[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4610-H4622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to House Resolution 206
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 2590.
{time} 1837
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2590) making appropriations for the Treasury Department,
the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the
President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a
request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant), had been postponed and the bill was open for amendment
from page 68, line 3, through page 95, line 16.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purpose of debate; the amendment numbered 8,
which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; the amendment by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner) that has been placed at the desk, which
shall be debatable for 40 minutes.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in
the request, the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or a designee, each
may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on
any pending amendment.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Add at the end before the short title the following:
Sec. 6____. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount provided for ``Federal
Election Commission--salaries and expenses'' by $600,000,000
and by decreasing each other amount appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act which is not required to be
appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of
law by such equivalent percentage as is necessary to reduce
the aggregate amount appropriated for all such amounts by the
amount of the increase provided under this section.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 15 minutes in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
myself.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides an additional $600 million to the
Federal Elections Commission for the purpose of assisting State and
local officials in updating their voting systems.
240 days have passed since last year's embarrassment of an election.
Congress should have acted by now. Aside from 1 minute speeches and
special orders, press conferences, and hearings, this is the first time
election reform has even been discussed in a meaningful way on the
floor of the House, or in either of our legislative bodies.
The simple fact is the absence of a real debate on election reform is
as much of an embarrassment as was the last election. Following last
year's election, Florida's failing election system became the punch
line of nearly ever political joke around.
However, Florida took the criticism, bounced back and passed what I
consider up to this point to be the most comprehensive election reform
package in the country, albeit still deficient. It is not perfect by
any means.
Florida's new election law seeks to remedy some of the core problems
that occurred last year, particularly in the area of updating voting
technology. However, as counties throughout Florida begin to update
their voting systems, they are finding themselves unable to fund their
needs, and this is true across America.
In my home county, Broward, it will cost more than $20 million to
purchase the state-of-the-art voting system. The State is providing
Broward County with a mere $2.3 million, leaving the county with the
remaining tab.
[[Page H4611]]
Broward County, ground zero during the election debate, may not
purchase the best voting machines on the market because it cannot
afford them.
My concern is if we do not appropriate now and legislate later, as
Senator McConnell has said, then we are missing our opportunity to
provide the necessary funds in time for election day 2002.
Mr. Chairman, Republican leadership has yet to provide us with a
formal commitment that a submittal or emergency appropriations bill
will accompany any election reform legislation. I am hopeful that, as
this debate progresses, such commitment will be made.
The amendment sends a message to the American people that help is on
the way. My amendment says to State and local governments throughout
America that the Federal Government wants to assist them in updating
their voting technology. The amendment makes the commitment that
Congress has yet to make.
Contrary to what many argue, the need for election reform is much
more than a civil rights issue. Rather, the need for election reform is
a challenge to our democracy. It is a challenge that burns at the heart
of every American who believes in our country's democratic heritage. It
is a challenge that we cannot back down from, and it is a challenge
that we will not back down from. There is no price tag for democracy,
and it is time for Congress to tell America that it is willing to spend
whatever it takes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has made a
very valid point. We all remember the exercise in Florida last year as
we tried to declare the winner of a Presidential election. But after
the focus on Florida faded away, we also learned that many other States
had similar problems, and in some cases they were more serious than the
problems in Florida.
Shortly after we came back to convene the new Congress, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking minority member on the
subcommittee, and I began conversations, along with the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) on our side
of the aisle, and a number of other Members; and we understand that the
Federal Government does have a responsibility here.
Conducting elections has always been the province and the
responsibility of the States and the local governments, but I think we
have reached a point where there is going to be a tremendous need for
financial assistance. As chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I
believe that we should be prepared to meet the Federal responsibility
in providing the relief necessary so that our elections in the future
are not clouded by missed votes or votes that are not counted, or
whatever the problem might be.
{time} 1845
I am not sure what the exact dollar amount should be today. My
colleague from Florida and I have discussed this. I am not sure we are
prepared to set a dollar amount today. But I just want to make the
commitment again to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) as we have discussed many, many
times before in private, that I am here to be supportive of this, and I
believe most of our colleagues will as well, once we determine what the
real number is as far as the Federal responsibility in partnership with
our States and in partnership with our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed colleague the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I
support the Hastings amendment.
Our election system is sick. Mr. Hastings has a remedy. That remedy
would go throughout this country and make us whole again.
Do not fool yourselves. The people of this country are upset. They
are angry. They are disappointed. It is time that we step up to the
plate and say, yes, let's fund this system and work out something that
will make all Americans happy to be able to vote.
We cannot muzzle justice. No matter who says to move on, we cannot
move on until justice is rendered. It is hard to imagine in a free
world that I must stand here and beg to be sure that we get a system,
that we have the Federal Government participate in the reformation of
our system.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for this initiative.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Jacksonville, Florida (Ms. Brown), who
happens to have a number of constituents standing by.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for bringing this amendment to the floor.
Twenty-seven thousand of my constituents were disenfranchised in the
last election. The whole nature of the last presidential election, from
the roadblocks set up in black areas, to innocent people labeled as
felons and kicked off the voting rolls, to thousands and thousands of
votes being thrown out, is not acceptable. Our current President was
selected by the Supreme Court and not by the American people. This last
election has destroyed people's faith in our very system of government.
Yesterday I heard a Member on this floor speaking on the Foreign Ops
bill about the flaws in another country's election. It is shameful for
us to discuss another country's election when we have our own American
coup d'etat here in the United States.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, so
that we can begin the process of finally getting over this shameful
election.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Paterson, New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the great poet Langston Hughes asked,
``What happens to a dream deferred?''
Well, in the case of the dream of fair and equal treatment at the
polls, the dream deferred is a dream denied.
Last year's presidential election was a civics lesson for all of us.
Unfortunately, not only did we learn that every vote counts, we learned
that not every vote is counted.
For example, in Atlanta's Fulton County which uses punch card voting
machines similar to those that gained notoriety in Florida, one of
every 16 ballots for President was invalidated. In Harris County,
Texas, which includes the city of Houston, 14,000 votes were not
counted because the voter's selections simply did not register. In many
Chicago precincts that have high African American populations, one in
every six ballots was thrown out.
By not addressing this blatant inequality, we are letting down the
thousands of Americans that take the time to vote each year and those
votes are not counted because the voting machines in these districts
are old, broken and inaccurate. Our goal should be simply to fix the
system, to help in every way we can.
Yes, justice is difficult, Mr. Chairman, but as Sir James Mansfield
said, ``Let justice be done though the heavens fall.'' And Ferdinand I,
the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, said, ``Let justice be done
though the world may perish.'' That should be our primary motivation,
to bring justice to the system.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that some citizens were
disenfranchised, many of those in Florida.
But I also know that I thought it was a travesty for the Gore and the
Vice President candidate to try and disenfranchise our military vote in
Florida as well through technicalities.
A Federal law says that you do not require a postmark because an FPO
or APO many times, our military, are not able to get there. But yet the
Gore and Vice President candidate tried to send lawyers to
disenfranchise on technicalities those votes.
[[Page H4612]]
Also, the State law says that you have to have a date on it. The
absentee ballot that was sent out by Florida did not have a date on it.
I do not know about you, but if it does not have a date on there, I am
not going to add it.
Yes, across this country, we need a fair vote system. I do not reject
that. But what I do reject is people trying to make political points,
coming down, saying that the election was stolen.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, when we find neighborhoods built on top of toxic waste
dumps, we respond to that emergency by buying out the homes and
protecting the people who live there. When floods wipe out communities,
we respond by buying out property to protect residents and help them
find safe places to live.
Mr. Chairman, error-prone voting equipment is an emergency situation
that threatens our democracy, and we need an immediate response. I
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for offering an
amendment that offers such a response. It is going to take some money
to upgrade voting technology from error-prone punch card and other
systems to reliable machines. We simply cannot afford to do nothing.
Just look at what error-prone voting equipment like punch cards does
to our democracy. A study done by Cal Tech and MIT revealed that the
spoilage rate for punch cards was as many as 986,000 ballots in 2000.
In Florida last year the spoilage rate for punch cards was almost 4
percent. And in Cook County, Illinois, it was 5 percent during the last
election.
Earlier this year, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and I and other colleagues
introduced the Voting Improvement Act, which would make buy-out grants
available to any jurisdiction that used punch card voting systems in
the last election. We want to see new equipment in place, and we want
it there soon, in time for the 2002 elections. We want to buy out that
inferior equipment and put accurate equipment in place that will give
citizens the assurance that their vote is being counted. We need to
push for adequate appropriations to make that happen.
Unfortunately, the President and our Republican friends failed to
include any funding for election reform in the budget this year. But
Congress can and must meet the challenge of restoring faith in our
democracy. The Hastings amendment rises to that challenge, and I
commend the gentleman for offering it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member
of the subcommittee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time, and I also thank him for his statement and his
continuing willingness to work with all of us for a mission that he
thinks is very important and we share and we know is going to require
money. He is going to be a critical player in that effort. We very much
appreciate his role.
I rise, however, to pass along a paragraph that would have been in
the statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) had he been able to
stay. Unfortunately, he had an engagement he could not get out of. If
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) were here, the chairman of the
Committee on House Administration, he would have said this:
``These programs will cost money.'' ``These programs'' being the
election reforms which are being discussed on the floor today. ``I want
to assure the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that I am fully
committed to ensuring that the necessary funds are authorized and
appropriated.''
I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has talked to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I know that they are working
together, that we are working together. This is a critical issue. I
will have a few words to say on it later. But I am pleased that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), although he could not be here, wanted me
to make these remarks so that his commitment and his view of the
importance of this issue was clearly on the record during the
consideration of the Hastings amendment.
I might say at this point in time that the Hastings amendment's sum
of $600 million is very close to the sums that are in most of the
Senate bills and that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I have been
discussing will be necessary to effect the ends that I think all of us
seek.
I thank the gentleman for yielding this time, and I thank him for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), one of our
newer Members.
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by
thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for offering the
amendment. As he has said, we are running out of time to fix our broken
election process in time for the next elections.
The confusion surrounding last year's presidential election in
Florida brought national attention to the failures of our voting
process in many communities. I was in the Federated States of
Micronesia at the time, and I could not believe what I saw. We
resembled a banana republic.
In the 9 months since then, studies by the press, by universities,
and even this House have all detailed the same problem, that too many
Americans are forced to use outdated or faulty voting equipment. The
vast majority of these faulty machines are concentrated in the
communities of poor and minority voters.
No single act is more central to the American democratic process than
casting a vote for the candidate of one's choice. The idea that some
Americans might have their votes discarded because they live in the
wrong neighborhood or they live as the wrong people should spur every
Member of this body into action.
This amendment would finally give the Federal Election Commission the
resources it needs.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I stand here to commend my good friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), on his efforts to keep
election reform alive and in the forefront of this body's legislative
agenda.
I support this amendment in recognition that recently the principle
of one person, one vote was abandoned, resulting in the
disenfranchisement of thousands of citizens. It is time to take action
to address this serious issue, and this amendment does just that.
Shamefully, the last national election resulted in numerous
allegations of irregularities and minority vote dilution. The history
of our country reveals the disturbing story of how many people fought
and died in this country for the right to vote and exercise the full
measure of their citizenship. It is outrageous that this country, the
leader of the free world, continues to be plagued with this problem in
this new millennium. Through numerous hearings, reports and individual
citizen statements, it has come to light that outdated election systems
caused thousands of votes to be undercounted, overcounted or not
processed accurately.
{time} 1900
Appropriately, this amendment would provide funding to the FEC to
provide assistance to State and local governments in updating their
election systems. This is not just a first step, but a giant leap
towards addressing an issue that the American people believe in.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, there are a host of questions that need to be answered
by the system of elections in this country, but there is one thing upon
which Congress and I believe most Americans should agree: no single
American
[[Page H4613]]
should be disqualified by virtue of using a defective voting machine.
Mr. Chairman, it was not isolated to Florida or any other part of the
country. My Secretary of State did a study and, strangely enough, twice
as many votes were disqualified in counties that used punchcard systems
in Oregon as counties that used optical scanners. Now, a lot of people
will say we cannot afford to help the States and counties; we cannot
afford a system of good technology for the people of America to record
their votes flawlessly.
Come on. This is the basis, the foundation, of our franchise, what
makes this country work. If we cannot afford to pay for that
technology, if we cannot afford to have a better election system, then
we are indeed headed toward very dark times.
This is a modest amount of money to resolve this problem, and this
should be approved by this Congress.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not relevant who anyone believes
really, in quotes, ``won'' the election in Florida last year to this
amendment. This amendment is necessary because we know that people are
being deprived of their votes by faulty and inadequate voting
equipment, probably in every State and certainly in most States of the
Union. Certainly in my State of New York, as well as in Florida.
A report by the National Association of Election Commissioners in
1988 said that punchcard voting machines have more than twice the error
rate and disqualification of other technologies then in use, and that
they ought to be phased out and discarded, in 1988. An MIT study just
said about $600 million a year is what is necessary to bring to bear
modern technology which will tell the voter who has tried to vote for
two candidates he would be disqualified or if he skipped a vote, you
have done it, before you leave the voting booth so he can correct it if
he wants to.
We ought to do that. We ought to make sure our future elections are
accurate and fair, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on. I
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a Floridian, I wanted to share
the painful story about what happened in Florida one more time tonight.
Part of the tragedy of the Florida election, which was our country's
election, was that the margin of error ultimately exceeded the margin
of victory.
After the election, one of the painful lessons we learned was that it
was widely exposed that we had an inexcusably casual, and, quite
arguably, unconstitutional deficiency in our voting election system.
Shame on us. Shame on anyone in the position of an elected authority
should anything like that ever happen again.
Now, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I commend him
for offering the amendment, has pointed out, the State of Florida has
taken the lead on making illegal the infamous punchcard voting machine
and providing partial funding to counties, including the county of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and me, to fund some form of
substitute technology.
A consensus is developing among Democrats and Republicans here, and I
believe around the country, that the solution is a form of technology
that is precinct-based and that gives the voter the opportunity to
verify his or her vote. In a State and country where we have increasing
numbers of voters who are aging, who are experiencing disabilities, be
it sight or something else, it is very important, it is fundamental,
that that voter has the opportunity to verify his or her vote before
they leave the voting booth.
I want to close by pointing out why the Hastings amendment is so
important. Time is of the essence. If we do not adopt this amendment
today, or do something shortly thereafter to take the chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), up on his willingness to fund this,
we are going to lose the opportunity to repeat the terrible things that
happened in the last election in time for the 2002 elections.
So shame on us if we let the next set of elections result in the same
problems. Let us get it fixed now. Time is of the essence. We know how
to do it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. This is an amendment which
sets the dollars at an appropriate level. There is an ad on TV that
says the watch cost $150, the trip to Jamaica cost $1,500, the
confidence of a child is priceless.
The confidence that a citizen has in its country is priceless; the
confidence that a citizen has when they do the ultimate act of
democracy, which is to participate as a Nation, as a people, as a
society, in making decisions, in choosing leaders, in choosing options
and priorities for their country.
The tragedy of the last election was that there are many Americans
who know that they have the right to vote, but are not ensured that
they will be able to vote, and, that if they do so, their vote will
count. Part of that problem is a technological problem, and we need to
solve it; and it will take money to solve that technological problem.
The other problem is for this great democracy to ensure that every
citizen not only has the right, but is guaranteed by our society to
have access to whatever their disability may be, whatever their status
in life may be, access to the polling place and, yes, the ability to
vote, whatever their disability may be, whatever their condition may
be, and have the integrity of that vote being ensured and counted
correctly.
I am thankful that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has
offered this amendment. I am thankful for the leadership of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who has introduced a bill; for
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has traveled
throughout this country with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
and myself and others; for all those, not just from Florida, because
this is not a Florida problem. The gentleman from Florida made that
point. He is absolutely correct. This is a national problem, a national
challenge, to ensure that our elections are as good as the rest of the
world thought they were, and their confidence in that was put at risk
this last election.
We need to solve it; we will solve it. I thank the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, this morning in the Committee on Rules, which you
Chair, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said the following:
``225 have passed where the Federal Government has committed zero
dollars for the infrastructure in States and localities. This must
change, and it must change now.''
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young), for his interest in this issue. His presence
here on the floor as our debate has proceeded sends a clear message to
anyone who does not wish to see election reform succeed.
I also would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his continuing efforts in producing an
election reform package that is acceptable to all sides. Also I would
like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his efforts
and willingness to participate with us and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) for his leadership in this body and the entire caucus.
In addiction, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney)
for his leadership on this issue as well. The chairman has pointed out
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), a lot of us, have been discussing this matter, not in the
light of the public as we have here today, but in an effort to really
try to get something done. I am confident that under the leadership of
these individuals, we will succeed in once again bringing dignity to
the American election system.
One of my colleagues from California pointed out inequities with
reference to military ballots. I did not bother to
[[Page H4614]]
try to take a shot at him, because the election is over. It is time for
us to move forward and reform our election system in this Nation. I
challenge this body to roll up its sleeves and pass meaningful election
reform.
Mr. Chairman, with that, with the chairman's final remarks, I am
prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), distinguished subcommittee
chairman.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I thought in this discussion that people were having of
the great importance of making sure that Americans have the opportunity
to vote, to vote correctly, to make sure their vote is counted, to put
the responsibilities where they lie, between the voter and those who
administer the voting. I thought it is very important when we talk
about the problems, that somebody get up and talk about somebody who
has done it right, a State that has done it right, and that is my home
State of Oklahoma.
Several years ago, our State spent millions of dollars that could
have been spent on roads, could have been spent on schools, could have
been spent on public health, but felt that there was a very pressing
need to spend it on solid uniform voting equipment. Every county, every
precinct in Oklahoma uses the optical scanner voting machines, and has
for several years, which is one of the methods that is receiving the
highest level of support from people talking about the way it ought to
be done.
If a voter has an improper ballot that has been marked twice, for
example, the machine will spit it right back out at you so you still
have a chance to correct it. I know that is an important thing to a
great number of people.
I wanted to give some credit to the people who did that in Oklahoma.
Our State Election Board secretary, a Democrat, Lance Ward, deserves a
lot of credit for the foresight, and those that came before him, to say
that there is a pressing need.
So when we talk about having the Congress of the United States spend
a great amount of money to help States out in this situation, let us
remember that there are some States, or certainly there is Oklahoma,
that had the foresight to put it in place to prevent these problems. I
want to make sure that we consider that in whatever we craft.
We are trying to say when other States ask for financial assistance
for election reform, remember, we already bore the cost; and we hope
that will be duly considered with whatever is done with appropriations
from this body.
There was a map in USA Today right after the elections talking about
the great disparity and the types of machines or paper ballots used in
different places; and you looked at patchwork quilts, not only among
the 50 States, but within the 50 States. Except if you look at that USA
Today map, there was one State that was solid, with modern up-to-date
uniform voting systems, and that was my home State of Oklahoma. I want
to give credit to the State officials who had that foresight.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I do so to thank everybody for the very important
debate that we have just had here.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on July 9, 2001, the House Government Reform
Committee released the results of a national study that examined the
income and racial disparities in the undercount of the 2000
presidential election. At my request, the Committee investigated voting
patterns in the First Congressional District of Illinois, which I
represent. The investigation also examined the impact of different
voting machines on the undercount. This was the first report to examine
voter undercounts on both the national and local levels.
The report analyzed the voting results in 20 Congressional districts
with high poverty rates and majority minority populations. The
startling results of the investigation illustrated that voters in my
district were almost seven times more likely to have their votes
discarded than voters in affluent white districts.
This disturbing quantification gives my district the dubious
distinction of being one of two Congressional districts with the
highest rate of undercounted votes among those surveyed. The first
District tied with the 17th District of Florida, with the undercount
rate a disturbingly high 7.9 percent!
Overall, the report found that voters in low-income predominantly
minority districts were significantly more likely to have their votes
discarded than were voters in affluent, predominantly white districts.
The report also showed that better voting technology significantly
reduced undercounts in low-income, minority areas and narrowed the
disparity between the two types of districts and voting populations
examined.
Ballot undrecounts in my Congressional district are nothing new. I
have heard and responded to my constituent complaints for many years on
this subject. However, now, we, in Congress, have quantifiable proof
that better technology improves the undercount rate.
What can be done is illustrated simply before us--both by the
Government Reform Committee report and by the gentleman from Florida's
amendment. We must provide the financial resources so critically needed
by state and local governments to update their voting equipment. I urge
my colleagues to support the Hastings amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. I support Alcee Hastings' amendment to the
Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act. The amendment will provide an
additional $600 million to the FEC budget, funds that are necessary to
assist state and local governments in updating voting systems. This is
an excellent first step in tackling the election reform issue. It is
disappointing that President Bush's budget made no allowance for
election reform.
But additional funding is not enough. Just throwing money at the
problem will not solve the problem. We will end up with states simply
taking the money and using it in rich neighborhoods while a state could
continue using most disenfranchising machinery and procedures for
minority communities. Or, if we offer the money conditionally, states
will simply elect to decline a federal check and opt out of any
standards.
We must provide minimal guarantees to every eligible voter. This is
precisely what the bill I have introduced with Senator Dodd and
Majority Leader Daschle, the ``Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act,''
would do. The bill has a 140 cosponsors, more than any other election
reform bill.
It sets comprehensive minimal standards for voting machines used in
federal elections but does not tell states and localities what machine
to buy--in other words, it only establishes a baseline for what the
machines have to be capable of doing.
The standards for machines are common sense standards that would
solve problems uncovered in 2000: First, to prevent spoiled ballots,
machines would have to warn voters of mistakes like overvotes and
undervotes and give voters a chance to correct these mistakes; Second,
machines would have to be accessible to voters with disabilities;
Third, the machines would have to be accessible to language minorities;
Fourth, to eliminate the use of antiquated machines, the error rate for
machines would have to be as close to zero as practicable.
To correct haphazard voting purges and registration mistakes by
officials, the bill establishes a right for every citizen to cast a
provisional ballot in a federal election if he or she believes he has
been improperly excluded from the rolls.
To help prevent voter error and establish minimal standards for voter
education, the bill requires that every registered voter in a federal
election receive a sample ballot and instructions for filling out the
ballot prior to an election.
To ensure that voting rights violations are reported, the bill
requires that every registered voter receive a document advising them
of their voting rights and who to contact if those rights have been
violated.
The bill is constitutional. It is limited to federal elections. Under
Art I, Sec. 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, the Congress has the
authority to set standards for federal elections.
It avoids creating an unfunded federal mandate by fully funding the
minimal standards.
It recognizes that states may incur costs for meeting these
obligations in state and local elections so it reimburses states for
the costs of making state and local elections conform to the standards
if they choose to do so.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, since my colleague from Florida
has indicated that he intends to withdraw this amendment, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment I offered be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H4615]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the Office of Management and Budget may be used for the
purpose of implementing the final report of the President's
Commission To Strengthen Social Security.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is only one sentence long, may be
the most significant sentence that we vote on in this Congress, because
it would prevent any funding being used for the purpose of implementing
a Social Security privatization plan.
Now, why must we take what seemingly looks like a drastic step?
Because we have seen the report that was just issued by President
Bush's Social Security Commission, a commission hand-picked by the
White House because they already supported a privatization plan.
{time} 1915
This report is obviously the first step towards setting the stage of
robbing a vital benefit for seniors.
Mr. Chairman, the deck has been stacked, the process has been rigged,
and we must stop it in its tracks. Social Security has come to be the
cornerstone of our Nation's income protection system and provides
disability, retirement, and life insurance protection to virtually all
American citizens. Obviously, the system requires continued evaluation,
but it is not in crisis today. But the interim report of the
Presidential Commission tries to create a crisis, a crisis that does
not exist. Even if we did nothing about Social Security, and nobody is
suggesting that, but even if we did nothing, the system would pay full
benefits through the year 2038. This is a manageable problem, not a
catastrophe that requires risky and radical solutions.
The proposed privatization program which plans to take approximately
2 percent of the payroll tax for Social Security to allow individuals
to invest in private accounts would result in a loss of over $1
trillion from the Social Security system between this year and 2011,
and would decrease benefits by 50 percent.
My constituents do not want to see that decrease, and my constituents
are unwilling to have their secure retirement gambled away in the stock
market. The stock market is not the way, Mr. Chairman, to determine who
will be financially able and stable in their retirement years.
We know that privatization would also decrease benefits for disabled
beneficiaries and survivors. Social Security is more than a retirement
program. Almost one-third of its beneficiaries receive benefits because
they or a family member are disabled or because a family member has
died. In the case of survivors and those disabled, recipients have a
shorter time period to accumulate balances in their individual
accounts, so their benefits would be drastically reduced under a
privatization plan. Women in this Nation would be disproportionately
affected and hurt, and we will hear statements to that effect from my
colleagues.
Privatizing Social Security, Mr. Chairman, is tantamount to gambling
with the security of millions of Americans. It would expose workers and
retirees to unacceptable risks, as well as substantial administrative
fees that would eat into the returns. It would undermine the concept
that through Social Security, we take care of each other, from neighbor
to neighbor, and from generation to generation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) for 20 minutes in opposition of the Filner amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, sometimes in this body it pays to read the
amendment. The amendment says that at the end of the bill, insert after
the last section preceding the short title the following new section:
none of the funds appropriated in this act for the Office of Management
and Budget may be used for the purpose of implementing the final report
of the President's Commission to strengthen Social Security.
I do not read the word privatization in this amendment. I have read
the report, the interim report of the commission. I do not read the
word privatization in that report.
I am absolutely dumbfounded why we would talk about the President
implementing the recommendations anyway. The recommendations and any
implementation is going to have to come back here to the Congress. It
is us that are going to have to change the method Social Security is
going forward with if it is going to be changed at all.
But let us talk for just a moment about the trust fund itself. The
trust fund, it is agreed by Democrats and Republicans, will not run out
of Treasury bills until 2038. That is an estimate, but it is a pretty
good one, and it is one we can count on. But we can also agree on the
fact that there will not be enough cash coming into Social Security to
pay the benefits beginning in 2016. What, then, is going to happen?
The Congress is going to have to do one of several things: either
raise taxes and find the money, deficit spend in order to pay off the
Treasury bills, cut benefits. Is there anyone in here that is prepared
to do that? I think not.
So let us talk a moment about what is actually happening. I would
like to call the attention of my colleagues to the communication from
the Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the Department of Treasury in which
they warn, in which they warn that there is going to be a cash
shortfall beginning, in this report, it says 2015. 2015. And the report
clearly says that money is going to have to come from other sources
beginning in 2015. My colleagues may say this report is not true. Let
me tell my colleagues who signed it. The Secretary of the Treasury,
Lawrence Summers; Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna
Shalala; the trustee, Stephen Kellison; Alexis Herman, who is Secretary
of Labor; Ken Apfel, the Commissioner of Social Security under
President Clinton, and there are others.
I think that what is necessary and what we must do is face up to the
fact that we are facing a cash shortfall beginning in 2016, and it may
slip, and it may come back to 2015, if the trust fund is further
depleted. Sure, they are Treasury bills, and Treasury bills are a safe
investment and it is a sign of the commitment of the Congress to the
future retirees. But are we going to send our retirees beginning in
2015 or 2016 saying sorry, here is a check for some cash, but there is
a shortfall, so here is a Treasury bill. Of course not. We are going to
continue to send them cash. And we are going to maintain the strength
of the Social Security system.
What did the Commission say? The Commission says that they have to
accumulate some wealth. They have to accumulate something in order to
pay future benefits. Did it say anything about privatization? No.
Now, we hear so much, and so many Members will get up and talk about
the risky stock market. I was watching the unions protesting the
meeting that was going on. But we are going to have an opportunity just
next week, because the Railroad Retirement Fund is coming before this
House, and we are going to have an opportunity to say that the railroad
retirement fund now does not have to be limited to just investing in
Treasury bills; the railroad retirement fund now can invest in stocks.
Mr. Chairman, I will guarantee my colleagues that people on both sides
of the aisle and the very people that are getting up and talking about
the risky stock market are going to vote yes, and they are going to
vote yes, because both management and labor wants it that way, because
they understand that that is the way to accumulate real wealth.
I see my friend from New York (Mr. Nadler), who I am sure is going to
get up and speak. He has a plan to save Social Security, but it
involves the Social Security Administration investing in stocks and
bonds of the private sector.
I think it is time that we stop these scare tactics. Let the
Commission come forward with their report. And in order to implement
any change in the
[[Page H4616]]
Social Security system of any consequence is going to require
legislation to come out of this body. So I am saying, let us not only
have faith that they may come up with something that we can use and
something that will be good, but let us have faith in ourselves, and
let us live up to this problem that we have, and that is, we have a
cash shortfall beginning in the year 2016. We will no longer have the
payroll taxes coming in to take care of the benefits, and we are going
to have to find the money to start paying off the Treasury bills.
This is going to be a huge problem, and the problem is caused by a
very simple situation: we have less workers supporting less retirees
than we have ever had before, and that is going to continue to go down,
so not too long from now, we are going to be down to two workers per
retiree. We can plan ahead; we can save Social Security for the next
generation, so let us get together and let us get the job done and
forget the scare tactics.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I support one thing the gentleman
preceding me in the well said: let us stop the scare tactics. The scare
tactics are contained in this report of the so-called Commission to
Save Social Security. It is the Commission to privatize Social
Security, not with aggregate investments, but with individual accounts,
so Wall Street can better profit by charging 250 million people a
little bit of money every month, reducing their benefits, ultimately,
by 40 percent.
This report, for the first time in the 225-year history of the United
States of America, is questioning whether or not the Federal Government
will make good on its debts. Guess where the money in these accounts
came from? He is saying, we are going to have a cash flow problem. Yes,
Americans have been saving. We have been paying more taxes every year
than are necessary to support Social Security with the idea that that
money was put on deposit for future generations. This fund in 2016 will
have more than $5 trillion, and $5 trillion of what? Of securities
against the Federal Government.
In fact, one of these securities says, this bond is incontestable in
the hands of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund;
this bond is supported by the full faith and credit of the United
States and the United States has pledged the payment of the bond with
respect to both principle and interest, yet the gentleman who preceded
me and this so-called commission are questioning whether or not we can
or will honor those bonds.
There is no question. We must honor those bonds, and we should honor
those bonds and that obligation to the American people, through the
process that we use to honor all other debts in the United States of
America. We either run a surplus and we pay out of that, or we roll
over debt. We have $6 trillion of debt. Now, it is okay apparently to
honor the debts for people in Japan or industrial investors or anybody
else, but we are now questioning whether we are going to honor the debt
to the working people of America.
Mr. Chairman, this is extraordinary. It is bold in its scope. It is
unprecedented that a Secretary of the Treasury, a President of the
United States's hand-picked commission, would question whether or not
we will honor this debt.
This year, Americans will pay $93 billion more in Social Security
taxes than are necessary to support the system. If the gentleman who
preceded me in the well is right, then let us lower that tax today,
because we are defrauding the people of that $93 billion, because we
are saying, hey, it is going to be really painful to pay that money
back. We are taking it from them now, we are depositing it for them in
the U.S. Treasury; we are telling them that it will pay their benefits,
but maybe we will not be able to afford to honor that. That is
absolutely extraordinary.
Social Security is totally and fully sound until the year 2038. It
can pay 100 percent of every promised benefit to every American, every
recipient, every beneficiary, disabled or dependent. After that, it can
afford to pay 73 percent.
Now, that means we have a 27 percent problem beginning in 38 years,
but what they are going to propose is to destroy the existing system,
to steal the $6 trillion on account for the American workers, and
convert to something else, and ignore the trillions of dollars in
transition costs and benefits.
They can only get there a couple of ways. They are going to have to
reduce existing benefits, or they are going to have to raise taxes to
pay for the existing promises; one or the other. Or, they can honor the
debts and fix the program in the future. The simplest way to do it is
to lift the cap on earnings. If people earn over $80,000 a year, they
do not pay the same tax as everybody else; they pay less. They only pay
on the first $80,000. If we just lifted the cap and people paid Social
Security on every penny they earn, guess what the actuaries say? The
system is solvent forever, and, in fact, we could afford to lower the
tax burden on working Americans.
{time} 1930
Now, would that not be a great solution? But I do not think that is
going to come out of a commission hand-picked by President George Bush
and supported by the Republican majority in this House, because that
would mean the millionaires and billionaires would pay a little bit
more to secure the retirement future of working Americans.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of our Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs from the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is really the height of
irresponsibility. It is the height of the ostrich saying, ``Let us put
our heads in the sand.'' It is the height of the Alfred E. Newman,
``What, me worry,'' syndrome. It pretends we do not have a problem when
everybody knows there is a problem, every American.
If we talk to Americans out there, they know there is a problem with
Social Security. Yet what we are hearing over here is, ``What? There is
no problem. There is nothing we need to do here.''
I am glad, actually, that the gentleman from California has brought
this amendment to us tonight, because at least it gives us a chance to
call attention to the fact that we have a problem. I urge the Members
of this body and I urge the American people to read this report, this
interim report of the Commission, because it does talk about some of
the problems.
The simple fact is, we have a system right now that really is not
sustainable in the long run. The gentleman from Florida said it very
well: We have a cash flow problem that begins in 2016, a cash flow
problem. That is a very real problem that we have to deal with 15 years
from now, in 2016.
Fifteen years ago I was finishing my first term in office. That was
the middle of Ronald Reagan's second term. That was not that long ago.
Fifteen years from now we begin to see a serious problem: How are we
going to pay the benefits? Where are we going to borrow the money to
make the cash, to cash in those bonds that the gentleman from Oregon
was talking about, and to pay those benefits?
If we do not do anything by the year 2020 that requires cuts to
Federal spending to address Social Security's financial shortfalls, it
would equal the combination of Head Start, WIC, the Departments of
Education, Interior, Commerce, and the EPA. Either we cut that or
borrow the money someplace else, or we raise the taxes, as the
gentleman said. But let us not deny the fact that we have a problem.
If tomorrow's shortfalls are faced today, if we had those problems
right now, a two-earner couple with $50,000 in income would have to pay
an additional $2,100 in taxes per year in the year 2030. I do not know
about other Members, but I think these kinds of changes are really
unacceptable.
The gentleman said that we have a system, do not tinker with it. We
have made 50 changes-plus in the history of Social Security with the
system. Do not tell me it is not going to be changed. It is a political
system. We are going to make changes to it. We are going to have to do
something. Let us figure out what we can do that protects everybody.
[[Page H4617]]
Let me just refer to the draft commission's report itself. I just
want to read two simple paragraphs.
One, the third conclusion they reached, ``The system is broken.
Unless we move boldly and quickly, the promise of Social Security for
future retirees cannot be met without eventual resort to benefit cuts,
tax increases, or massive borrowing. The time to act is now.''
And then they go on to say this: ``If the problems spelled out in
this interim report become a topic of national debate and receive the
public's focus and scrutiny, that in itself will be a positive step
forward. The greatest threat is in taking the course of least
resistance, ignoring the challenge and doing nothing.''
Mr. Chairman, those who oppose the Commission's report have a
responsibility to stand here now, tonight, and tell us what we should
do, what their conclusion is. The answer is not to put our heads in the
sand and pretend there is not a problem. We do have a problem with
Social Security, but it can be fixed. It can be fixed in a way that
guarantees that those who get Social Security benefits now are
protected today, and those who get them in the future are protected,
but the young people have an opportunity to know that they, too, will
have some benefits and some Social Security and some retirement system
in their future, as well.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues have talked about one putting
one's head in the sand. I would agree that we must be careful not to
keep our head in the sand while the President has appointed a
commission which is fully in favor of privatizing Social Security.
I agree, it is time to stop the scare tactics. We do not need to
scare the American people, or try to stampede them into believing that
Social Security must be privatized, because the fact of the matter is
the money is there. Social Security is solvent through the year 2038
without any changes whatsoever. It has $5 trillion in assets by the
year 2015. There is no reason to scare the people and stampede them
into agreeing with the privatization of Social Security.
It has been said that there is a cash flow problem. Mr. Chairman,
next year the Department of Defense has a cash flow problem. In the
year 2003, the Department of Defense, absent our action, will be
lacking $330 billion they need for operation. But somehow this Congress
in its wisdom finds a reason and a means to finance the operations of
the Department of Defense.
I think it is important that we look at this Commission, because the
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) focuses on
causing this Commission to lose its funding. Then Congress can regroup
and fund a commission that would increase some kind of a debate here,
because it is a one-sided story. The deck is stacked.
It is no secret, the Wall Street Journal said 2 months ago, that
President Bush stacked his bipartisan Social Security Commission with
members who agree with his goal of creating private accounts. That was
the Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2001.
There are two Commission members, Ms. Weaver and Mr. Vargas, and they
have ``supported the most ambitious privatization plan, to carve 5
percentage points of the payroll tax for individual accounts.
Recognizing the huge transition costs, [they] proposed a 1.52
percentage point boost in the payroll tax, $1.9 trillion in government
borrowing and a higher retirement age.''
Now, think about that: Privatization equals increased taxes,
increased government borrowing, higher retirement age. If this
Commission is a cure for Social Security, then the plague is a cure for
the common cold.
Estelle James is a Democratic member of the Commission who ``as a
former World Bank economist was that body's main voice for privatizing
government retirement programs worldwide.'' That is hardly the person
American consumers and seniors, the baby boomers, can count on to give
a fair picture of the state of Social Security.
Sam Beard, ``Founder and president of the business-financed Economic
Security 2000, which favors a fully privatized system,'' is hardly the
person to give us an unbiased view.
Tom Saving, another Commission member, has written, ``Strange as it
sounds, we must destroy the social security system, as we know it, to
save it.''
Robert Pozen, an investment company executive with Fidelity, said,
``Even partial privatization is not a panacea.''
The Wall Street Journal went on to say, ``He served on a panel that
recommended partial privatization but also a higher retirement age and
reduced benefits, including spousal benefits.''
End the stacked deck.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, it is such a disservice to the American people to make
this issue a political issue. It is easy to demagogue because seniors
are frightened about the possibility of losing their Social Security
benefits.
The facts are very clear: Thirty years ago it took 33 people to come
up with the funding for every one retiree through their Social Security
taxes. Today it takes three people to come up with the taxes to
accommodate that Social Security benefit for every one Social Security
retiree. And the estimate is in another 15 to 20 years it is only going
to be two people working in the United States to have to pay enough
taxes to accommodate every single one retiree.
To suggest that we should do nothing now because we might ruin the
system is ridiculous. There are a lot of ways that maybe we could help
cure the program. What the President has suggested, what the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and others and I have suggested in the several
bills we have introduced, in the last 7 years I have introduced three
bills that have been scored, each of which has been scored by the
Social Security Administration, to keep Social Security solvent for the
next 75 years.
Every time I introduce a bill, from the first one in 1994 until the
one last year, the solutions have to be more drastic because we are
running out of time. We are wasting these kinds of funds that are
coming in. The problem is real. The demographics are real. There are
more seniors in relation to the number of people that are paying for
those benefits.
If we do not do something, if we use this issue to scare people
politically, we are doing a disservice to this Chamber, to the American
people, and to those people on Social Security.
There are only two solutions to fix the problem, or maybe three
solutions to fix the Social Security problem: Either bring in more
revenues, so one can afford the payments, or reduce the amount that is
going out in payments.
The real key date is not some date off in 2033, when it says the
Social Security Trust Fund is becoming insolvent. The real date that we
have to pay attention to, the latest estimate is 2016, when there is
less money coming in from the Social Security taxes than is required to
pay benefits. With the downturn in the economy, the next estimate is
going to be less than that year of 2016.
Let us move ahead. Let us make sure if there are any private
investments that they be limited to safe investments. Let us make it
clear to the American people that we are not using any of the
disability insurance funds, the disability insurance or the survivor
benefit trust funds. That is off the table. That is not being
considered.
How do we get a better return than the 1.7 percent that future
retirees are going to get from the Social Security taxes the employees
and employers have paid in?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, in 1935, about 178 Republicans voted against
establishing Social Security. One voted for it. In 1964, 30 years
later, the Republican party, behind Barry Goldwater, said, ``Let us get
rid of Social Security. Let us make it private.'' Thirty years later
[[Page H4618]]
they are right on schedule again, and they want to destroy Social
Security in order to save it.
To do this, the Bush administration sets up a biased commission. They
have a habit of setting up biased commissions: first, Mr. Cheney's
energy task force of oil company executives; and now this task force,
composed 100 percent of people who are on record as favoring the
partial or full privatization of Social Security.
We can have an honest amendment that says, do not implement the
report of the Commission because we know it is going to be
privatization, because they said so. They told us that. We do not have
to wonder about what it is going to be. ``Let us establish a commission
to investigate the problem and come up with the solution that they
designed before they investigated the problem.''
We are told in 2016 Congress, in order to pay off the Social Security
bonds, will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or borrow to pay
back these bonds. Why? Why did we increase FICA taxes, Social Security
taxes in 1983 and cut the benefits in order to build up a trust fund so
that it would keep Social Security solvent? Now they tell us those $5
trillion in assets do not matter, they are not real assets. Well, they
are real assets to the Social Security system.
True, the government is to pay it. It will cost, to pay it, $200
billion a year, starting in 2016. How are we going to pay it? For one
thing, the tax cut that we approved a few weeks ago will cost about
$400 billion a year starting in 2011, once it is fully phased in. Half
of that tax cut would pay for all the bonds on an annual basis.
They are only part of the bonds. That is part of the national debt of
the United States. They are no different than the bonds that are held
by Mitsubishi or the series E bonds held by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Smith). We always pay back those bonds.
We are not going to have to raise taxes or cut benefits. If we do, it
is a government budget problem, not a Social Security problem.
Now we are told the solution is privatize; take a system which
guarantees a person a certain benefit, a certain retirement benefit,
and tell them they will only get a certain fraction of that benefit,
and the rest of it will depend on their luck on the stock market.
Maybe they will do well, and maybe they will not. A lot of people
will do well, but a lot of people will not do well, and we will
recreate the situation we had before Social Security in which some
people have good retirements and others are in abject poverty because
their investments were foolish or simply unlucky.
{time} 1945
We are told that the railroad retirement system is going to invest in
the stock market, pension funds will invest in the stock market. Sure,
the whole system does, not individuals, and that makes all the
difference in the world. If the Government decided to buy private
stocks and bonds with the Social Security Trust Fund to get greater
returns, the Government has a budget problem if those stocks do not pan
out. The individuals still are guaranteed by law their Social Security.
So the fact that pension funds invest in stocks does not mean we ought
to put individuals at risk of the private stock market.
We are also told by an operation, by this task force, by others,
Chicken Littles, that the sky is falling, we are going to run out of
money. Well, the system will have enough money to pay all benefits for
the next 37 years, if we believe the trustees; and then it will have a
28 percent shortfall, if we assume that the rate of economic growth of
the United States is going to plummet to a rate not seen since the
Depression and going to stay there.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for introducing this amendment.
I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment, which would
prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from spending any funds to
implement the final report of the President's Commission to Strengthen
Social Security. People with disabilities, minorities, and women are
especially hurt by Social Security privatization.
Today, there are approximately 45 million Americans receiving Social
Security benefits, over 4 million of whom reside in my home State of
California. Many people depend on this retirement benefit as a source
of major income. Social Security is the principal source of retirement
income for two-thirds of elderly Americans, representing 90 percent of
the annual income for 29 percent of all seniors over the age of 65. In
fact, Social Security benefits lifted approximately 13 million senior
citizens out of poverty last year.
Social Security is not just a retirement program for our seniors. For
millions of Americans, Social Security is the only protection against
the shackles of low lifetime earnings, the financial hardships related
to death or disability, the danger of poverty in old age, and the
uncertainty of inflation. Privatization undermines these protections
and adds one more risk that workers would have to worry about, and that
is Wall Street.
Let me just bring a little diversity to this debate this evening.
Elderly African Americans and Latinos rely on Social Security benefits
more than white elders do. From 1994 to 1998, African American and
Latino seniors and their spouses relied on Social Security for about 44
percent of their total income, while white elders and their spouses
relied on the program for only 37 percent of their total income. This
is because minorities, unfortunately, have a lower rate of pension
coverage. Only 29 percent of elderly African Americans and 22 percent
of elderly Hispanic Americans get a pension income. By comparison, 45
percent of white seniors do. Unfortunately, people of color are
disproportionately represented among low-wage workers; therefore, it is
much harder for them to set aside savings for retirement. Privatization
of Social Security will jeopardize their retirement income.
Now, people with disabilities are also hurt significantly by
privatizing their benefits. As of January 2001, over 13 million
Americans, or about 30 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries,
rely on Social Security disability. For the average wage earner with a
family, Social Security offers the equivalent of a $200,000 disability
insurance policy. The vast majority of workers would not be able to get
similar coverage from the private sector. The GAO concluded in a
January 2001 examination of Social Security privatization plans that
the income from workers' individual accounts was not sufficient to
compensate for the decline in the insurance benefits that disabled
beneficiaries would receive.
The uncertainty of privatization also hits women extra hard. Poverty
among American women over 65 is already twice as severe as among men in
the same age group. Women are more likely to earn less than men and are
more likely to live longer. Women also lose an average of 14 years of
earnings due to the time out of the workforce to raise children or care
for ailing parents or spouses. And since women generally have a higher
incidence of part-time employment, they have less of an opportunity to
save for retirement. Most privatization proposals make no provision for
these differences and would thus make poverty among women even worse.
Currently, Social Security provides guaranteed lifelong benefits. No
matter what the stock market does the day one retires, or in the months
leading up to retirement, an individual's benefits will be unaffected.
The American people deserve the truth. Now that the Bush
administration has passed a $1.6 trillion tax cut that primarily
benefits the wealthy, they are trying to find another method of paying
for Social Security due to the lost revenue. But the proposal to
privatize Social Security does absolutely nothing to extend the life of
the program or save it. It diverts money from the Social Security Trust
Fund.
We must put money in to protect the trust fund, not deplete the fund.
We have an obligation to strengthen Social Security, not privatize it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining and the time has expired for the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
[[Page H4619]]
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment tonight, and I am deeply troubled by some of the rhetoric
that I have heard from some of my colleagues criticizing the commission
report for highlighting the fiscal challenges facing the system and
suggesting that reform is not necessary. If we listen carefully, we
will find many of my colleagues have suggested reform, but they have a
preconceived notion of what is going to be voted on ultimately on this
House floor.
Now, I began to get very involved in Social Security reform about 6
years ago when the first of our two grandsons, Cindy's and mine, were
born. Cole will be celebrating his sixth birthday this month; Chase
will be celebrating his fourth birthday. And I resolved at that time
that I did not want them, my two grandsons, to look back 67 years from
their birth and say if only my granddad would have done what in his
heart he knew he should have done when he was in the Congress, we would
not be in the trouble we are in today.
Take a look at the commission report, the interim commission report.
I want my colleagues to see if they really disagree with the numbers
the gentleman from Florida did an excellent job of outlining. Everyone
knows in this body that beginning in 2016 we are going to have a
difficult time funding the benefits. It can be done, but it is going to
take some reform.
Listen carefully to the discussion tonight. Most of the responsible
rhetoric tonight has suggested that there needs to be a correction,
there needs to be some corrective measures taken, but they just do not
like what they believe is going to be forthcoming. Well, be careful
about that, because there are some other ideas that will be
circulating.
Please be careful when talking about a stacked deck. Do my colleagues
really believe that Senator Pat Moynihan is going to be part of a
stacked deck that is going to do something that is going to be harmful
to the elderly of this country? Do my colleagues really believe that?
If my colleagues really believe that, then they are perfectly willing
to come to this floor and say so, but I am not. I am not.
Take a look at the numbers. Look at the numbers and, for Heaven's
sake, do not be as critical of something that has not yet happened as
some are being tonight and recognize that we do need to move forward in
a responsible way and in a bipartisan way.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner), and just advise the Chair that I will have no
further debate on this. However, I do have, on an unrelated matter,
some time to yield for the purpose of a brief colloquy.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma, the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Arizona, and
the gentleman from Michigan.
I thought this was a good debate. I think it is a debate that is most
important to the American people and we will continue it on.
I agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) that those of us
who have a problem have responsibility for solutions, and that will
come in the later debates. So I thank all for the high level of this
debate.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I did not bring this amendment before us tonight, but
as long as it is here, I am going to vote for it, because I do believe
that the Social Security commission staff report issued last week is a
cynical effort to trash Social Security and undercut its public support
in order to pave the way for cutting Social Security's guaranteed
benefits and turn much of the program over to Wall Street. And I do
most certainly believe that that commission is a stacked deck. Every
single Democrat appointed to that commission was appointed by the
President. And the last time I looked, their views do not represent
very many Democrats when it comes to the issue of Social Security.
In my view, Social Security is the single best domestic program ever
passed by this Congress, perhaps with the exception of the Civil Rights
Act, and certainly Medicare is the next best after that. Obviously, we
will need changes in the future, just as it has needed changes in the
past in order to keep up with the times and remain solvent. But this
report, in my view, is simply a scheme to frighten Americans into
believing that we have to trash Social Security in order to save it. It
is put forth by a commission that has already made up its mind to cut
long-term benefits, and it ought to be recognized for what it is. And
there is nothing wrong with being frank about that on the House floor.
I have minimum high regard at best for that commission's makeup as well
as its intended recommendations.
I would also say I do not know why we should be surprised that the
Social Security System, beginning in a few years, will pay out more
than it takes in for a number of years. It was designed to do that. Mr.
Greenspan and the bipartisan group that made up the original commission
in 1973 specifically designed it so that we would accumulate notes over
a period of years and beginning in that year we would begin to pay down
the assets that had been built up. That is the way it is supposed to
work. And for the commission staff or its membership, be they Democrat
or Republican, to suggest that that means the system is in mortal
trouble is goomwah. And I think people know what goomwah is, if they
come from a rural community.
So I would simply say, yes, we are going to have to take actions to
strengthen Social Security, and that is why it is so tragic that the
majority of this House and the White House cooperated in putting
together a tax package that was so large that it took away virtually
every dollar left in the surpluses that could have been used to
strengthen Social Security long term, so that the tweaking that is
going to be required in Social Security would have to be less than it
now will have to be if we follow the misguided and misbegotten tax
policies that this Congress recently imposed.
So I make no apology for voting for this amendment, and I make no
apology for saying I have no confidence in the membership of that
commission as presently constituted. It is a stacked deck, and it is a
stacked deck full of jokers.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a very brief colloquy
with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) related to the fifth
proviso under the heading ``Office of Management and Budget.''
It is my understanding that this proviso would prohibit the use of
funds for the purpose of OMB calculating, preparing or approving
tabular or other material that proposes the suballocation of a budget
authority or outlays by the Committee on Appropriations. Is this the
correct understanding of this provision?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to enter into a dialogue with
the gentleman regarding this and would advise him that his
understanding of the provision is correct.
Mr. TANCREDO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman
be amenable to reviewing the need for revision during the conference
deliberations on this bill?
Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would
certainly agree to review this provision during the conference
deliberations, and I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from
Colorado and his patience and understanding that some things, of
course, cannot be resolved until we come to conference with the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing,
and I want to echo the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Filner) regarding his appreciation for the constructive comments that
were made during the course of this debate.
{time} 2000
Social Security is an extremely important issue to all of us.
[[Page H4620]]
Mr. Chairman, in opposing the amendment that was offered, I think it
is necessary that everyone understand that when we are trying to find a
solution to a very challenging circumstance, we do not find that
solution by saying before we look for a solution, we have got to put on
the blindfolds, put on the handcuffs, and put in the ear plugs. If my
colleagues do that, they are going to be restricted from the start in
what they can do. If my colleagues do that, they are not likely to find
something that will resolve the problem; and the problem is very real.
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) pointed out, it was
officials during the former administration, the Secretary of Treasury
and HHS and so forth, who made a very compelling case for the major
significance of the problem and the need to address it.
We cannot address it in a satisfactory way if we say solutions are
going to be taken off the table before we even consider them, including
solutions put forth by one of the leading Democrats, Senator Moynihan,
formerly the Senator from New York.
I think we have to understand many people want very different
solutions. Sometimes that differs a great deal with age. When talking
to somebody who has already retired or who is about to retire, they
want to make sure that they have everything that has been promised to
them and it is not in jeopardy. I do not think that any Member of this
body would want to place the benefits of anyone in jeopardy. I think we
all want to make sure that everybody receives what has been promised to
them.
But at the same time, there are a significant number of Americans who
say, I want to control more of my own destiny. For so many years, I put
so much into Social Security and I am not satisfied, either with the
rate of return or what they deem to be the level of security. And they
want to control more of their destiny, just as those who participate as
Federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan and the 401(k) plan have
different options from which to choose. It is perfectly possible that
we may establish an opportunity for people to choose whether they want
to continue in exactly the same thing they have now, or they want to
have some choices, but without enabling either one to impose their
choice on the other.
If we adopt this amendment, we are foreclosing opportunities to be
flexible. We are foreclosing opportunities for Americans to have a
greater level of choice in this crucially important decision in
influencing their retirement. I believe this amendment should be
defeated, but I believe the debate has been very healthy.
Mr. Chairman, this is the final matter of debate. We will be voting
on the amendments held back, and then move on to final passage. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this amendment; but certainly to vote in
favor of the bill as we move towards its final passage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 24,
noes 401, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 272]
AYES--24
Baker
Bilirakis
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Duncan
Gibbons
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hilleary
Hinchey
Jones (NC)
LaTourette
Ney
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Royce
Schaffer
Sessions
Tancredo
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Young (AK)
NOES--401
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
[[Page H4621]]
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Bachus
Blumenauer
Lipinski
McGovern
Scarborough
Snyder
Spence
Watkins (OK)
{time} 2031
Messrs. BROWN of Ohio, ROEMER, LANGEVIN, HEFLEY, WAMP, BRADY of
Texas, LEWIS of Kentucky, HAYWORTH, SHIMKUS, PALLONE, WEINER, FOSSELLA,
SKEEN and GREEN of Texas, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. McCOLLUM and Ms. RIVERS
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CHAMBLISS and Mr. HILLEARY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that it will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment Offered by Filner
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 238, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 273]
AYES--188
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--238
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Bachus
Blumenauer
Knollenberg
Lipinski
Scarborough
Snyder
Spence
{time} 2039
Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2002''.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2590)
making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain
Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002,
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 206, he reported
the bill, as amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House with
further sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
[[Page H4622]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 334,
nays 94, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 274]
YEAS--334
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--94
Andrews
Baker
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Berkley
Berry
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Etheridge
Evans
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Inslee
Israel
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Matheson
McInnis
Menendez
Moran (KS)
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Putnam
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schaffer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shows
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Strickland
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walden
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wu
NOT VOTING--5
Blumenauer
Lipinski
Scarborough
Snyder
Spence
{time} 2057
Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________