[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11142-11150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1259, SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE 
                      SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 186 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 186

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1259) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     protect Social Security surpluses through strengthened 
     budgetary enforcement mechanisms. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment specified in 
     section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled among the chairmen and ranking minority members of 
     the Committees on the Budget, Rules, and Ways and Means; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment considered as adopted is as follows: 
     page 3, line 13, strike ``cause or increase'' and insert 
     ``set forth''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
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 186 provides for consideration of H.R. 
1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, a 
bill that will help to protect the Social Security Trust Fund.
  House Resolution 186 provides two hours of general debate divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on Rules, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  The rule provides that the bill will be considered as read and 
provides that the amendment printed in section 2 of the resolution be 
considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the 
minority.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start by explaining exactly what this bill will 
do. First, the bill will establish a parliamentary point of order 
against any budget resolution utilizing the Social Security surpluses 
in its spending or revenue proposals. Second, the bill establishes a 
point of order against any legislation, including spending initiatives 
and tax cuts, that attempts to use any funds from the Social Security 
surplus. And third, this bill prohibits the Office of Management and 
Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, or any other Federal 
Government agency from including Social Security surpluses in Federal 
budget totals when publishing official documents.
  Mr. Speaker, it is dishonest to talk openly about a budget surplus 
when our operating budget is still in deficit. The government continues 
to borrow money from Social Security, a fact that does not show up on 
the government's balance sheet but that has dire consequences for the 
future. This ``lockbox'' takes Social Security away from budget 
calculations so budget decisions are made only on non-Social Security 
dollars, a vital first step in ensuring retirement programs will be 
there for this generation and generations to come.
  In our response to the President's State of the Union address, the 
106th Congress committed itself to saving Social Security. This task 
has two important components. First, we must ensure that the current 
system is being managed responsibly by locking away today's 
contributions and securing the retirement of current beneficiaries. 
Today, we deliver our first component. Later, we will have to make 
fundamental reforms to the system to guarantee the program's long-term 
viability while improving benefits and providing Americans with more 
control over their retirement savings.
  We began to fulfill our promise to the bill on the first component 
when, two months ago, this Congress passed the budget resolution. That 
resolution outlined our budget goals for the next 10 years and called 
for the establishment of a ``lockbox'' to reserve the $1.8 trillion in 
cumulative Social Security surpluses.
  Today, we follow through on that original blueprint by taking 
advantage of this historic opportunity to save Social Security by 
ensuring that 100 percent of the money destined for the Social Security 
Trust Fund remain in the trust fund, $1.8 trillion over the next 
decade.
  Now, we will certainly hear the argument that this legislation is 
being rushed to the floor. To that I must respond that we have waited 
far too long for this kind of reform. It is the first time in the 
history of the program that a Congress will protect Social Security 
funds.
  Would opponents rather continue the practices that since 1969 allowed 
those who ran this Congress to routinely spend the trust funds in order 
to pay for other government programs and mask the Nation's deficits? 
While other Congresses have chosen to use surplus Social Security 
revenues for other ``spending priorities,'' this Congress is proud to 
be the first to preserve the retirement security of all Americans. With 
this effort today, we are working to ensure that not one dime of 
America's Social Security tax dollars are spent on big spending 
programs.
  This is also a big improvement over the plan that the President sent 
to the Congress. His budget only claimed to save 62 percent of the 
Social Security surplus for Social Security, plainly stating the 38 
percent would go to his pet spending initiatives.
  However, the truth was even worse than that. The Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and 
the U.S. Comptroller General have all testified before Congress and 
soundly refuted the notion that the President's plan saves any 
additional money for Social Security.
  Even Democrat Members of Congress have agreed that the President uses 
a series of fiscal shell games and double-counting schemes to inflate 
his projected savings for Social Security. In fact, Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan noted that the President's plan actually hurts 
Social Security by using improper accounting to lend a false sense of 
security to a program that desperately needs structural reform.
  H.R. 1259 strengthens Social Security and ensures that big spenders 
can no longer raid the fund. This bill continues our determined efforts 
to provide more security and freedom to the

[[Page 11143]]

American people. It is part of a common sense plan to provide security 
for the American people by preserving every penny of the Social 
Security surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed with debate and consideration of this historic bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) from yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Social Security and Medicare are 
not going to last forever, especially if we do not do something about 
it very soon. And despite all of the fanfare about this bill, I am 
sorry to say this will not do the trick because, Mr. Speaker, although 
this bill will probably not make things any worse, it also will not 
make things any better.
  This bill merely recreates the point of order that the Democrats 
enacted some 14 years ago. It does not protect all of the resources we 
need to reform Social Security and Medicare. It promises not to use the 
Social Security Trust Fund, which Congress promised not to touch when 
it was created back in the 1930s. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, it leaves the 
rest of the budget surplus open for the taking, be it for new spending 
programs or tax cuts for the rich.
  Even the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration says 
that this proposal, and I quote, this proposal would not have any 
significant effect on the long-range solvency of the old-age, survivors 
and disability insurance program.
  But it would not be such a problem, Mr. Speaker, if Social Security 
were not scheduled to fall apart in the year 2034 and Medicare to fall 
apart in the year 2015. Congress and the White House need to implement 
major Social Security and Medicare reforms and we need to do it very, 
very soon.

                              {time}  1515

  These are the most important issues we can address this year, and 
they just cannot be put off for another week, much less another 
Congress.
  But, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this bill is the only social 
security bill my Republican colleagues are going to bring up this year. 
All it does is restate the current policy on surpluses and ensure that 
social security does go broke on time.
  I heard that some Republican pollster said it was a bad idea to 
tackle social security, despite its looming demise. But Mr. Speaker, 
polls aside, we have to do something, and we have to do it very soon.
  For that reason, I am disappointed my Republican colleagues did not 
make in order the Rangel-Moakley-Spratt amendment to prevent Congress 
from spending budget surplus money until, and I say until, we shore up 
the social security and Medicare.
  Our bill says Congress cannot pass any new spending or any new tax 
cuts that are not completely offset until the social security is 
secure. Our lockbox contains both social security and on-budget 
surplus, and unlike the Republican proposal, it actually has a lock.
  Our lock consists of the declaration by the trust fund trustees, and 
only the trust fund trustees, that social security and Medicare are 
financially sound. Only then can Congress tap into that surplus.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill was referred to not one, not two, 
but three congressional committees: the Committee on the Budget, the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Rules. But not one 
single one of them, not one of them, held hearings or marked up the 
bill. It was sent right to the floor. It has become the norm in this 
era of Congress without committees, and that, Mr. Speaker, can get 
very, very dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule because the 
problem is not what this bill does for social security, Mr. Speaker, it 
is what this bill does not do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am rising in strong support of this bill, the Social 
Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. I think it is important 
that we try to put in place a mechanism to try to establish this 
lockbox to ensure that social security spending is not spent on other 
government spending.
  The reason I say that is for 40 years in this institution money was 
spent on other government spending. There were chronic budget deficits.
  Just recently we have been able to bring that down and bring this 
budget into balance, but I think it is important that we protect and 
set aside $1.8 trillion in cumulative budget surpluses over the next 10 
years for social security and Medicare.
  Since social security was first created it has been a pay-as-you-go 
system, benefits to retirees are paid from tax revenue. Interest is 
credited to the social security trust fund, and social security tax 
surpluses become part, unfortunately, in this process, of general 
government spending.
  In reality, there is no cash in the trust fund, merely IOUs. They are 
printed on an ink jet printer. In fact, they are in three file folders 
in West Virginia, in a filing cabinet. I think it is important that we 
set up a mechanism to, frankly, pay back over time the $359 billion 
that was borrowed over the last 40 years out of this fund.
  If steps are not taken now, in 15 years social security will be 
insolvent and benefits will have to be funded through either reductions 
in other spending, or tax increases, or a return to chronic budget 
deficits.
  That is why I will mention that I introduced a bill to pay back the 
money borrowed from social security and create a real trust fund with 
real assets. Under my bill, 90 percent of the budget surplus would be 
used to pay down the debt owed the trust funds. Using the budget 
surplus in this fashion would continue until all IOUs in the trust fund 
have been eliminated.
  I support this. It is a good first step.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House will 
consider legislation to protect the social security trust fund which 
for too long Washington has treated as a pork barrel slush fund. I am 
proud that today we will debate this issue. Creating a lockbox for 
social security just makes common sense.
  The legislation offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) is a step in the right 
direction, but it is really the bare minimum that we can do to preserve 
social security and Medicare for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer, along with my colleagues, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Moore), an amendment that would protect the entire budget surplus for 
social security and Medicare. We intend to offer this proposal as a 
motion to recommit, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support it.
  The Herger-Shaw legislation does nothing for Medicare. Kentucky 
seniors know that you cannot talk about social security without talking 
about Medicare. The health of both these programs is crucial to the 
health of our elderly population.
  Kentucky seniors know that, and Congress ought to have the good sense 
to protect Medicare, too. H.R. 1259 only addresses the social security 
surplus. It does not commit us to save the entire Federal surplus for 
social security and Medicare. It does nothing to secure the long-term 
solvency of social security and Medicare.
  Our proposal would save the social security surplus, the Medicare 
surplus, and the overall budget surplus to save social security and 
Medicare, and it would require that we make the solvency of social 
security our first priority.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the real commitment to social 
security and Medicare. I urge Members to vote for our motion.

[[Page 11144]]


  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, as well as strong 
support of this historic legislation, the Social Security and Medicare 
Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999.
  How many of us over the last 30 years, and I have only been in the 
House and had the privilege of serving here for the last 4\1/2\ years, 
have been asked in town meetings and senior citizens centers, union 
halls, VFWs, and other public forums, when is Washington going to stop 
dipping into, when is Washington going to stop raiding the social 
security trust fund to spend social security on other things other than 
social security?
  Today we are going to pass legislation that will do that, that will 
stop the raid on social security.
  Let us review the history here. For over 30 years now Washington has 
been dipping into the social security fund. Regardless of the rhetoric 
on the other side where they say it has not, it has gone on.
  Back when President Johnson and the Democrat-controlled Congress 30 
years ago began raiding the social security trust fund, they have run 
up quite a bill. According to the social security trustees appointed by 
President Clinton, the social security trust fund has been raided by 
more than $730 billion over the last 30 years.
  I have a check here written on the social security trust fund. It is 
a blank check. Washington for the last 30 years has used the social 
security trust fund as a slush fund and as a blank check to pay for 
other programs.
  This walls off the social security trust fund and puts a stop for 
those who want to raid it. We set aside those funds for social security 
and for Medicare. I believe that is an important first step, setting 
aside 100 percent of social security and locking it away before we 
consider any other reforms or changes to social security. Let us lock 
it away first. That is an important first step. We can use those funds 
to strengthen Medicare and social security. This legislation 
accomplishes this goal.
  I would like to point out, of course, that not only is the social 
security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box a centerpiece of this year's 
balanced budget, but there is a big difference between the Clinton-Gore 
Democratic budget and the Republican budget.
  The Republican budget sets aside 100 percent of social security for 
social security. The $137 billion social security surplus this year 
will go to social security. If we compare that with the Clinton-Gore 
Democrat budget, that only uses 62 percent of social security for 
social security, and the Clinton-Gore Democrat budget spends $52 
billion of social security money on other things; all good programs: 
Education, defense, things like that. But the Clinton-Gore Democrat 
budget raids the social security trust fund. This lockbox will prevent 
the Clinton-Gore raid on social security.
  I would also point out that the social security and Medicare safe 
deposit box sets aside $1.8 trillion. The President talks about 62 
percent. Sixty-two percent is $1.3 billion. Over the next 10 years 
Clinton-Gore will raid the social security trust fund by $12 billion. 
Let us put a stop to it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support the underlying 
legislation, not because I feel that it is the last word on what we 
need to do to protect the social security trust fund, but because it is 
a humble first step.
  I also rise to support this because I am very disappointed in what 
this body has done this month. We have passed legislation as an 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill which unfortunately raids 
the social security trust fund.
  I think there is a level of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle here 
that is regrettable. We are not facing up to our responsibilities that 
this trust fund is something that millions and millions of Americans 
have been counting on to pay their benefits after retirement, and to 
pay those benefits without putting an added strain on the Federal 
budget and on programs that are important to their children and 
grandchildren.
  It is a cruel hoax when they learn that in order to pay for those 
programs, the Federal Government will either have to cut something in 
the future or go out and borrow more money.
  It is time, and in fact the time is long past, when this lockbox 
proposal should have been passed. I think the true test of our 
commitment to this principle will be our willingness to waive points of 
order in rules that bring bills to the floor. Unfortunately, we have 
historically done this, and we have undermined our ability to maintain 
our commitments.
  What I would like to urge is that ultimately we take the proposal 
that is being considered today and turn it into a law so that we do not 
have the ability to waive these points of order, and instead, we hold 
ourselves to a very high standard in the House of Representatives of 
preserving the integrity of the social security trust fund.
  I would also like to agree with my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle that this bill would be stronger if we had had the opportunity 
for committee consideration and if we had had the opportunity to 
consider some amendments.
  Certainly it could go further. But one of the ironies that I notice 
is that each time we propose legislation that goes too far, then others 
in this Chamber or at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue object to it 
because it goes too far. So it is regrettable that we never seem to 
quite identify what is an appropriate and acceptable approach, but we 
are always in disagreement, no matter what proposal comes up.
  I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) for the work that he has put into this, and emphasize that 
this is truly a bipartisan gesture. My colleague, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) has supported parallel legislation. The Blue Dog 
budget had parallel provisions. All of us are committed to this goal.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support an idea that is long overdue in 
the Nation's capital, truth in budgeting. For decades the social 
security surplus has been used by politicians to fund other government 
spending and mask the scope of our Nation's financial problems. It is 
time now to put this practice behind us. It is time to build a firewall 
between the dollars that are used to fund other government programs and 
the dollars that come to government specifically for social security 
benefits.
  There are three principles that will guide my decisionmaking on 
budget issues as we move forward through this year. First, 100 percent 
of the social security surplus must be preserved for social security. 
Whether it be using this money to credit the social security trust fund 
or to help preserve social security or Medicare, we must commit these 
resources to their intended purposes. This lockbox bill is an important 
step in fulfilling this part of our commitment.
  Secondly, we must stick to the fiscal discipline we decided on when 
we passed the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1997. In 1997, we agreed to 
spending limits that we absolutely must stick to. Every Member of this 
House, Republican and Democrat, supported a budget resolution that 
maintained these caps. We cannot break our word to the American people. 
They expect us to keep our promises. They should be able to receive 
that commitment from us.
  Third, we must return the nonsocial security surplus to the people in 
the form of tax relief. This money represents a direct overpayment for 
government services. Make no mistake, if it is left in the hands of the 
politicians, it will be spent. It is the people's money. We should give 
it back.

[[Page 11145]]

  Mr. Speaker, Members can describe the budget process as a three-
legged stool. Today we are putting the first leg in place.

                              {time}  1530

  That stool includes preserving Social Security, maintaining fiscal 
discipline, and returning the non-Social Security surplus to the 
people.
  Congress' ability to finally control spending has helped create an 
economy with historically low inflation and low unemployment. It has 
helped millions of Americans and allowed them to pursue their financial 
independence, to experience the security of homeownership, and to be in 
a position to give their children a leg up in the new economy through 
education.
  We must not jeopardize this success by going on a spending spree that 
destroys fiscal discipline. We can guarantee the security of Social 
Security by putting 100 percent of the Social Security surplus funds 
into a lockbox. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, when discussing the issue of expected 
budget surpluses, we need to ask two questions. First, will we stick to 
the budget caps on which the budget surpluses are based; and, second, 
will Congress actually use the projected surpluses to strengthen 
Medicare and Social Security?
  Unfortunately, this bill is a sham as an answer to those two 
questions. The so-called lockbox is of no value beyond making sure 
Members of Congress have a press release to show their constituents 
when they go home this weekend.
  The budget caps I did not vote for, but I am willing to stick to them 
if the money will be used for Social Security and Medicare. But the 
fact is the track record in here is that it is not going to happen.
  Just a few weeks ago, this Congress passed a spending bill that grew 
from $5 billion to $15 billion in a matter of days, three times what 
the President asked. So we are on our way to blowing the budget caps, 
and the result is going to be, there is no surplus.
  This bill claims to prevent the use of budget surplus dollars for 
Social Security. It makes this claim by mumbo-jumbo legislative ``magic 
language'' that says we cannot create budget deficits. However, it 
gives any chairman in this Congress the right to ignore everything as 
long as they say they have self-designated this as reform.
  That raises my question, what is reform? The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) says he has a bill to reform Medicare, a 
voucher plan that would raise the premium on every senior to $400 a 
year. Is that reform? It would make it impossible for one to get 
Medicare until one is 67. Is that reform?
  It would extend the budget amendments of 1997 for 5 years. Do our 
hospitals and our home health agencies think that is reform? Any of 
these examples would open the lockbox, the trap door. The money would 
fall out and, presto, we have money for a tax cut.
  If shifting the cost onto Medicare beneficiaries and providers is not 
what is meant by reform, then we need to have an amendment process. We 
were denied a hearing in the House, not one single hearing. On this 
floor, we are denied even one single amendment.
  There is no intention to improve this bill. This is a PR gimmick. 
That is all it is. This has been on the docket for 2 months, and the 
American people expect us to do something about Medicare and Social 
Security. This bill does not do it. I urge the Members to vote against 
this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my Democrat friend. In his statements, 
he was mentioning that this legislation is not tough enough to defend 
Social Security. I would like to see it tougher.
  The legislation that we were originally writing was tougher; but, 
guess what? We have legislation that is tougher in the Senate, and 
guess who is opposing it? The President is opposing it. Guess who else 
is opposing it? The Democrats in the Senate are opposing it.
  They say it is too tough. They say it goes too far. They said, in 
case of an emergency, we do not have enough elbow room, if you will.
  So we have worked with the committees involved, with the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the Committee on Budget, both of which I serve on, the 
Committee on Rules, to try to come up with some legislation that we can 
get the support of from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrats, and with the President, to try to at least get something out 
there which is better than nothing.
  So I would like to respond to my friend, if he would like it tougher, 
I would love to get it tougher; but if he could, could he perhaps get 
some support from your Democrat colleagues in the Senate as well as our 
Democrat President?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the bill that the Senate had would have 
shut down the government if it had been passed. That is why there was a 
veto threat. It makes no sense to pass that kind of legislation.
  If my colleagues do not want any Social Security checks to go out and 
they want to shut the government down, then pass what the Senate is 
proposing. We are never going to get this issue done this way. We have 
a good proposal from the President to take the money and buy down the 
public debt, actually reducing the public debt.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the fact is the 
President promised to save 100 percent. Then he came back with a plan 
that saved 62 percent. Then he proposed a budget that was only saving 
52 percent.
  The fact is what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my 
Democrat colleague and good friend, is saying just is not the case. The 
fact is they wanted it both ways. They say they want it tougher, but 
then they oppose it. But now they think it is not tough enough, and 
they oppose it then, too.
  Let us vote out what we have today. Let us begin with what we have 
today which does bring about a point of order both in the House and the 
Senate, requires 60 votes in the Senate. Let us at least move forward 
with something now; and perhaps in the future, we can come up with 
something tougher.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) explained this procedure, because I was a little baffled 
as to why this bill was so weak. But I understand it now.
  It is weak because the gentleman is concerned about my President and 
he is concerned about the people in the other body. That is a new way 
to legislate. So I guess it is what we call majority-plus-6, because, 
in the old days, when we were concerned about strengthening 
legislation, we took it to the committee. We have hearings. We have an 
opportunity for people to amend it. We have debate. We have discussion.
  But this new way that we have had the last half dozen years is, we 
bypass the committees, we bypass the Committee on Ways and Means, we 
bypass budget, we bypass the Committee on Rules, but we go on the other 
side and ask, will they toughen it.
  We did something like that yesterday. We wanted to, on the other 
side, reduce the wages of Customs. I would think that we would be able 
to debate that on the floor. No. My colleagues put that on the 
Suspension Calendar, and they followed it with antipornography 
legislation or antidrug trafficking legislation.
  I just do not think that they get it. In the House of 
Representatives, we legislate. We do not go over there and beg, hat in 
hand, with the other body for what they would like.

[[Page 11146]]

  Another thing we do is we give ourselves an opportunity to discuss 
these things in our committee. I am so proud and honored to be a member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. Our jurisdiction, we jealously 
guard it. But what good is all of it if we go straight to the Committee 
on Rules when anything concerns Social Security?
  We all know that this so-called lockbox, that every Member of this 
House has a key to unlock it. We all know when my colleagues are saying 
that they are going to put the Social Security surplus in there, they 
are doing what Democrats and Republicans should have been doing years 
ago, and that is putting the current payroll tax in the box.
  But my colleagues cannot talk out of both sides of their mouths. My 
colleagues cannot give a big tax decrease, which I cannot wait for it 
to come out of my committee, unless they are taking that to the 
Committee on Rules, too.
  But I understand that my colleagues are working on $300 billion, $800 
billion in 10 years. How my colleagues are going to do that and put 
Social Security surplus in the lockbox, I do not know. But then again, 
we may never find out. We may find it on the Suspension Calendar, or it 
may just come out in the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just hoping that someone who understands what 
happened in the back room will come forward to the mike and explain how 
much of the Social Security surplus goes into this so-called box. It is 
my understanding it is only the current payroll tax, and the rest of 
the surplus we can use for whatever purpose that we would want without 
violating the spirit and the wording of this law.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger) for his long-standing leadership on this 
bill.
  I am a new Member of the House, and I have been working on this issue 
since getting here. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger) for his leadership.
  This debate is getting out of hand. Here is what our budget 
resolution does, and I am very happy to have been a part of writing the 
proposal in the budget resolution that said we are going to set a 
higher standard in this Congress, that we are not going to raid the 
Social Security Trust Fund, and that we are going to change the rules 
in Congress to make it tougher to do so.
  We want to go all the way to stopping the raid on the Trust Fund. 
That requires the President signing a bill into law, dedicating every 
penny of Social Security going toward the Social Security Trust Fund, 
going to Social Security.
  Sadly, the President is against that legislation, in part because his 
budget proposal continues to raid Social Security by $341 billion over 
the next 10 years.
  What we are trying to achieve in this bill is the first step in 
locking away Social Security. We are going to stop the phony 
accounting. No more smoke and mirrors accounting, hiding the deficit 
with Social Security surpluses.
  We are going to say, when we measure the budget, we are going to put 
the Social Security budget, the Social Security surplus aside. Then we 
are going to say, not only for budgets, but for every bill coming to 
Congress, if it attempts to dip into Social Security, we are going to 
put a higher vote threshold against it. We are going to say that in the 
other body, it requires three-fifths of a majority vote to pass a bill 
that attempts to raid Social Security.
  Why are we doing this? Because we are trying to make it tougher for 
this body and the other body to stop raiding Social Security. We want 
to make it more difficult for us to pass legislation to raid the Trust 
Fund.
  I am the author of the other lockbox bill, the second stage in this 
process, the bill that simply puts all of the Social Security dollars 
into Social Security, to pay down debt when we are not doing so, and to 
make sure that all of our Social Security dollars go to saving this 
program.
  The problem is that the President is against that. So what can be 
accomplished here and now when the White House is opposed to saving all 
of the Social Security surplus? What we can do is stop the phony 
accounting. What we can do is make it tougher for people in Congress to 
pass legislation that raids Social Security, and that is what this 
legislation accomplishes.
  Please join us in toughening this legislation. Please join us in 
making it harder to raid Social Security. This is as much as we can 
get, we hope, from the White House. We would be happy to entertain 
additional legislation that would make sure that every penny of Social 
Security goes to Social Security.
  The problem is we cannot get it through the Senate. We cannot get it 
passed by the White House. We want to pass that legislation. We are 
going as far as possible right now with this legislation.
  On the last point of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, every penny of the 
Social Security Trust Fund goes to Social Security. Every penny of the 
Social Security surplus, including interest, in our budget resolution 
goes to Social Security.
  For those taxpayers who overpay their income taxes, that surplus goes 
back to the taxpayer. So just as a point of clarification, the budget 
resolution does not raid Social Security. It saves Social Security 
surplus for Social Security.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Democrat substitute 
and, if that fails, I will vote for the Republican bill, but this is 
not the strongest possible bill that we could bring forth to stabilize 
and ensure the future of Social Security and Medicare, for several 
reasons:
  Number one, points of order can be waived; and, number two, Congress 
or a future Congress can simply change the law. The bottom line is it 
is just too easy to raid this trust fund. And the money coming into 
this trust fund from one door is already leaving and exiting the other 
door the next day.
  There is an old simple statement from the streets that says, we can 
do it now or it can do us later, and that is about where we are with 
Social Security. Both the Democrats and the Republicans want to do the 
right thing. We are struggling to do the right thing. But neither 
party, quite frankly, is doing what they say they want to do because 
there are still the machinations to effect a grab at this money.
  I have a little piece of legislation in. We have amended the 
Constitution to address issues of alcohol, to limit presidential terms, 
to stop discrimination, to give women the right to vote, and these were 
the right things to do. And there is only one way to ensure that Social 
Security money cannot be touched, an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States that says the money coming into that trust fund 
cannot be touched for anything or any reason other than Social Security 
or Medicare.
  Now, we are going to have to tell the truth around here. We cannot 
come out with modest caps trying to make everybody look and say, what a 
nice conservative budget we have, and then go ahead and expand those 
caps on every appropriation bill we have. There is no money and there 
is no surplus except in this trust fund.
  I was hoping at least to have a debate looking at that process, to 
see how the States felt. The American people support an amendment to 
the Constitution that says no person, no President, no Congress, no 
reason, no cause can jeopardize their trust fund. Social Security has 
its own revenue measure and, by God, we should not touch it.

[[Page 11147]]


  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of my 
dear colleague from the other side of the aisle on the issue of the 
trust fund being just at that, a trust fund. In California we have had 
for decades a law that we cannot raid one trust fund and shift it over 
to other uses.
  I guess in Washington it seems very technical on this issue, but I 
guess I will try to explain it as simply as possible. Social Security 
is called a trust fund, not a slush fund. It is not a pool of money to 
be used in any manner that somebody wants to if they can get enough 
votes.
  Maybe that is why the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is right, a 
lot of us are looking at the issue that there is not enough lock in the 
lockbox. Let us be brave enough for us to put it before the 
Constitution. Let us who really stands for protecting the Social 
Security Trust Fund in the long run.
  But this proposal, Mr. Speaker, is the first step. It is the first 
step in reforming Social Security. If we are not willing to at least 
vote for a bill that says we are going to start treating it as a trust 
fund and not a slush fund, if we are not willing to vote for this 
proposal, for God's sake, how are we going to find the intestinal 
fortitude to be able to vote for the other ones we all know are coming 
down the pike?
  This is the statement of credibility and a statement of commitment 
that we need to start with down the long road towards saving Social 
Security and Medicare as we know it. I ask my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle not to find excuses to walk away from this first step, but 
to start this long journey with this first step of voting for this 
resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 1259, the Social 
Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California for his leadership in 
sponsoring this legislation that will take a step toward protecting the 
Social Security Trust Fund from being raided by the Congress and to 
tell the truth to the American people about the Federal budget.
  This legislation would tell the American people that in 1998, instead 
of a $70 billion surplus we actually had a $29 billion deficit. This 
legislation would send a signal to this body that we must continue to 
exercise fiscal discipline; that we cannot afford a 10 percent across-
the-board tax cut or new spending programs.
  This legislation would prevent, for example, the $13 billion 
appropriation Congress made from the Social Security surplus just last 
week to pay for a measure that totaled $15 billion in so-called 
emergency spending, when we were forced to make a choice between 
funding our troops and saving the Social Security surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the principles underlying this bill. 
As a Nation, we must adopt and adhere to principles of truth in 
budgeting and fiscal responsibility. On February 10 I introduced H.R. 
685, legislation that would permanently ensure that receipts and 
expenditures from the Social Security trust funds are not included in 
the unified budget. That was the idea of our former colleague, Mr. Bob 
Livingston.
  H.R. 685 ensures that the Congressional Budget Office and the OMB 
stop the practice of publishing confusing aggregate budget numbers that 
deceive the American people about the true nature of the Federal budget 
and tempt Congress to continue conducting irresponsible fiscal policy.
  Clearly, we all agree that now is the time to keep faith with our 
constituents, to present Federal budget information in a manner that 
demonstrates the state of Federal surpluses or deficits without 
reference to Social Security trust funds. I believed then and I believe 
now that the honest approach, the correct approach is to permanently 
sequester the Social Security Trust Fund today, tomorrow and for all 
time. A trust should be just that, it should not be violated.
  While H.R. 1259 is a step in the right direction, it does not get the 
job done. It permits any spending or tax bill, bills that would be paid 
for by Social Security Trust Funds, as long as the bill is described as 
one that would be intended for Social Security reform or Medicare 
reform. It fails to protect the Social Security Trust Fund from 
creative legislating. In short, Mr. Speaker, it falls short of the 
standard of honesty the American people deserve.
  I believe that proposals to protect and strengthen Social Security 
and Medicare deserve careful consideration by this Congress. I oppose 
this rule because it limits debate. When the time comes today, I urge 
my colleagues to support the adoption of the Holt- Lucas-Moore language 
that would protect the on-budget surplus as well as the Social Security 
surplus from being spent; I repeat, the on-budget surplus as well as 
the Social Security surplus from being spent. It specifies that only 
when the trustees' report declares Social Security to be sound for 75 
years and Medicare for 30 years can the on-budget surplus be spent.
  We will see you, and raise you one. Please join us.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Social Security 
and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. I appreciate the hard work of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), and the part the Committee on 
Rules played in this I am very proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1995 when Republicans took control of Congress, it 
seemed that budget deficits financed by the Social Security Trust Fund 
would go on as far as the eye could see. But under Republican 
leadership, a newfound fiscal discipline contained Congress' penchant 
for spending and turned things around. Today, we are looking forward to 
realizing the first Federal budget surplus in decades.
  This moment in history presents us with a perfect opportunity to set 
a new standard by which we will define a true budget surplus. This new 
definition will ensure that no Social Security money is included in 
that equation.
  For more than 30 years big spenders in Washington have been raiding 
the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for unrelated programs and pet 
projects. Even after the Congress claimed that it had put a wall 
between Social Security and general spending by taking the trust fund 
off-budget, the big spenders continued to dip into our seniors' 
retirement savings.
  Today, with the passage of this legislation, we will stop the big 
spenders by locking away 100 percent of our seniors' hard-earned 
retirement dollars for their Social Security and Medicare benefits. 
Over 10 years' time this legislation will protect $1.8 trillion, $1.8 
trillion, from the greedy grab of those who thrive on immediate 
spending satisfaction and ignore the long-term consequences.
  The Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act prohibits the 
House and Senate from considering any legislation that spends the 
Social Security surplus, the one exception being legislation that 
improves the financial health of the Social Security or Medicare 
programs. This act would provide honesty in Federal budgeting, fiscal 
discipline and financial security for our Nation's seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and H.R. 1259, in 
support of a new era in Federal budgeting that honors the social 
contract among the Federal Government, America's workers, and our 
Nation's seniors. Let us restore the public's faith in our government 
as the trustees of our hard-earned dollars by locking them safely away 
for their golden years.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous Member of Congress who spoke indicated that 
the big spenders continue to dip into the

[[Page 11148]]

Social Security surplus. I ask her who are these big spenders? Point 
them out. Ask them to stand. Because I will tell my colleague who they 
are. They are the Members of the majority party who last week took a 
bill the President introduced for $6 billion and parlayed that into a 
$15 billion bill. Where does my colleague think that additional $9 
billion came from? It came from the Social Security surplus.
  These are the same people today who are telling us, let us protect 
the Social Security surplus. Why did they not bring this bill up 2 
weeks ago so that grab of last week would not have been possible? 
Because they could not satisfy their special interest friends. The bulk 
of those $9 billion went to the defense contractors, big contributors 
to the Republican Party. But now, after they have taken the dollars, 
they come to the floor obsessed with this ``protect Social Security.''
  They say for the last 40 years the Democrats have spent it. Where do 
my colleagues think the dollars came from for the Reagan tax cuts? 
There was no general revenue surplus during those years. Every dollar 
of that tax cut came from Social Security surplus. Where do my 
colleagues think the additional spending during the Bush administration 
came from for budget purposes? It came from the Social Security 
surplus.
  So let us not go pointing fingers at one side or the other. The 
Republicans are as good at spending it as we are, as evidenced by their 
actions last week where they took a $6 billion administration request, 
parlayed it into $15 billion, $9 billion more, which came from the 
Social Security surplus.
  Now, let us talk about this lockbox. I think the only way we are 
going to provide solvency to the Social Security System is by a reform 
bill. Lockboxes, my colleagues, are eyewash. They do not do anything to 
provide a 75-year window for Social Security recipients in this 
country.

                              {time}  1600

  So take with a grain of salt, my friends, what we hear today, because 
last week it was okay to raid $9 billion out of the Social Security 
surplus; and today they are aghast, my God, what is this Congress 
doing?
  And I say to my colleagues, my God, what did they do last week? That 
was okay spending, because that was for our favorite programs and our 
favorite special interest group. That is hushagawa. If my colleagues 
want to know what hushagawa is, call my office.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  I would like to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), who has worked long and hard on this question, 
and I believe is on the right track in pursuing this.
  Let me state what is our intention as far as management. Based on the 
proposal that we had from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, I 
have, per usual, acquiesced to his request; and we will, in fact, have 
the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and 
Budget Process join with me in managing the 40 minutes of debate for 
the Committee on Rules.
  Then we will shift, and under the very able management of the author 
of the legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), we will 
see the 40 minutes of the Committee on the Budget consumed.
  Then the Committee on Ways and Means, under the leadership of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw), will manage it from our side. I can only assume that the 
ranking members on the minority side will proceed with management in 
that way.
  So I just wanted my colleagues to know that, per usual, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) got his way.
  Let me say that that measure is, I believe, a very, very important 
one. If we were to go back to 1937, at the very beginning of Social 
Security, one has got to look at what its intent was. It was to provide 
survivors benefits and to supplement retirement. It was never intended 
to be a sole source of survival for retirement, but it was to provide a 
supplement.
  We have seen the Social Security system grow to some two programs at 
its high point; and we have, fortunately, made some modifications of 
it. But the tragedy was that in 1969, and even earlier, we saw this 
step made towards getting into the Social Security fund for a wide 
range of other very well-intentioned programs.
  That was wrong. It was wrong because American workers are not given 
any kind of option as to whether or not they pay into Social Security. 
They are told, very simply, that they have to pay half of that FICA tax 
and their employer has to pay the other half. Again, it is not an 
option.
  I remember my first job when I was a teenager, and I looked at the 
amount of money that was being taken out in that FICA tax and I was 
appalled. And today I continue to be appalled at the high rate of 
taxation that we have. But then when one looks at the fact that those 
dollars that were intended to be put aside to provide assistance to 
supplement retirement, that they all of a sudden were expended for a 
wide range of other things, it was wrong. It was wrong.
  That is why many of us, being led by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) on this issue stepped up and said, when people are forced 
to pay into the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare, they should in 
fact be able to count on those dollars going there.
  That is exactly what we are trying to do here. We are trying to say 
to the American people, the Federal Government tells them that they are 
going to put their dollars there, and so the Federal Government is 
going to meet its responsibility to ensure that they have those 
resources when they are counting on them at their retirement.
  And so what we are doing is, we are saying that a point of order can 
be raised if an attempt to raid that fund is taking place.
  Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my friend and the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, earlier 
started talking about some back room deal that he said we are going to 
be getting into. That is not going to happen. Why? Because under the 
Herger proposal that we have, a point of order must be raised and it 
takes 218 votes. Every Member of this House will have the opportunity 
to make a determination as to whether or not we proceed or not.
  Now, without getting terribly partisan, and I know we have had 
finger-pointing, the last speaker talked about the fact that big 
defense contractors who support the Republican Party were responsible 
for that $15 billion bill. Well, the fact of the matter is, the 
President has only deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries around the 
world. It seems to me that maybe we should try to pay for that and 
prepare for challenges that we have got.
  So that was not what motivated us on this thing. It was an absolute 
emergency that needed to be addressed. But to blur that with the issue 
of trying to preserve Social Security and Medicare is wrong.
  So we are taking what is a very measured, balanced step to do our 
doggonedest to make sure that the American people who put dollars aside 
for retirement will in fact be able to count on them.
  So I congratulate again my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger), and I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and 
the manager of this measure for yielding me this time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the author of the amendment that 
will be proposed by the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) for yielding me the time.

[[Page 11149]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1927, legislation that I 
wrote with my colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) and 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and which will be offered today 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) as the motion to recommit.
  Our legislation will safeguard two of our Nation's most important 
programs for the elderly: Social Security and Medicare. The Holt-Lucas-
Moore Social Security and Medicare lockbox would require that every 
penny of the entire Federal budget surplus, not just the Social 
Security surplus, would be saved until legislation is enacted to 
strengthen and protect Social Security and Medicare first.
  This we need to do. We cut into the surplus as recently as last 
week's spending bill, which brought forward a new definition of the 
word ``emergency.'' Any new spending increases would have to be offset 
until solvency has been extended for Social Security by 75 years and 
for Medicare by 30 years.
  These requirements would be enforced by creating new points of order 
against any budget resolution or legislation violating these 
conditions.
  Spending any projected budget surpluses before protecting and 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare would be wrong. We are 
offering this proposal now because we are concerned about the haste 
with which some Social Security lockbox proposals are being brought to 
the floor and, I might add, being brought to the floor without 
possibility of amendment.
  The proposals to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare 
deserve thorough examination and careful consideration. Congress should 
not take shortcuts when considering changes of these hallmark programs 
for America's seniors.
  The Herger-Shaw lockbox bill attempts to protect Social Security 
surplus. Merely doing this does nothing to extend the solvency of 
Social Security and it does nothing at all for Medicare.
  The Holt-Lucas-Moore bill is superior to the Herger-Shaw lockbox 
because our lockbox is more secure and has more money in it. The Holt-
Lucas-Moore saves the entire surplus, not just the Social Security 
surplus, by establishing two new points of order under the 
Congressional Budget Act. A point of order would lie against any budget 
resolution that would use any projected surplus. This is defined to 
mean, in effect, reduce a projected surplus or increase a projected 
deficit.
  Further, a point of order would lie against any legislation that 
would use any projected surplus. In the Senate, 60 votes would be 
required to waive either of these points of order.
  Holt-Lucas-Moore differs from Herger-Shaw in one important respect. 
Holt-Lucas-Moore locks up all projected surpluses: Social Security, 
Medicare and anything else. Herger-Shaw locks up only Social Security 
surpluses.
  Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the most important and 
successful programs of the Federal Government of the 20th century. We 
must not forget that they provide vitally important protections for 
America's seniors.
  A majority of workers have no pension coverage other than Social 
Security, and more than three-fifths of seniors receive most of their 
income from Social Security. Let us put the needs of America's current 
and future retirees first.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the Chinese proverb that says, ``A 
thousand mile journey begins with a single step.'' This is that step.
  For those who say it is not enough, I wonder where they have been for 
the last 30 years when they could have done more. Nothing like this has 
been tried before. For those who say it is not enough, I remind them 
that the Democrats in the Senate killed a tougher one.
  We would like it to be more. But it is the first step for doing 
something that has been long overdue. That is to say, if we make a 
payment in our payroll taxes for our retirement and our health care in 
our retirement years, it ought to go there. That is all we are saying. 
And we are going to see that it does go there.
  I expect this to get a very large vote. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule, get the debate under way on the lockbox bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 205, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 162]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard

[[Page 11150]]


     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Kasich
     Pelosi
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1633

  Mr. BERRY and Mrs. MINK of Hawaii changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________