[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 11, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H438-H443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 743, SOCIAL
SECURITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2003
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 520 ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 520
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 743)
to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide additional safeguards for Social
Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with
representative payees, to enhance program protections, and
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall
be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 520 provides for the consideration of a
motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or
his designee to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 743. The rule
provides for 1 hour of debate in the House on the motion, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
H. Res. 520 provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall
be considered as read. It waives all points of order against
consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment, and it
provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H. Res. 520 is to expedite the final
consideration of H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003.
Adopting this rule will allow the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means to offer a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House-
passed version of H.R. 743, which, if approved by the House today, will
clear this bill for the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting this rule.
Last April, the full House of Representatives approved H.R. 743 with
a 396 to 28 vote. The overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on House passage
was preceded by the House rejecting the Green amendment. The Green
amendment sought to maintain the so-called ``last day rule,'' which is
a loophole that a small number of workers in certain States have
exploited in the past. To its credit, the underlying legislation before
us closes down that loophole. Last December, the U.S. Senate approved
its amendment to H.R. 743 by unanimous consent.
Let us be clear: H.R. 743 is noncontroversial legislation that has
wide bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, and promptly
adopting the Senate amendment to H.R. 743 will enable the President to
sign this legislation into law this month.
The Committee on Rules approved this rule by voice vote yesterday,
and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with debate
and consideration of the underlying, bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, my fellow Texas Democrats have joined me here
today on an issue of fairness. Will this House be fair to those who
stand to lose a Social Security pension that has been fairly paid into
and is fairly deserved, or will they vote to drive valuable public
servants out of a system that desperately needs them?
Some Members believe that the Texas teachers and other public
employees want some sort of special treatment. They do not. Their
spouse correctly and completely paid into the Social Security system.
And if they were just not teachers, policemen or firefighters, then
they would receive their spousal benefit. Is this the message that we
want to send, that the Social Security system will treat everyone
honestly except those who are most valuable to our society?
Every Member here today supports the underlying bill, the Social
Security Protection Act. Its main provisions would deny Supplemental
Security Income, SSI, to fugitive felons, make it easier for seniors to
get a lawyer for the complicated disability process, and reform the
representative payee program so that seniors are not defrauded.
In fact, the House considered all of these reforms during the 107th
Congress in a bill that passed the House unanimously. Unfortunately,
that bill, H.R. 4070, was not conferenced before the end of the
Congress, and it has returned in this much more controversial form.
I support all the reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker; and if the bill
consisted of just these provisions, we would again pass this bill
unanimously. But the same bill that helps protect our seniors from
Social Security fraud hurts our teachers, firefighters, police officers
and other public servants around the country, including in my home
State of Texas. Specifically, section 418 of this bill would prevent
those hard-working public servants from protecting their retirement
benefits from the harsh impact of the Government Pension Offset.
Mr. Speaker, this issue may appear complicated to some, but it is
very clear to the thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and
other public servants who are affected by it. So clear, that both the
National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers
are opposed to this bill.
Many teachers in this country have pension plans that are not covered
under Social Security, but they have spouses who are working in jobs
that do pay into Social Security. Under normal circumstances, a
surviving spouse, such as a teacher, would be eligible for spousal or
survivor's benefits if their spouse, who paid into Social Security,
dies. But under current law, the Government Pension Offset reduces or
eliminates the spousal or survivor's benefits for teachers and others
who pay into pension plans that are not covered by Social Security.
Fortunately, there is a provision in the law right now that helps
some people in this situation. It allows you to protect your retirement
by switching jobs at the end of your career. This ``last day
exemption,'' as it is called, has helped many teachers in Texas and
other States protect the Social Security benefits they deserve and that
they now need to retire. However, section 418 of the underlying bill
would eliminate this exemption. Instead, it would force teachers,
police officers, firefighters, and other public servants to work 5
additional years before receiving full spousal benefits.
Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat hard-working people who have
dedicated their entire lives to serving their communities and this
Nation. It hurts real people, especially women and lower-income
individuals. That is why I will ask Members to defeat the previous
question on this bill today. If we do, then I will do something that
285 of our colleagues have asked this Congress to do, and that is to
eliminate the Government Pension Offset.
Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), has a
bill, H.R. 594, which 285 of us have cosponsored, which calls for the
elimination of the GPO. If we defeat the previous question, then I will
attach that bill to H.R. 743 without section 418 and then
[[Page H439]]
bring the measure before the House for its immediate passage so that
teachers and other public servants can continue to protect their
retirement benefits.
Mr. Speaker, there should not be a Texas Member in this House who
does not vote to defeat the previous question. I would hope others
would join us. I urge my colleagues to support Social Security fairness
for teachers, firefighters, and police officers by voting to defeat the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
Texas for his hard work on this issue and urge my colleagues to oppose
this rule and support his amendment.
Mr. Speaker, if cosponsoring a bill is any indication of support for
an issue, then the Frost amendment should pass by a minimum of 285
votes to 150. That is because 285 Members of this House have
cosponsored H.R. 594, which is the underlying bill that the Frost
amendment would add to H.R. 743. But now it is time to put our money
where our mouth is. I am afraid that the so-called supporters of the
GPO repeal are going to turn their back on the hundreds of thousands of
public servants who are affected by the Government Pension Offset.
As we have heard, the Government Pension Offset unfairly reduces an
individual's Social Security spousal benefit if he or she receives a
government pension from employment not covered by Social Security. This
is unfair and arbitrary and affects individuals at the Federal, State,
and local level. Most often it hurts teachers, anyone who works for a
school district, firefighters, police officers and other public
servants.
Our office hears more about the GPO than practically any other issue.
Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and civil servants are finding
out every day that their Social Security spousal benefits are being
reduced by the Government Pension Offset.
These are people who have dedicated their lives to making America
better. When it comes time to retire, they lose out. That is because
the GPO unfairly reduces Social Security spousal benefits by two-
thirds, regardless of how much your government pension is. This is
particularly unfair to low-income folks and widows, the very people
Social Security was designed to protect. The Frost amendment would give
us a chance to correct this serious problem and make sure that public
servants receive a fair spousal benefit.
Like I said earlier, this is clearly a good idea, because 285 Members
of the House have cosponsored this legislation, and that is why I urge
support of the Frost amendment.
It is interesting to note we have someone, for example, in my own
district who is a teacher for 30 years and has been married for 30
years; and when she retires, when her husband passes away, she is
penalized for her spousal benefit under Social Security because she
worked at a public school system, not by her choice; but they decided
not to pay into Social Security because in 1983 that was one of the
groups left out.
{time} 1315
They did not pay into it, rightfully so, but under Social Security,
under our law, if they are married 10 years to an individual, they have
a right to those benefits, a spousal benefit.
It is interesting that our law punishes a group of teachers, for
example, in Texas and Georgia who have said, okay, the law says I have
to work 1 day; I will go work 1 day somewhere that pays both the
teacher retirement and the Social Security. Is that right? Sure, it is
not, but neither is the GPO, and that is why the Frost amendment is so
important.
We need to reform the Government Pension Offset, and the best time is
today, not waiting until the end of this year. We have been waiting for
15 years to reform the Government Pension Offset. So by voting for this
legislation today, we are making the Government Pension Offset even
worse. That is why the Frost amendment is so important.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, today the House stands to make a choice. We can choose
to support our widowed teachers or we can choose to oppose them. The
choice is ours. It is as simple as that.
I am appalled that our friends on the other side of the aisle would
take a stand against our teachers and claim, as they have, that the
teachers are engaged in a gimmick or a trick or a fraud. That is
absolutely insulting to America's teachers. Obtaining spousal benefits
is not a trick or a fraud. It is a payment for an entire lifetime of
work by a spouse. It is a payment for an entire lifetime of a man and
woman working together.
Saying that teachers receive Social Security for working 1 day is
simply not true, and our friends on the other side of the aisle know
it. It is embarrassing for them to say that. The real fraud is that the
Republicans have failed to address the GPO.
Here is the way the Republican plan works. If someone works for an
insurance company, there is no offset. If someone works for a
pharmaceutical company, there is no offset. If someone works for an
HMO, there is no offset. But if that person elects to be a teacher and
educate our children, there is an offset and their spouse's lifetime of
work is absolutely meaningless under the Republican plan.
At least our friends on the other side of the aisle are consistent.
They believe that neither veterans nor teachers should receive benefits
they have earned. Teachers work hard. They follow the rules. They
deserve their earned benefits.
Section 418 was not included in the version of this legislation that
the House passed with my support during the 107th Congress. I support
other provisions of this legislation but cannot support H.R. 743 as
introduced. Allowing section 418 to remain will strike at the very
heart of public schoolteachers in Texas and at the very heart of our
children.
The greater issue of this bill is the failure of Congress to address
the Government Pension Offset. Our Republican leadership stood on this
very floor during consideration of H.R. 743 last April and testified to
their commitment towards ending the GPO. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett), a representative of Congress and a supporter and champion of
Texas teachers, read an excerpt from a letter of the Majority Leader to
a constituent stating, ``I strongly believe that the GPO is an unfair
and misguided piece of legislation. It undercuts the people who have
spent their entire working life paying into the Social Security system
by denying them their fair share of the hard-earned money they
contributed. Married couples should be able to share those benefits
with their spouses.''
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means: ``Is there a problem
with the offset? Of course there is. We just had a colloquy on the
floor with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and there was an
agreement we will seriously address the pension offset.''
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee
on Ways and Means: ``We absolutely need a full discussion of all Social
Security provisions affecting public employees, which is why the
Subcommittee on Social Security will have a hearing on these issues and
legislative opportunities.''
Well, enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Talk is talk. Enough hearings.
This is an example of actions speaking louder than words. Surely the
leadership, who only scheduled four suspension bills and H.R. 743 for
this entire week, can find the time to vote to repeal the GPO and the
windfall elimination provision. All they have to do is call up a vote
on H.R. 594, a piece of legislation that has 285 bipartisan cosponsors.
Here is the deal. Either we support the teachers, we support first
responders, we support firefighters, we support police, we support
public employees, or we do not. That is it. It is that simple. Put up
or shut up. That is the deal.
Until we vote on H.R. 594 to repeal the GPO, we cannot allow H.R. 743
to pass. We cannot be involved in changing the rules of the game right
in the
[[Page H440]]
middle of the game. And truthfully, Mr. Speaker, this is no game. This
is our retired teachers' livelihood. Our teachers should be rewarded,
not punished. Let us stand up for teachers today. Let us vote for the
Frost amendment and let us vote ``no'' on H.R. 743.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the Committee on
Rules and certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for
initiating these kinds of needed changes.
My suggestion is, let us start dealing with some of the real problems
of Social Security and move this, allow this bill to proceed, because
what is in this bill is fair and it is needed.
I just want to take a couple of seconds to say how important I think
it is to deal with the huge problem that we are going to be facing in
Social Security.
We have an unfunded liability now of $12 trillion in today's dollars.
If we look at the dollars in future years that is going to be required
to keep our promises in Social Security, then it is going to be over
$25 trillion. It is something that is terribly disrespectful of current
and future retirees to continue to put off the solution to Social
Security. I would hope that we would continue this debate and
discussion and look for ways that we can keep Social Security solvent.
It has been a good program. Putting off the problem that we are
facing and demagoguing in elections is not the solution.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there is something ironic when we have
17,000 soldiers from my district in Fort Hood, Texas, fighting for
democracy in Iraq, yet right here on the floor of the House with this
bill the House leadership is denying democracy in the people's House of
Representatives in America.
Basically, what is happening is that we are being denied, 435 Members
are being denied the right to even vote on an amendment to this bill.
Regardless of the substance of amendments, that is wrong. We cannot be
preaching democracy in Iraq and fighting for it there while denying
democracy here in America.
Secondly, for this bill to be called the Social Security Protection
Act, I think it needs a large asterisk, Mr. Speaker, because the same
people pushing this legislation are the ones who are the architects of
the largest fiscal deficit disaster in American history. The greatest
threat to the solvency of Social Security, its trust fund and benefits
for seniors is the massive $7 trillion national debt that is stealing
money away from the Social Security Trust Fund, money that should be
saved to provide benefits for Social Security recipients.
So let us point out that, despite some of the good things in this
bill, the fact is that this is not going to truly protect Social
Security unless the leadership and the administration are willing to
change their fiscal policies and stop the largest deficits in American
history that are stealing $200 billion in just the last years from the
Social Security Trust Fund.
Thirdly, while I support most of the specific reforms in this bill, I
take great exception to the provisions that I think will harm not just
firefighters and police officers, those who are protecting our homeland
from burglars and problems here at home, as well as threats from
abroad, but this is going to hurt soldiers. And let me tell my
colleagues how.
The 17,000 soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas, who are in Iraq right now
are paying Social Security taxes. When they get home, if they finish 20
years of service in the military and then they decide to continue that
public service as a public schoolteacher in Texas, they are basically,
under this bill, going to be punished in their retirement benefits,
simply because they served our country for 20 years in the military,
paid Social Security taxes, and they are going to have those Social
Security benefits reduced.
It is wrong to be saluting them with our words, our soldiers in Iraq,
while passing legislation today that is going to hurt thousands of
Texas soldiers fighting in Iraq from being able to become a public
schoolteacher and still receive the Social Security benefits that they
have already paid into for 20 years.
The ultimate victim of this bill is going to be the children of
States like Texas. Because, right now, teachers are planning on
retiring in Texas, experienced teachers in communities that desperately
need them to stay in the classroom. But this bill is going to deny
those teachers an opportunity to receive their full Social Security
benefits within the public school classroom.
Mr. Speaker, this bill should be defeated. This rule should be
defeated. It is wrong.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
Anyone watching this debate today must wonder, what in the world is
the Congress doing to the schoolteachers? What in the world is going on
here? I think a few things need a little bit of explaining.
We have two people, a man and a woman, working and receiving and
paying into the Social Security Trust Fund. When one dies, the
surviving spouse gets either surviving benefits or their own Social
Security, whichever is higher. If we take a situation now and say,
well, let us look at people who are not covered under Social Security.
If they work 1 day under Social Security, they get both their survivor
benefits and their pension plan. This is not fair.
If we were to allow this to happen for all American workers under
Social Security where they could receive both their pension and the
survivor's benefits, within 10 years we will have a $1 trillion deficit
in the Social Security Trust Fund and we will be bankrupt.
This bill passed this House with only 28 people in the whole House
voting against it. It passed the Senate under unanimous consent. There
are some wonderful parts of this bill that we need to address. The
problem with the noncovered workers, we are simply putting them on a
level playing field with those that are covered. It is the right thing
to do. It is the fair thing to do.
This House has already been through this. We have had a vote. The
Senate has passed it by unanimous consent, and we should have a similar
vote.
So when my colleagues come down to vote, look also at other
provisions within the bill which are tremendously important to all of
us. Waste, fraud, and abuse, paying in to fraudulent caregivers, all of
these things are covered throughout this bill.
The amount that we are talking about, it affects some, and only a few
and I might say a minority of the schoolteachers in Texas, but it does
affect some of them, there is no question about that, but it in no way
discriminates against them. They still are at an advantage, because
they can work 5 years under Social Security, pay into for 5 years, and
then they will receive the higher of their benefits or survivor
benefits. But those people who give up their job and work 1 year in the
cafeteria or something of this nature under a job that is not covered
under Social Security, then they will collect, for paying 1 year into
this, they will collect approximately $100,000 in Social Security
dollars. It is wrong. It is not fair.
Mr. Speaker, let us pass this rule. Let us pass this bill and send it
to the President for signature.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being able to
ask a question to the chairman of our Subcommittee on Social Security,
but all of Texas educators, teachers, administrators, custodial,
cafeteria workers, everyone is affected by this bill. It moves it to be
qualified to 5 years.
But let me explain the reason. They are not paying into Social
Security now. They do not receive anything for what they pay into
Social Security. It is for them as being a widow of someone who paid
into Social Security.
The best example is that someone in my district works at a machine
shop for 40 years and they are married to someone who works in a public
school system in Texas, that the vast majority of the Texas school
districts are not
[[Page H441]]
participants in Social Security by law from this Congress. That widow,
that person dies, the person who paid in their whole work life into
Social Security, their widow is penalized by this legislation. So Texas
has found a way around it by letting them go to find a school district
and work 1 day. Well, it is a loophole, but, in all honesty, it is a
loophole that benefits widows.
It is interesting. I want to deal with the big issues in Social
Security, but, in all honesty, we need to deal with it without
punishing the widows of people who have paid into Social Security their
whole work life and may have been married for 40 years and then they
get penalized by the Government Pension Offset.
{time} 1330
This legislation may have good parts in it, but the GPO part is
wrong. We ought to deal with the Frost amendment so we can have reform
of GPO on this House of Representatives floor without waiting for the
Committee on Ways and Means to deal with it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I take offense to the words that were
used by the chairman when he talked about fraud and abuse when you talk
about the widows of these individuals. Their husbands have worked 30,
40 years of their life.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green) controls the time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have yielded my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). I would have gladly asked a
question, and we would not have had to have this debate if we could
have asked the question earlier.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) for more illumination on this exciting subject which
will be covered at great length in the next hour.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would just speak to the gentleman who just
spoke when he referred to what I talked about in taking offense of
fraud and abuse. If the gentleman would read the bill, he would see
what I am talking about is a completely different section.
This is the area where caregivers are receiving checks and
misappropriating them. It has nothing to do with spouses.
This is a very large bill, and I would suggest that the gentleman
read it and understand it, and then he would not misinterpret what I
have just said.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Rodriquez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my disappointment
with the provisions of this bill that affect many of the public service
employees in Texas. Although the legislation has a number of good
provisions, and I agree there are some good provisions in it, it does
not correct the injustice that is hurting many of the firefighters, the
policemen, officers and our teachers.
This act fails to correct the unjust Government Pension Offset, the
windfall elimination provisions in the Social Security Act. These two
sections of the Federal law take billions of dollars in earned Social
Security benefits away from public service employees that have
dedicated their lives to our communities; and often it is not until
retirement age that these employees find out that their Social Security
benefits will be cut, in some cases even eliminated.
Currently, the Government Pension Offsets can completely wipe out the
amount these public service employees expect to receive based on Social
Security contributions made by their spouses. In addition, the windfall
elimination provision can dock their retirement benefits and their
Social Security by as much as $303 dollars a month.
The original intent, Mr. Speaker, of the GPO was not to hurt public
service employees. Rather, its purpose was to prevent higher paid
workers from reaping extra benefits, and it was not the intent to have
such a drastic effect on low-paid workers. Health insurance premiums
and other out-of-pocket health costs alone can easily eat up more than
half of a retiree's State retirement annuity. In some circumstances, it
is sufficient to throw the worker into poverty. So we have got to look
at this issue. It is critical.
By targeting the pensions of teachers and other school employees, the
offset discourages qualified individuals from serving in our public
schools, precisely at a time when our Nation faces a severe shortage in
teachers. This is going to discourage someone who has worked out there
for 20, 30 years in one job and chooses to go into education on the
offset because they know that they are going to lose money because they
have earned that Social Security. This is not the way to go about it.
Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in expressing my opposition to the
Government Pension Offset; and my Republican friends know this. In
fact, 285 House Members on both sides of the aisle have added their
support to the legislation which would repeal their unjust provisions.
So they know that if it is allowed most people will support it and vote
for it. The thing is that they are not allowing this to occur, which is
unfortunate.
If you agree that this provision is unfair, which 285 people have
indicated that it is, then I would strongly urge you to vote in favor
of the amendment that will be brought forth.
In addition, let me say we have an opportunity to take care of this.
Let us take care of it. We are only working with the Republican
leadership two days out of the week. My God, we can at least take care
of this issue.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Ortiz).
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, as we take up H.R. 743, the Social Security
Protection Act, for a third time in the 108th Congress, I cannot help
but feel we still find ourselves with a flawed piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the original intent of this bill was a worthy one, to
reimburse Social Security benefits if people representing the recipient
misuse them. That is not controversial. But the provision reducing the
spousal Social Security benefits for countless teachers, school support
personnel, police officers, firefighters and other public servants is
most certainly controversial; and I intend to oppose the entire bill
since it contains this provision and will adversely affect teachers and
others across our State.
Let me say one thing, when teachers work one day, that does not mean
that they are going to qualify to get a Social Security benefit for 30
years. What it means is that their spouses who have paid in 30 or 40 or
50 years into the Social Security system and then they die, that is
money that they have earned, the family has put into Social Security.
That is the money that you will get.
Now we need to understand that targeting pensions of teachers and
other school employees will discourage qualified individuals from
entering the classroom at exactly the same time the Nation is
experiencing a shortage of teachers.
We say we are committed to education, yet in this bill we are
profoundly uncommitted to educators.
I am also a co-sponsor of H.R. 594, a bill introduced in the 108th
Congress that will eliminate the Government Pension Offset and windfall
elimination provisions that target our teachers and other public
servants by denying them the opportunity to retain their full Social
Security benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that this provision was
included in an otherwise good bill because the rest of the bill is a
good bill, and I compliment my friends.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has any other
speakers.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to me to reduce the Social Security of
a retiree simply because the spouse of that person happens to be a
teacher or firefighter or police officer. These jobs are not high-
paying jobs. Those who chose this path have done so because they
[[Page H442]]
want to make life better for all of us. And what do we do? We deprive
them of a significant portion of their hard-earned retirement benefits
just because one spouse works for a government entity instead of a
private company. That is just wrong.
I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question
is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will do two
things.
First, it will strike Section 418, the portion of the bill that
prevents certain public employees from receiving the full amount of
their deceased spouse's Social Security survivor benefits, benefits to
which they are otherwise entitled.
It will also add to the base bill, H.R. 743, the text of H.R. 594,
the Social Security Fairness Act which will once and for all eliminate
the pension offsets that so unfairly diminish all the retirement
benefits of our valued public employees.
I want to point out that H.R. 594 is a broadly bipartisan bill and
has the support of 285 co-sponsors, nearly two-thirds of the membership
on the House.
Vote no on the previous question so we can help all of those who were
unfairly penalized in their pension benefits simply because their
spouse is a government employee and one works for the private sector.
Let us support those who go into the public service. Let us support
our teachers, our policemen and our firemen, not penalize them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record immediately
before the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to vote
against the previous question.
This is a more complex bill than we have heard in the last 40
minutes. This bill protects beneficiaries from representative payees
who misuse benefits. It denies Social Security benefits to fugitive
felons and probation parole violators. It deters program waste, fraud,
and abuse on a much broader scale than that dealing just with the Texas
schoolteachers. It helps individuals with disabilities gain access to
representation and encourages disabled beneficiaries to return to work.
It improves and simplifies the SSI program, especially for members of
the military and their families. It has bipartisan support and the
support of key stakeholders and actually saves money; and, yes, it does
close the loophole that enables some teachers in Georgia and Texas to
contribute just a few dollars to Social Security to receive nearly
$100,000 in additional lifetime spousal benefits.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out against
this egregious rule for the Social Security Protection Act of 2003.
There is much good in the underlying bill. But there is one poison pill
that will hurt our teachers and firefighters and police. Subjecting our
teachers to the Government Pension Offset is a brutal blow to Texas
teachers especially. 286 Members of this House have cosponsored H.R.
594 to repeal the GPO, because it is unfair. 286 Members, both
Democrats and Republicans, from across the nation, want to get rid of
the GPO. Texas teachers have been waiting for House leadership to hear
the call of those 286 Members and bring up H.R. 594 for a vote on the
floor. While those retired Texas teachers, widows and widowers, waited,
they found a legal loophole that enabled them to get what is fair. Now,
instead of doing what is right, House leadership wants to close the
loophole.
This is the wrong way to go, and with one amendment we could get rid
of this blow to Texas teachers. Or with the Democratic motion to
recommit, that is the normal right of the minority party, we could have
brought up H.R. 594, and fixed this problem the right way.
But the Rules Committee has issued an undemocratic rule that will not
allow a vote on any amendments and that will not allow a motion to
recommit. Obviously, they are afraid to hear the voices of our
colleagues on this issue.
I am proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues from Texas, to
fight for our teachers. I will vote against this rule and vote ``no''
on the underlying bill until the offending provision is taken out, or
we fix the GPO once and for all.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 520
H.R. 743--Social Security Protection Act
Amendment in nature of substitute:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the House
shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table
the bill (H.R. 743) to amend the Social Security Act and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional
safeguards for Social Security and Supplemental Security
Income beneficiaries with representative payees, to enhance
program protections, and for other purposes, with Senate
amendment thereto, and a motion to concur in the Senate
amendment with the amendment specified in section 2 of this
resolution shall be considered as pending without
intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
a d Means. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening
motion or demand for the division of the question.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows:
In the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment, strike section 418 and add a new title at the end
consisting of the text of H.R. 594.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 197, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 22]
YEAS--226
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
[[Page H443]]
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--197
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
DeGette
Doggett
Filner
Honda
Kucinich
Meek (FL)
Rahall
Watson
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1407
Messrs. PALLONE, CARDOZA, LIPINSKI, MORAN of Virginia, SKELTON, Ms.
MAJETTE and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. CALVERT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote
22 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no'' on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________