[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.''
____________________