 
preserve Social Security and Medicare for this and future generations. 
We need to ensure that benefits are not cut for today's Social Security 
recipients, while at the same time guaranteeing that our children and 
grandchildren will have the piece of mind that Social Security brings.
  Before Social Security was enacted in 1935, retirement meant 
financial insecurity and poverty for many seniors. This program, 
however, has dramatically changed that and has allowed millions of 
Americans to enjoy their later years with greater tranquility and less 
worry. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it best when, upon 
signing the Social Security Act, he stated that ``[t]he Social Security 
Act was primarily designed to provide the average worker with some 
assurance that when cycles of unemployment come or when his work days 
are over, he will have enough money to live decently.''
  It is imperative that Congress and the President work together in a 
bipartisan manner to achieve this goal. Arguably the most successful 
domestic government program in world history, it is our duty to do 
everything in our power to ensure its existence for years to come. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. And even more 
importantly, I urge my colleagues to put partisan differences aside, 
and to take concrete actions beyond this resolution, to strengthen the 
Social Security system.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that 
focuses on the need to restore our Social Security program in a fair 
manner for all Americans.
  With the looming prospect that its funds will be depleted by 2032, 
the issue of ensuring the solvency of Social Security needs to be 
addressed. But there are a number of priorities we must keep in mind as 
the debate on reforming Social Security begins to take form.
  First, it is important that any reform to Social Security guarantees 
equal benefits to all Americans, including women and minorities.
  We also need to ensure that cost-of-living adjustments and a 
continuous benefit safety net are provided for all Social Security 
recipients.
  Most importantly, we want to do all we can to save Social Security 
without raising taxes. Americans are already over-burdened by high 
taxes, and it is our duty to ensure that more of their money stays in 
their pockets. We owe it to the American people to provide them with a 
fair plan that saves Social Security for generations to come without 
increasing their tax burden.
  I am proud to support this initiative and want to thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for introducing this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 32, as 
amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8(c) of rule XX, this 15-minute vote will be 
followed by a 5-minute vote on H.R. 609.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 1, not voting, 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               YEAS--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Berman
     Bilbray
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cooksey
     Dunn
     Evans
     Everett
     Granger
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     Hunter
     McCollum
     Rogers
     Thompson (CA)

                              {time}  1455

  So the joint resolution, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the joint resolution was amended so as to read: ``Joint 
resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President and 
the Congress should join in undertaking the Social Security Guarantee 
Initiative to strengthen the Social Security program and protect the 
retirement income security of all Americans for the 21st century.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:

[[Page H856]]

  Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________