[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 63 (Friday, May 13, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         TOTALIZATION AGREEMENT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL ACT 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARBARA CUBIN

                               of wyoming

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 12, 2005

  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, The United States entered into a 
Totalization agreement with Mexico on June 29, 2004. This agreement, 
like 20 others currently in force, is an effort to reconcile time 
worked in another country--under a different tax code and pension 
system--with time worked here at home, to ensure workers have the 
proper amount of credits for their lifetime contributions to their 
retirement.
  The Social Security Act allows for these types of agreements, but, 
unfortunately, it has a flawed mechanism for Congressional approval. 
Frankly, there are serious questions about whether the statutory 
approval process for Totalization agreements is even Constitutional.
  Under current law, the President negotiates an agreement with another 
country, and then submits it to Congress for approval. Congress then 
has 60 days during which either the House or Senate are in session to 
consider the agreement and to disapprove it if necessary. The problem 
is that if one House of Congress passed a motion of disapproval, 
precedent suggests that it would be ruled an unconstitutional 
legislative veto.
  The bill I'm introducing today will correct that. Since Totalization 
agreements are similar to trade agreements, I have proposed changes to 
the Social Security Act that will allow for an expedited consideration 
of any agreements for congressional approval, like we do for trade 
agreements. It would also require an actual affirmative vote for the 
agreement to take effect, rather than the current 60-day rule where if 
neither house acts, the agreement is deemed as accepted. A 60-day use-
it-or-lose-it process does not respect the responsibilities of this 
House in drafting the laws of the country.
  We need to protect the role of the legislative branch as the law-
making body of this land. Current law does not do this, but my bill, 
the Totalization Agreement Congressional Approval Act 2005, will.

                          ____________________