[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14572-14584]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to House Resolution 206 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 2590.

                              {time}  1837


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2590) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, 
the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the 
President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a 
request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant), had been postponed and the bill was open for amendment 
from page 68, line 3, through page 95, line 16.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purpose of debate; the amendment numbered 8, 
which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; the amendment by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner) that has been placed at the desk, which 
shall be debatable for 40 minutes.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in 
the request, the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or a designee, each 
may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on 
any pending amendment.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Add at the end before the short title the following:
       Sec. 6__. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount provided for ``Federal 
     Election Commission--salaries and expenses'' by $600,000,000 
     and by decreasing each other amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act which is not required to be 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of 
     law by such equivalent percentage as is necessary to reduce 
     the aggregate amount appropriated for all such amounts by the 
     amount of the increase provided under this section.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 15 minutes in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
myself.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides an additional $600 million to the 
Federal Elections Commission for the purpose of assisting State and 
local officials in updating their voting systems.
  240 days have passed since last year's embarrassment of an election. 
Congress should have acted by now. Aside from 1 minute speeches and 
special orders, press conferences, and hearings, this is the first time 
election reform has even been discussed in a meaningful way on the 
floor of the House, or in either of our legislative bodies.
  The simple fact is the absence of a real debate on election reform is 
as much of an embarrassment as was the last election. Following last 
year's election, Florida's failing election system became the punch 
line of nearly every political joke around.
  However, Florida took the criticism, bounced back and passed what I 
consider up to this point to be the most comprehensive election reform 
package in the country, albeit still deficient. It is not perfect by 
any means.
  Florida's new election law seeks to remedy some of the core problems 
that occurred last year, particularly in the area of updating voting 
technology. However, as counties throughout Florida begin to update 
their voting systems, they are finding themselves unable to fund their 
needs, and this is true across America.
  In my home county, Broward, it will cost more than $20 million to 
purchase the state-of-the-art voting system. The State is providing 
Broward County with a mere $2.3 million, leaving the county with the 
remaining tab.
  Broward County, ground zero during the election debate, may not 
purchase

[[Page 14573]]

the best voting machines on the market because it cannot afford them.
  My concern is if we do not appropriate now and legislate later, as 
Senator McConnell has said, then we are missing our opportunity to 
provide the necessary funds in time for election day 2002.
  Mr. Chairman, Republican leadership has yet to provide us with a 
formal commitment that a submittal or emergency appropriations bill 
will accompany any election reform legislation. I am hopeful that, as 
this debate progresses, such commitment will be made.
  The amendment sends a message to the American people that help is on 
the way. My amendment says to State and local governments throughout 
America that the Federal Government wants to assist them in updating 
their voting technology. The amendment makes the commitment that 
Congress has yet to make.
  Contrary to what many argue, the need for election reform is much 
more than a civil rights issue. Rather, the need for election reform is 
a challenge to our democracy. It is a challenge that burns at the heart 
of every American who believes in our country's democratic heritage. It 
is a challenge that we cannot back down from, and it is a challenge 
that we will not back down from. There is no price tag for democracy, 
and it is time for Congress to tell America that it is willing to spend 
whatever it takes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has made a 
very valid point. We all remember the exercise in Florida last year as 
we tried to declare the winner of a Presidential election. But after 
the focus on Florida faded away, we also learned that many other States 
had similar problems, and in some cases they were more serious than the 
problems in Florida.
  Shortly after we came back to convene the new Congress, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking minority member on the 
subcommittee, and I began conversations, along with the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) on our side 
of the aisle, and a number of other Members; and we understand that the 
Federal Government does have a responsibility here.
  Conducting elections has always been the province and the 
responsibility of the States and the local governments, but I think we 
have reached a point where there is going to be a tremendous need for 
financial assistance. As chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I 
believe that we should be prepared to meet the Federal responsibility 
in providing the relief necessary so that our elections in the future 
are not clouded by missed votes or votes that are not counted, or 
whatever the problem might be.

                              {time}  1845

  I am not sure what the exact dollar amount should be today. My 
colleague from Florida and I have discussed this. I am not sure we are 
prepared to set a dollar amount today. But I just want to make the 
commitment again to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) as we have discussed many, many 
times before in private, that I am here to be supportive of this, and I 
believe most of our colleagues will as well, once we determine what the 
real number is as far as the Federal responsibility in partnership with 
our States and in partnership with our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed colleague the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I 
support the Hastings amendment.
  Our election system is sick. Mr. Hastings has a remedy. That remedy 
would go throughout this country and make us whole again.
  Do not fool yourselves. The people of this country are upset. They 
are angry. They are disappointed. It is time that we step up to the 
plate and say, yes, let's fund this system and work out something that 
will make all Americans happy to be able to vote.
  We cannot muzzle justice. No matter who says to move on, we cannot 
move on until justice is rendered. It is hard to imagine in a free 
world that I must stand here and beg to be sure that we get a system, 
that we have the Federal Government participate in the reformation of 
our system.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for this initiative.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Jacksonville, Florida (Ms. Brown), who 
happens to have a number of constituents standing by.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  Twenty-seven thousand of my constituents were disenfranchised in the 
last election. The whole nature of the last presidential election, from 
the roadblocks set up in black areas, to innocent people labeled as 
felons and kicked off the voting rolls, to thousands and thousands of 
votes being thrown out, is not acceptable. Our current President was 
selected by the Supreme Court and not by the American people. This last 
election has destroyed people's faith in our very system of government.
  Yesterday I heard a Member on this floor speaking on the Foreign Ops 
bill about the flaws in another country's election. It is shameful for 
us to discuss another country's election when we have our own American 
coup d'etat here in the United States.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, so 
that we can begin the process of finally getting over this shameful 
election.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Paterson, New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the great poet Langston Hughes asked, 
``What happens to a dream deferred?''
  Well, in the case of the dream of fair and equal treatment at the 
polls, the dream deferred is a dream denied.
  Last year's presidential election was a civics lesson for all of us. 
Unfortunately, not only did we learn that every vote counts, we learned 
that not every vote is counted.
  For example, in Atlanta's Fulton County which uses punch card voting 
machines similar to those that gained notoriety in Florida, one of 
every 16 ballots for President was invalidated. In Harris County, 
Texas, which includes the city of Houston, 14,000 votes were not 
counted because the voter's selections simply did not register. In many 
Chicago precincts that have high African American populations, one in 
every six ballots was thrown out.
  By not addressing this blatant inequality, we are letting down the 
thousands of Americans that take the time to vote each year and those 
votes are not counted because the voting machines in these districts 
are old, broken and inaccurate. Our goal should be simply to fix the 
system, to help in every way we can.
  Yes, justice is difficult, Mr. Chairman, but as Sir James Mansfield 
said, ``Let justice be done though the heavens fall.'' And Ferdinand I, 
the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, said, ``Let justice be done 
though the world may perish.'' That should be our primary motivation, 
to bring justice to the system.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that some citizens were 
disenfranchised, many of those in Florida.
  But I also know that I thought it was a travesty for the Gore and the 
Vice President candidate to try and disenfranchise our military vote in 
Florida as well through technicalities.

[[Page 14574]]

  A Federal law says that you do not require a postmark because an FPO 
or APO many times, our military, are not able to get there. But yet the 
Gore and Vice President candidate tried to send lawyers to 
disenfranchise on technicalities those votes.
  Also, the State law says that you have to have a date on it. The 
absentee ballot that was sent out by Florida did not have a date on it. 
I do not know about you, but if it does not have a date on there, I am 
not going to add it.
  Yes, across this country, we need a fair vote system. I do not reject 
that. But what I do reject is people trying to make political points, 
coming down, saying that the election was stolen.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, when we find neighborhoods built on top of toxic waste 
dumps, we respond to that emergency by buying out the homes and 
protecting the people who live there. When floods wipe out communities, 
we respond by buying out property to protect residents and help them 
find safe places to live.
  Mr. Chairman, error-prone voting equipment is an emergency situation 
that threatens our democracy, and we need an immediate response. I 
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for offering an 
amendment that offers such a response. It is going to take some money 
to upgrade voting technology from error-prone punch card and other 
systems to reliable machines. We simply cannot afford to do nothing.
  Just look at what error-prone voting equipment like punch cards does 
to our democracy. A study done by Cal Tech and MIT revealed that the 
spoilage rate for punch cards was as many as 986,000 ballots in 2000. 
In Florida last year the spoilage rate for punch cards was almost 4 
percent. And in Cook County, Illinois, it was 5 percent during the last 
election.
  Earlier this year, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and I and other colleagues 
introduced the Voting Improvement Act, which would make buy-out grants 
available to any jurisdiction that used punch card voting systems in 
the last election. We want to see new equipment in place, and we want 
it there soon, in time for the 2002 elections. We want to buy out that 
inferior equipment and put accurate equipment in place that will give 
citizens the assurance that their vote is being counted. We need to 
push for adequate appropriations to make that happen.
  Unfortunately, the President and our Republican friends failed to 
include any funding for election reform in the budget this year. But 
Congress can and must meet the challenge of restoring faith in our 
democracy. The Hastings amendment rises to that challenge, and I 
commend the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member 
of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I also thank him for his statement and his 
continuing willingness to work with all of us for a mission that he 
thinks is very important and we share and we know is going to require 
money. He is going to be a critical player in that effort. We very much 
appreciate his role.
  I rise, however, to pass along a paragraph that would have been in 
the statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) had he been able to 
stay. Unfortunately, he had an engagement he could not get out of. If 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) were here, the chairman of the 
Committee on House Administration, he would have said this:
  ``These programs will cost money.'' ``These programs'' being the 
election reforms which are being discussed on the floor today. ``I want 
to assure the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that I am fully 
committed to ensuring that the necessary funds are authorized and 
appropriated.''
  I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has talked to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I know that they are working 
together, that we are working together. This is a critical issue. I 
will have a few words to say on it later. But I am pleased that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), although he could not be here, wanted me 
to make these remarks so that his commitment and his view of the 
importance of this issue was clearly on the record during the 
consideration of the Hastings amendment.
  I might say at this point in time that the Hastings amendment's sum 
of $600 million is very close to the sums that are in most of the 
Senate bills and that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and I have been 
discussing will be necessary to effect the ends that I think all of us 
seek.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding this time, and I thank him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), one of our 
newer Members.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by 
thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for offering the 
amendment. As he has said, we are running out of time to fix our broken 
election process in time for the next elections.
  The confusion surrounding last year's presidential election in 
Florida brought national attention to the failures of our voting 
process in many communities. I was in the Federated States of 
Micronesia at the time, and I could not believe what I saw. We 
resembled a banana republic.
  In the 9 months since then, studies by the press, by universities, 
and even this House have all detailed the same problem, that too many 
Americans are forced to use outdated or faulty voting equipment. The 
vast majority of these faulty machines are concentrated in the 
communities of poor and minority voters.
  No single act is more central to the American democratic process than 
casting a vote for the candidate of one's choice. The idea that some 
Americans might have their votes discarded because they live in the 
wrong neighborhood or they live as the wrong people should spur every 
Member of this body into action.
  This amendment would finally give the Federal Election Commission the 
resources it needs.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I stand here to commend my good friend, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), on his efforts to keep 
election reform alive and in the forefront of this body's legislative 
agenda.
  I support this amendment in recognition that recently the principle 
of one person, one vote was abandoned, resulting in the 
disenfranchisement of thousands of citizens. It is time to take action 
to address this serious issue, and this amendment does just that.
  Shamefully, the last national election resulted in numerous 
allegations of irregularities and minority vote dilution. The history 
of our country reveals the disturbing story of how many people fought 
and died in this country for the right to vote and exercise the full 
measure of their citizenship. It is outrageous that this country, the 
leader of the free world, continues to be plagued with this problem in 
this new millennium. Through numerous hearings, reports and individual 
citizen statements, it has come to light that outdated election systems 
caused thousands of votes to be undercounted, overcounted or not 
processed accurately.

                              {time}  1900

  Appropriately, this amendment would provide funding to the FEC to 
provide assistance to State and local governments in updating their 
election systems. This is not just a first step, but a giant leap 
towards addressing an issue that the American people believe in.

[[Page 14575]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a host of questions that need to be answered 
by the system of elections in this country, but there is one thing upon 
which Congress and I believe most Americans should agree: no single 
American should be disqualified by virtue of using a defective voting 
machine.
  Mr. Chairman, it was not isolated to Florida or any other part of the 
country. My Secretary of State did a study and, strangely enough, twice 
as many votes were disqualified in counties that used punchcard systems 
in Oregon as counties that used optical scanners. Now, a lot of people 
will say we cannot afford to help the States and counties; we cannot 
afford a system of good technology for the people of America to record 
their votes flawlessly.
  Come on. This is the basis, the foundation, of our franchise, what 
makes this country work. If we cannot afford to pay for that 
technology, if we cannot afford to have a better election system, then 
we are indeed headed toward very dark times.
  This is a modest amount of money to resolve this problem, and this 
should be approved by this Congress.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not relevant who anyone believes 
really, in quotes, ``won'' the election in Florida last year to this 
amendment. This amendment is necessary because we know that people are 
being deprived of their votes by faulty and inadequate voting 
equipment, probably in every State and certainly in most States of the 
Union. Certainly in my State of New York, as well as in Florida.
  A report by the National Association of Election Commissioners in 
1988 said that punchcard voting machines have more than twice the error 
rate and disqualification of other technologies then in use, and that 
they ought to be phased out and discarded, in 1988. An MIT study just 
said about $600 million a year is what is necessary to bring to bear 
modern technology which will tell the voter who has tried to vote for 
two candidates he would be disqualified or if he skipped a vote, you 
have done it, before you leave the voting booth so he can correct it if 
he wants to.
  We ought to do that. We ought to make sure our future elections are 
accurate and fair, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on. I 
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a Floridian, I wanted to share 
the painful story about what happened in Florida one more time tonight. 
Part of the tragedy of the Florida election, which was our country's 
election, was that the margin of error ultimately exceeded the margin 
of victory.
  After the election, one of the painful lessons we learned was that it 
was widely exposed that we had an inexcusably casual, and, quite 
arguably, unconstitutional deficiency in our voting election system. 
Shame on us. Shame on anyone in the position of an elected authority 
should anything like that ever happen again.
  Now, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I commend him 
for offering the amendment, has pointed out, the State of Florida has 
taken the lead on making illegal the infamous punchcard voting machine 
and providing partial funding to counties, including the county of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and me, to fund some form of 
substitute technology.
  A consensus is developing among Democrats and Republicans here, and I 
believe around the country, that the solution is a form of technology 
that is precinct-based and that gives the voter the opportunity to 
verify his or her vote. In a State and country where we have increasing 
numbers of voters who are aging, who are experiencing disabilities, be 
it sight or something else, it is very important, it is fundamental, 
that that voter has the opportunity to verify his or her vote before 
they leave the voting booth.
  I want to close by pointing out why the Hastings amendment is so 
important. Time is of the essence. If we do not adopt this amendment 
today, or do something shortly thereafter to take the chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), up on his willingness to fund this, 
we are going to lose the opportunity to repeat the terrible things that 
happened in the last election in time for the 2002 elections.
  So shame on us if we let the next set of elections result in the same 
problems. Let us get it fixed now. Time is of the essence. We know how 
to do it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. This is an amendment which 
sets the dollars at an appropriate level. There is an ad on TV that 
says the watch cost $150, the trip to Jamaica cost $1,500, the 
confidence of a child is priceless.
  The confidence that a citizen has in its country is priceless; the 
confidence that a citizen has when they do the ultimate act of 
democracy, which is to participate as a Nation, as a people, as a 
society, in making decisions, in choosing leaders, in choosing options 
and priorities for their country.
  The tragedy of the last election was that there are many Americans 
who know that they have the right to vote, but are not ensured that 
they will be able to vote, and, that if they do so, their vote will 
count. Part of that problem is a technological problem, and we need to 
solve it; and it will take money to solve that technological problem.
  The other problem is for this great democracy to ensure that every 
citizen not only has the right, but is guaranteed by our society to 
have access to whatever their disability may be, whatever their status 
in life may be, access to the polling place and, yes, the ability to 
vote, whatever their disability may be, whatever their condition may 
be, and have the integrity of that vote being ensured and counted 
correctly.
  I am thankful that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 
offered this amendment. I am thankful for the leadership of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who has introduced a bill; for 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has traveled 
throughout this country with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
and myself and others; for all those, not just from Florida, because 
this is not a Florida problem. The gentleman from Florida made that 
point. He is absolutely correct. This is a national problem, a national 
challenge, to ensure that our elections are as good as the rest of the 
world thought they were, and their confidence in that was put at risk 
this last election.
  We need to solve it; we will solve it. I thank the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this morning in the Committee on Rules, which you 
Chair, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said the following: 
``225 have passed where the Federal Government has committed zero 
dollars for the infrastructure in States and localities. This must 
change, and it must change now.''
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young), for his interest in this issue. His presence 
here on the floor as our debate has proceeded sends a clear message to 
anyone who does not wish to see election reform succeed.
  I also would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his continuing efforts in producing an 
election reform package that is acceptable to all sides. Also I would 
like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his efforts 
and willingness to participate with us and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) for his leadership in this body and the entire caucus.

[[Page 14576]]

  In addiction, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) 
for his leadership on this issue as well. The chairman has pointed out 
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), a lot of us, have been discussing this matter, not in the 
light of the public as we have here today, but in an effort to really 
try to get something done. I am confident that under the leadership of 
these individuals, we will succeed in once again bringing dignity to 
the American election system.
  One of my colleagues from California pointed out inequities with 
reference to military ballots. I did not bother to try to take a shot 
at him, because the election is over. It is time for us to move forward 
and reform our election system in this Nation. I challenge this body to 
roll up its sleeves and pass meaningful election reform.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, with the chairman's final remarks, I am 
prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), distinguished subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought in this discussion that people were having of 
the great importance of making sure that Americans have the opportunity 
to vote, to vote correctly, to make sure their vote is counted, to put 
the responsibilities where they lie, between the voter and those who 
administer the voting. I thought it is very important when we talk 
about the problems, that somebody get up and talk about somebody who 
has done it right, a State that has done it right, and that is my home 
State of Oklahoma.
  Several years ago, our State spent millions of dollars that could 
have been spent on roads, could have been spent on schools, could have 
been spent on public health, but felt that there was a very pressing 
need to spend it on solid uniform voting equipment. Every county, every 
precinct in Oklahoma uses the optical scanner voting machines, and has 
for several years, which is one of the methods that is receiving the 
highest level of support from people talking about the way it ought to 
be done.
  If a voter has an improper ballot that has been marked twice, for 
example, the machine will spit it right back out at you so you still 
have a chance to correct it. I know that is an important thing to a 
great number of people.
  I wanted to give some credit to the people who did that in Oklahoma. 
Our State Election Board secretary, a Democrat, Lance Ward, deserves a 
lot of credit for the foresight, and those that came before him, to say 
that there is a pressing need.
  So when we talk about having the Congress of the United States spend 
a great amount of money to help States out in this situation, let us 
remember that there are some States, or certainly there is Oklahoma, 
that had the foresight to put it in place to prevent these problems. I 
want to make sure that we consider that in whatever we craft.
  We are trying to say when other States ask for financial assistance 
for election reform, remember, we already bore the cost; and we hope 
that will be duly considered with whatever is done with appropriations 
from this body.
  There was a map in USA Today right after the elections talking about 
the great disparity and the types of machines or paper ballots used in 
different places; and you looked at patchwork quilts, not only among 
the 50 States, but within the 50 States. Except if you look at that USA 
Today map, there was one State that was solid, with modern up-to-date 
uniform voting systems, and that was my home State of Oklahoma. I want 
to give credit to the State officials who had that foresight.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so to thank everybody for the very important 
debate that we have just had here.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on July 9, 2001, the House Government Reform 
Committee released the results of a national study that examined the 
income and racial disparities in the undercount of the 2000 
presidential election. At my request, the Committee investigated voting 
patterns in the First Congressional District of Illinois, which I 
represent. The investigation also examined the impact of different 
voting machines on the undercount. This was the first report to examine 
voter undercounts on both the national and local levels.
  The report analyzed the voting results in 20 Congressional districts 
with high poverty rates and majority minority populations. The 
startling results of the investigation illustrated that voters in my 
district were almost seven times more likely to have their votes 
discarded than voters in affluent white districts.
  This disturbing quantification gives my district the dubious 
distinction of being one of two Congressional districts with the 
highest rate of undercounted votes among those surveyed. The first 
District tied with the 17th District of Florida, with the undercount 
rate a disturbingly high 7.9 percent!
  Overall, the report found that voters in low-income predominantly 
minority districts were significantly more likely to have their votes 
discarded than were voters in affluent, predominantly white districts.
  The report also showed that better voting technology significantly 
reduced undercounts in low-income, minority areas and narrowed the 
disparity between the two types of districts and voting populations 
examined.
  Ballot undrecounts in my Congressional district are nothing new. I 
have heard and responded to my constituent complaints for many years on 
this subject. However, now, we, in Congress, have quantifiable proof 
that better technology improves the undercount rate.
  What can be done is illustrated simply before us--both by the 
Government Reform Committee report and by the gentleman from Florida's 
amendment. We must provide the financial resources so critically needed 
by state and local governments to update their voting equipment. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Hastings amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. I support Alcee Hastings' amendment to the 
Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act. The amendment will provide an 
additional $600 million to the FEC budget, funds that are necessary to 
assist state and local governments in updating voting systems. This is 
an excellent first step in tackling the election reform issue. It is 
disappointing that President Bush's budget made no allowance for 
election reform.
  But additional funding is not enough. Just throwing money at the 
problem will not solve the problem. We will end up with states simply 
taking the money and using it in rich neighborhoods while a state could 
continue using most disenfranchising machinery and procedures for 
minority communities. Or, if we offer the money conditionally, states 
will simply elect to decline a federal check and opt out of any 
standards.
  We must provide minimal guarantees to every eligible voter. This is 
precisely what the bill I have introduced with Senator Dodd  and 
Majority Leader Daschle, the ``Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act,'' 
would do. The bill has a 140 cosponsors, more than any other election 
reform bill.
  It sets comprehensive minimal standards for voting machines used in 
federal elections but does not tell states and localities what machine 
to buy--in other words, it only establishes a baseline for what the 
machines have to be capable of doing.
  The standards for machines are common sense standards that would 
solve problems uncovered in 2000: First, to prevent spoiled ballots, 
machines would have to warn voters of mistakes like overvotes and 
undervotes and give voters a chance to correct these mistakes; Second, 
machines would have to be accessible to voters with disabilities; 
Third, the machines would have to be accessible to language minorities; 
Fourth, to eliminate the use of antiquated machines, the error rate for 
machines would have to be as close to zero as practicable.
  To correct haphazard voting purges and registration mistakes by 
officials, the bill establishes a right for every citizen to cast a 
provisional ballot in a federal election if he or she believes he has 
been improperly excluded from the rolls.
  To help prevent voter error and establish minimal standards for voter 
education, the bill requires that every registered voter in a federal 
election receive a sample ballot and instructions for filling out the 
ballot prior to an election.
  To ensure that voting rights violations are reported, the bill 
requires that every registered voter receive a document advising them 
of their voting rights and who to contact if those rights have been 
violated.
  The bill is constitutional. It is limited to federal elections. Under 
Art I, Sec. 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, the Congress has the 
authority to set standards for federal elections.

[[Page 14577]]

  It avoids creating an unfunded federal mandate by fully funding the 
minimal standards.
  It recognizes that states may incur costs for meeting these 
obligations in state and local elections so it reimburses states for 
the costs of making state and local elections conform to the standards 
if they choose to do so.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, since my colleague from Florida 
has indicated that he intends to withdraw this amendment, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment I offered be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose 
     of implementing the final report of the President's 
     Commission To Strengthen Social Security.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is only one sentence long, may be 
the most significant sentence that we vote on in this Congress, because 
it would prevent any funding being used for the purpose of implementing 
a Social Security privatization plan.
  Now, why must we take what seemingly looks like a drastic step? 
Because we have seen the report that was just issued by President 
Bush's Social Security Commission, a commission hand-picked by the 
White House because they already supported a privatization plan.

                              {time}  1915

  This report is obviously the first step towards setting the stage of 
robbing a vital benefit for seniors.
  Mr. Chairman, the deck has been stacked, the process has been rigged, 
and we must stop it in its tracks. Social Security has come to be the 
cornerstone of our Nation's income protection system and provides 
disability, retirement, and life insurance protection to virtually all 
American citizens. Obviously, the system requires continued evaluation, 
but it is not in crisis today. But the interim report of the 
Presidential Commission tries to create a crisis, a crisis that does 
not exist. Even if we did nothing about Social Security, and nobody is 
suggesting that, but even if we did nothing, the system would pay full 
benefits through the year 2038. This is a manageable problem, not a 
catastrophe that requires risky and radical solutions.
  The proposed privatization program which plans to take approximately 
2 percent of the payroll tax for Social Security to allow individuals 
to invest in private accounts would result in a loss of over $1 
trillion from the Social Security system between this year and 2011, 
and would decrease benefits by 50 percent.
  My constituents do not want to see that decrease, and my constituents 
are unwilling to have their secure retirement gambled away in the stock 
market. The stock market is not the way, Mr. Chairman, to determine who 
will be financially able and stable in their retirement years.
  We know that privatization would also decrease benefits for disabled 
beneficiaries and survivors. Social Security is more than a retirement 
program. Almost one-third of its beneficiaries receive benefits because 
they or a family member are disabled or because a family member has 
died. In the case of survivors and those disabled, recipients have a 
shorter time period to accumulate balances in their individual 
accounts, so their benefits would be drastically reduced under a 
privatization plan. Women in this Nation would be disproportionately 
affected and hurt, and we will hear statements to that effect from my 
colleagues.
  Privatizing Social Security, Mr. Chairman, is tantamount to gambling 
with the security of millions of Americans. It would expose workers and 
retirees to unacceptable risks, as well as substantial administrative 
fees that would eat into the returns. It would undermine the concept 
that through Social Security, we take care of each other, from neighbor 
to neighbor, and from generation to generation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) for 20 minutes in opposition of the Filner amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, sometimes in this body it pays to read the 
amendment. The amendment says that at the end of the bill, insert after 
the last section preceding the short title the following new section: 
none of the funds appropriated in this act for the Office of Management 
and Budget may be used for the purpose of implementing the final report 
of the President's Commission to strengthen Social Security.
  I do not read the word privatization in this amendment. I have read 
the report, the interim report of the commission. I do not read the 
word privatization in that report.
  I am absolutely dumbfounded why we would talk about the President 
implementing the recommendations anyway. The recommendations and any 
implementation is going to have to come back here to the Congress. It 
is us that are going to have to change the method Social Security is 
going forward with if it is going to be changed at all.
  But let us talk for just a moment about the trust fund itself. The 
trust fund, it is agreed by Democrats and Republicans, will not run out 
of Treasury bills until 2038. That is an estimate, but it is a pretty 
good one, and it is one we can count on. But we can also agree on the 
fact that there will not be enough cash coming into Social Security to 
pay the benefits beginning in 2016. What, then, is going to happen?
  The Congress is going to have to do one of several things: either 
raise taxes and find the money, deficit spend in order to pay off the 
Treasury bills, cut benefits. Is there anyone in here that is prepared 
to do that? I think not.
  So let us talk a moment about what is actually happening. I would 
like to call the attention of my colleagues to the communication from 
the Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the Department of Treasury, in which 
they warn that there is going to be a cash shortfall beginning, in this 
report, it says 2015. And the report clearly says that money is going 
to have to come from other sources beginning in 2015. My colleagues may 
say this report is not true. Let me tell my colleagues who signed it. 
The Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers; Secretary of Health 
and Human Services, Donna Shalala; the trustee, Stephen Kellison; 
Alexis Herman, who is Secretary of Labor; Ken Apfel, the Commissioner 
of Social Security under President Clinton, and there are others.
  I think that what is necessary and what we must do is face up to the 
fact that we are facing a cash shortfall beginning in 2016, and it may 
slip, and it may come back to 2015, if the trust fund is further 
depleted. Sure, they are Treasury bills, and Treasury bills are a safe 
investment and it is a sign of the commitment of the Congress to the 
future retirees. But are we going to send our retirees beginning in 
2015 or 2016 saying sorry, here is a check for some cash, but there is 
a shortfall, so here is a Treasury bill. Of course not. We are going to 
continue to send them cash. And we are going to maintain the strength 
of the Social Security system.
  What did the Commission say? The Commission says that they have to 
accumulate some wealth. They have to accumulate something in order to 
pay

[[Page 14578]]

future benefits. Did it say anything about privatization? No.
  Now, we hear so much, and so many Members will get up and talk about 
the risky stock market. I was watching the unions protesting the 
meeting that was going on. But we are going to have an opportunity just 
next week, because the Railroad Retirement Fund is coming before this 
House, and we are going to have an opportunity to say that the railroad 
retirement fund now does not have to be limited to just investing in 
Treasury bills; the railroad retirement fund now can invest in stocks. 
Mr. Chairman, I will guarantee my colleagues that people on both sides 
of the aisle and the very people that are getting up and talking about 
the risky stock market are going to vote yes, and they are going to 
vote yes, because both management and labor wants it that way, because 
they understand that that is the way to accumulate real wealth.
  I see my friend from New York (Mr. Nadler), who I am sure is going to 
get up and speak. He has a plan to save Social Security, but it 
involves the Social Security Administration investing in stocks and 
bonds of the private sector.
  I think it is time that we stop these scare tactics. Let the 
Commission come forward with their report. And in order to implement 
any change in the Social Security system of any consequence is going to 
require legislation to come out of this body. So I am saying, let us 
not only have faith that they may come up with something that we can 
use and something that will be good, but let us have faith in 
ourselves, and let us live up to this problem that we have, and that 
is, we have a cash shortfall beginning in the year 2016. We will no 
longer have the payroll taxes coming in to take care of the benefits, 
and we are going to have to find the money to start paying off the 
Treasury bills.
  This is going to be a huge problem, and the problem is caused by a 
very simple situation: we have less workers supporting less retirees 
than we have ever had before, and that is going to continue to go down, 
so not too long from now, we are going to be down to two workers per 
retiree. We can plan ahead; we can save Social Security for the next 
generation, so let us get together and let us get the job done and 
forget the scare tactics.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I support one thing the gentleman 
preceding me in the well said: let us stop the scare tactics. The scare 
tactics are contained in this report of the so-called Commission to 
Save Social Security. It is the Commission to privatize Social 
Security, not with aggregate investments, but with individual accounts, 
so Wall Street can better profit by charging 250 million people a 
little bit of money every month, reducing their benefits, ultimately, 
by 40 percent.
  This report, for the first time in the 225-year history of the United 
States of America, is questioning whether or not the Federal Government 
will make good on its debts. Guess where the money in these accounts 
came from? He is saying, we are going to have a cash flow problem. Yes, 
Americans have been saving. We have been paying more taxes every year 
than are necessary to support Social Security with the idea that that 
money was put on deposit for future generations. This fund in 2016 will 
have more than $5 trillion, and $5 trillion of what? Of securities 
against the Federal Government.
  In fact, one of these securities says, this bond is incontestable in 
the hands of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund; 
this bond is supported by the full faith and credit of the United 
States and the United States has pledged the payment of the bond with 
respect to both principle and interest, yet the gentleman who preceded 
me and this so-called commission are questioning whether or not we can 
or will honor those bonds.
  There is no question. We must honor those bonds, and we should honor 
those bonds and that obligation to the American people, through the 
process that we use to honor all other debts in the United States of 
America. We either run a surplus and we pay out of that, or we roll 
over debt. We have $6 trillion of debt. Now, it is okay apparently to 
honor the debts for people in Japan or industrial investors or anybody 
else, but we are now questioning whether we are going to honor the debt 
to the working people of America.
  Mr. Chairman, this is extraordinary. It is bold in its scope. It is 
unprecedented that a Secretary of the Treasury, a President of the 
United States's hand-picked commission, would question whether or not 
we will honor this debt.
  This year, Americans will pay $93 billion more in Social Security 
taxes than are necessary to support the system. If the gentleman who 
preceded me in the well is right, then let us lower that tax today, 
because we are defrauding the people of that $93 billion, because we 
are saying, hey, it is going to be really painful to pay that money 
back. We are taking it from them now, we are depositing it for them in 
the U.S. Treasury; we are telling them that it will pay their benefits, 
but maybe we will not be able to afford to honor that. That is 
absolutely extraordinary.
  Social Security is totally and fully sound until the year 2038. It 
can pay 100 percent of every promised benefit to every American, every 
recipient, every beneficiary, disabled or dependent. After that, it can 
afford to pay 73 percent.
  Now, that means we have a 27 percent problem beginning in 38 years, 
but what they are going to propose is to destroy the existing system, 
to steal the $6 trillion on account for the American workers, and 
convert to something else, and ignore the trillions of dollars in 
transition costs and benefits.
  They can only get there a couple of ways. They are going to have to 
reduce existing benefits, or they are going to have to raise taxes to 
pay for the existing promises; one or the other. Or, they can honor the 
debts and fix the program in the future. The simplest way to do it is 
to lift the cap on earnings. If people earn over $80,000 a year, they 
do not pay the same tax as everybody else; they pay less. They only pay 
on the first $80,000. If we just lifted the cap and people paid Social 
Security on every penny they earn, guess what the actuaries say? The 
system is solvent forever, and, in fact, we could afford to lower the 
tax burden on working Americans.

                              {time}  1930

  Now, would that not be a great solution? But I do not think that is 
going to come out of a commission hand-picked by President George Bush 
and supported by the Republican majority in this House, because that 
would mean the millionaires and billionaires would pay a little bit 
more to secure the retirement future of working Americans.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of our Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs from the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is really the height of 
irresponsibility. It is the height of the ostrich saying, ``Let us put 
our heads in the sand.'' It is the height of the Alfred E. Newman, 
``What, me worry,'' syndrome. It pretends we do not have a problem when 
everybody knows there is a problem, every American.
  If we talk to Americans out there, they know there is a problem with 
Social Security. Yet what we are hearing over here is, ``What? There is 
no problem. There is nothing we need to do here.''
  I am glad, actually, that the gentleman from California has brought 
this amendment to us tonight, because at least it gives us a chance to 
call attention to the fact that we have a problem. I urge the Members 
of this body and I urge the American people to read this report, this 
interim report of the Commission, because it does talk about some of 
the problems.
  The simple fact is, we have a system right now that really is not 
sustainable in the long run. The gentleman from Florida said it very 
well: We have a cash flow problem that begins in 2016, a cash flow 
problem. That is a very real

[[Page 14579]]

problem that we have to deal with 15 years from now, in 2016.
  Fifteen years ago I was finishing my first term in office. That was 
the middle of Ronald Reagan's second term. That was not that long ago. 
Fifteen years from now we begin to see a serious problem: How are we 
going to pay the benefits? Where are we going to borrow the money to 
make the cash, to cash in those bonds that the gentleman from Oregon 
was talking about, and to pay those benefits?
  If we do not do anything by the year 2020 that requires cuts to 
Federal spending to address Social Security's financial shortfalls, it 
would equal the combination of Head Start, WIC, the Departments of 
Education, Interior, Commerce, and the EPA. Either we cut that or 
borrow the money someplace else, or we raise the taxes, as the 
gentleman said. But let us not deny the fact that we have a problem.
  If tomorrow's shortfalls are faced today, if we had those problems 
right now, a two-earner couple with $50,000 in income would have to pay 
an additional $2,100 in taxes per year in the year 2030. I do not know 
about other Members, but I think these kinds of changes are really 
unacceptable.
  The gentleman said that we have a system, do not tinker with it. We 
have made 50 changes-plus in the history of Social Security with the 
system. Do not tell me it is not going to be changed. It is a political 
system. We are going to make changes to it. We are going to have to do 
something. Let us figure out what we can do that protects everybody.
  Let me just refer to the draft commission's report itself. I just 
want to read two simple paragraphs.
  One, the third conclusion they reached, ``The system is broken. 
Unless we move boldly and quickly, the promise of Social Security for 
future retirees cannot be met without eventual resort to benefit cuts, 
tax increases, or massive borrowing. The time to act is now.''
  And then they go on to say this: ``If the problems spelled out in 
this interim report become a topic of national debate and receive the 
public's focus and scrutiny, that in itself will be a positive step 
forward. The greatest threat is in taking the course of least 
resistance, ignoring the challenge and doing nothing.''
  Mr. Chairman, those who oppose the Commission's report have a 
responsibility to stand here now, tonight, and tell us what we should 
do, what their conclusion is. The answer is not to put our heads in the 
sand and pretend there is not a problem. We do have a problem with 
Social Security, but it can be fixed. It can be fixed in a way that 
guarantees that those who get Social Security benefits now are 
protected today, and those who get them in the future are protected, 
but the young people have an opportunity to know that they, too, will 
have some benefits and some Social Security and some retirement system 
in their future, as well.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues have talked about one putting 
one's head in the sand. I would agree that we must be careful not to 
keep our head in the sand while the President has appointed a 
commission which is fully in favor of privatizing Social Security.
  I agree, it is time to stop the scare tactics. We do not need to 
scare the American people, or try to stampede them into believing that 
Social Security must be privatized, because the fact of the matter is 
the money is there. Social Security is solvent through the year 2038 
without any changes whatsoever. It has $5 trillion in assets by the 
year 2015. There is no reason to scare the people and stampede them 
into agreeing with the privatization of Social Security.
  It has been said that there is a cash flow problem. Mr. Chairman, 
next year the Department of Defense has a cash flow problem. In the 
year 2003, the Department of Defense, absent our action, will be 
lacking $330 billion they need for operation. But somehow this Congress 
in its wisdom finds a reason and a means to finance the operations of 
the Department of Defense.
  I think it is important that we look at this Commission, because the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) focuses on 
causing this Commission to lose its funding. Then Congress can regroup 
and fund a commission that would increase some kind of a debate here, 
because it is a one-sided story. The deck is stacked.
  It is no secret, the Wall Street Journal said 2 months ago, that 
President Bush stacked his bipartisan Social Security Commission with 
members who agree with his goal of creating private accounts. That was 
the Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2001.
  There are two Commission members, Ms. Weaver and Mr. Vargas, and they 
have ``supported the most ambitious privatization plan, to carve 5 
percentage points of the payroll tax for individual accounts. 
Recognizing the huge transition costs, [they] proposed a 1.52 
percentage point boost in the payroll tax, $1.9 trillion in government 
borrowing and a higher retirement age.''
  Now, think about that: Privatization equals increased taxes, 
increased government borrowing, higher retirement age. If this 
Commission is a cure for Social Security, then the plague is a cure for 
the common cold.
  Estelle James is a Democratic member of the Commission who ``as a 
former World Bank economist was that body's main voice for privatizing 
government retirement programs worldwide.'' That is hardly the person 
American consumers and seniors, the baby boomers, can count on to give 
a fair picture of the state of Social Security.
  Sam Beard, ``Founder and president of the business-financed Economic 
Security 2000, which favors a fully privatized system,'' is hardly the 
person to give us an unbiased view.
  Tom Saving, another Commission member, has written, ``Strange as it 
sounds, we must destroy the social security system, as we know it, to 
save it.''
  Robert Pozen, an investment company executive with Fidelity, said, 
``Even partial privatization is not a panacea.''
  The Wall Street Journal went on to say, ``He served on a panel that 
recommended partial privatization but also a higher retirement age and 
reduced benefits, including spousal benefits.''
  End the stacked deck.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is such a disservice to the American people to make 
this issue a political issue. It is easy to demagogue because seniors 
are frightened about the possibility of losing their Social Security 
benefits.
  The facts are very clear: Thirty years ago it took 33 people to come 
up with the funding for every one retiree through their Social Security 
taxes. Today it takes three people to come up with the taxes to 
accommodate that Social Security benefit for every one Social Security 
retiree. And the estimate is in another 15 to 20 years it is only going 
to be two people working in the United States to have to pay enough 
taxes to accommodate every single one retiree.
  To suggest that we should do nothing now because we might ruin the 
system is ridiculous. There are a lot of ways that maybe we could help 
cure the program. What the President has suggested, what the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and others and I have suggested in the several 
bills we have introduced, in the last 7 years I have introduced three 
bills that have been scored, each of which has been scored by the 
Social Security Administration, to keep Social Security solvent for the 
next 75 years.
  Every time I introduce a bill, from the first one in 1994 until the 
one last year, the solutions have to be more drastic because we are 
running out of time. We are wasting these kinds of funds that are 
coming in. The problem is real. The demographics are real. There are 
more seniors in relation to

[[Page 14580]]

the number of people that are paying for those benefits.
  If we do not do something, if we use this issue to scare people 
politically, we are doing a disservice to this Chamber, to the American 
people, and to those people on Social Security.
  There are only two solutions to fix the problem, or maybe three 
solutions to fix the Social Security problem: Either bring in more 
revenues, so one can afford the payments, or reduce the amount that is 
going out in payments.
  The real key date is not some date off in 2033, when it says the 
Social Security Trust Fund is becoming insolvent. The real date that we 
have to pay attention to, the latest estimate is 2016, when there is 
less money coming in from the Social Security taxes than is required to 
pay benefits. With the downturn in the economy, the next estimate is 
going to be less than that year of 2016.
  Let us move ahead. Let us make sure if there are any private 
investments that they be limited to safe investments. Let us make it 
clear to the American people that we are not using any of the 
disability insurance funds, the disability insurance or the survivor 
benefit trust funds. That is off the table. That is not being 
considered.
  How do we get a better return than the 1.7 percent that future 
retirees are going to get from the Social Security taxes the employees 
and employers have paid in?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1935, about 178 Republicans voted against 
establishing Social Security. One voted for it. In 1964, 30 years 
later, the Republican party, behind Barry Goldwater, said, ``Let us get 
rid of Social Security. Let us make it private.'' Thirty years later 
they are right on schedule again, and they want to destroy Social 
Security in order to save it.
  To do this, the Bush administration sets up a biased commission. They 
have a habit of setting up biased commissions: first, Mr. Cheney's 
energy task force of oil company executives; and now this task force, 
composed 100 percent of people who are on record as favoring the 
partial or full privatization of Social Security.
  We can have an honest amendment that says, do not implement the 
report of the Commission because we know it is going to be 
privatization, because they said so. They told us that. We do not have 
to wonder about what it is going to be. ``Let us establish a commission 
to investigate the problem and come up with the solution that they 
designed before they investigated the problem.''
  We are told in 2016 Congress, in order to pay off the Social Security 
bonds, will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or borrow to pay 
back these bonds. Why? Why did we increase FICA taxes, Social Security 
taxes in 1983 and cut the benefits in order to build up a trust fund so 
that it would keep Social Security solvent? Now they tell us those $5 
trillion in assets do not matter, they are not real assets. Well, they 
are real assets to the Social Security system.
  True, the government is to pay it. It will cost, to pay it, $200 
billion a year, starting in 2016. How are we going to pay it? For one 
thing, the tax cut that we approved a few weeks ago will cost about 
$400 billion a year starting in 2011, once it is fully phased in. Half 
of that tax cut would pay for all the bonds on an annual basis.
  They are only part of the bonds. That is part of the national debt of 
the United States. They are no different than the bonds that are held 
by Mitsubishi or the series E bonds held by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith). We always pay back those bonds.
  We are not going to have to raise taxes or cut benefits. If we do, it 
is a government budget problem, not a Social Security problem.
  Now we are told the solution is privatize; take a system which 
guarantees a person a certain benefit, a certain retirement benefit, 
and tell them they will only get a certain fraction of that benefit, 
and the rest of it will depend on their luck on the stock market.
  Maybe they will do well, and maybe they will not. A lot of people 
will do well, but a lot of people will not do well, and we will 
recreate the situation we had before Social Security in which some 
people have good retirements and others are in abject poverty because 
their investments were foolish or simply unlucky.

                              {time}  1945

  We are told that the railroad retirement system is going to invest in 
the stock market, pension funds will invest in the stock market. Sure, 
the whole system does, not individuals, and that makes all the 
difference in the world. If the Government decided to buy private 
stocks and bonds with the Social Security Trust Fund to get greater 
returns, the Government has a budget problem if those stocks do not pan 
out. The individuals still are guaranteed by law their Social Security. 
So the fact that pension funds invest in stocks does not mean we ought 
to put individuals at risk of the private stock market.
  We are also told by an operation, by this task force, by others, 
Chicken Littles, that the sky is falling, we are going to run out of 
money. Well, the system will have enough money to pay all benefits for 
the next 37 years, if we believe the trustees; and then it will have a 
28 percent shortfall, if we assume that the rate of economic growth of 
the United States is going to plummet to a rate not seen since the 
Depression and going to stay there.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for introducing this amendment.
  I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment, which would 
prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from spending any funds to 
implement the final report of the President's Commission to Strengthen 
Social Security. People with disabilities, minorities, and women are 
especially hurt by Social Security privatization.
  Today, there are approximately 45 million Americans receiving Social 
Security benefits, over 4 million of whom reside in my home State of 
California. Many people depend on this retirement benefit as a source 
of major income. Social Security is the principal source of retirement 
income for two-thirds of elderly Americans, representing 90 percent of 
the annual income for 29 percent of all seniors over the age of 65. In 
fact, Social Security benefits lifted approximately 13 million senior 
citizens out of poverty last year.
  Social Security is not just a retirement program for our seniors. For 
millions of Americans, Social Security is the only protection against 
the shackles of low lifetime earnings, the financial hardships related 
to death or disability, the danger of poverty in old age, and the 
uncertainty of inflation. Privatization undermines these protections 
and adds one more risk that workers would have to worry about, and that 
is Wall Street.
  Let me just bring a little diversity to this debate this evening. 
Elderly African Americans and Latinos rely on Social Security benefits 
more than white elders do. From 1994 to 1998, African American and 
Latino seniors and their spouses relied on Social Security for about 44 
percent of their total income, while white elders and their spouses 
relied on the program for only 37 percent of their total income. This 
is because minorities, unfortunately, have a lower rate of pension 
coverage. Only 29 percent of elderly African Americans and 22 percent 
of elderly Hispanic Americans get a pension income. By comparison, 45 
percent of white seniors do. Unfortunately, people of color are 
disproportionately represented among low-wage workers; therefore, it is 
much harder for them to set aside savings for retirement. Privatization 
of Social Security will jeopardize their retirement income.
  Now, people with disabilities are also hurt significantly by 
privatizing their benefits. As of January 2001, over 13 million 
Americans, or about 30 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries, 
rely on Social Security disability. For

[[Page 14581]]

the average wage earner with a family, Social Security offers the 
equivalent of a $200,000 disability insurance policy. The vast majority 
of workers would not be able to get similar coverage from the private 
sector. The GAO concluded in a January 2001 examination of Social 
Security privatization plans that the income from workers' individual 
accounts was not sufficient to compensate for the decline in the 
insurance benefits that disabled beneficiaries would receive.
  The uncertainty of privatization also hits women extra hard. Poverty 
among American women over 65 is already twice as severe as among men in 
the same age group. Women are more likely to earn less than men and are 
more likely to live longer. Women also lose an average of 14 years of 
earnings due to the time out of the workforce to raise children or care 
for ailing parents or spouses. And since women generally have a higher 
incidence of part-time employment, they have less of an opportunity to 
save for retirement. Most privatization proposals make no provision for 
these differences and would thus make poverty among women even worse.
  Currently, Social Security provides guaranteed lifelong benefits. No 
matter what the stock market does the day one retires, or in the months 
leading up to retirement, an individual's benefits will be unaffected.
  The American people deserve the truth. Now that the Bush 
administration has passed a $1.6 trillion tax cut that primarily 
benefits the wealthy, they are trying to find another method of paying 
for Social Security due to the lost revenue. But the proposal to 
privatize Social Security does absolutely nothing to extend the life of 
the program or save it. It diverts money from the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  We must put money in to protect the trust fund, not deplete the fund. 
We have an obligation to strengthen Social Security, not privatize it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the time has expired for the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment tonight, and I am deeply troubled by some of the rhetoric 
that I have heard from some of my colleagues criticizing the commission 
report for highlighting the fiscal challenges facing the system and 
suggesting that reform is not necessary. If we listen carefully, we 
will find many of my colleagues have suggested reform, but they have a 
preconceived notion of what is going to be voted on ultimately on this 
House floor.
  Now, I began to get very involved in Social Security reform about 6 
years ago when the first of our two grandsons, Cindy's and mine, were 
born. Cole will be celebrating his sixth birthday this month; Chase 
will be celebrating his fourth birthday. And I resolved at that time 
that I did not want them, my two grandsons, to look back 67 years from 
their birth and say if only my granddad would have done what in his 
heart he knew he should have done when he was in the Congress, we would 
not be in the trouble we are in today.
  Take a look at the commission report, the interim commission report. 
I want my colleagues to see if they really disagree with the numbers 
the gentleman from Florida did an excellent job of outlining. Everyone 
knows in this body that beginning in 2016 we are going to have a 
difficult time funding the benefits. It can be done, but it is going to 
take some reform.
  Listen carefully to the discussion tonight. Most of the responsible 
rhetoric tonight has suggested that there needs to be a correction, 
there needs to be some corrective measures taken, but they just do not 
like what they believe is going to be forthcoming. Well, be careful 
about that, because there are some other ideas that will be 
circulating.
  Please be careful when talking about a stacked deck. Do my colleagues 
really believe that Senator Pat Moynihan is going to be part of a 
stacked deck that is going to do something that is going to be harmful 
to the elderly of this country? Do my colleagues really believe that? 
If my colleagues really believe that, then they are perfectly willing 
to come to this floor and say so, but I am not. I am not.
  Take a look at the numbers. Look at the numbers and, for Heaven's 
sake, do not be as critical of something that has not yet happened as 
some are being tonight and recognize that we do need to move forward in 
a responsible way and in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), and just advise the Chair that I will have no 
further debate on this. However, I do have, on an unrelated matter, 
some time to yield for the purpose of a brief colloquy.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Arizona, and 
the gentleman from Michigan.
  I thought this was a good debate. I think it is a debate that is most 
important to the American people and we will continue it on.
  I agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) that those of us 
who have a problem have responsibility for solutions, and that will 
come in the later debates. So I thank all for the high level of this 
debate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not bring this amendment before us tonight, but 
as long as it is here, I am going to vote for it, because I do believe 
that the Social Security commission staff report issued last week is a 
cynical effort to trash Social Security and undercut its public support 
in order to pave the way for cutting Social Security's guaranteed 
benefits and turn much of the program over to Wall Street. And I do 
most certainly believe that that commission is a stacked deck. Every 
single Democrat appointed to that commission was appointed by the 
President. And the last time I looked, their views do not represent 
very many Democrats when it comes to the issue of Social Security.
  In my view, Social Security is the single best domestic program ever 
passed by this Congress, perhaps with the exception of the Civil Rights 
Act, and certainly Medicare is the next best after that. Obviously, we 
will need changes in the future, just as it has needed changes in the 
past in order to keep up with the times and remain solvent. But this 
report, in my view, is simply a scheme to frighten Americans into 
believing that we have to trash Social Security in order to save it. It 
is put forth by a commission that has already made up its mind to cut 
long-term benefits, and it ought to be recognized for what it is. And 
there is nothing wrong with being frank about that on the House floor. 
I have minimum high regard at best for that commission's makeup as well 
as its intended recommendations.
  I would also say I do not know why we should be surprised that the 
Social Security System, beginning in a few years, will pay out more 
than it takes in for a number of years. It was designed to do that. Mr. 
Greenspan and the bipartisan group that made up the original commission 
in 1973 specifically designed it so that we would accumulate notes over 
a period of years and beginning in that year we would begin to pay down 
the assets that had been built up. That is the way it is supposed to 
work. And for the commission staff or its membership, be they Democrat 
or Republican, to suggest that that means the system is in mortal 
trouble is goomwah. And I think people know what goomwah is, if they 
come from a rural community.
  So I would simply say, yes, we are going to have to take actions to 
strengthen Social Security, and that is why it is so tragic that the 
majority of this House and the White House cooperated in putting 
together a tax package that was so large that it took away virtually 
every dollar left in the surpluses that could have been used to 
strengthen Social Security long term, so that the tweaking that is 
going to be required in Social Security would

[[Page 14582]]

have to be less than it now will have to be if we follow the misguided 
and misbegotten tax policies that this Congress recently imposed.
  So I make no apology for voting for this amendment, and I make no 
apology for saying I have no confidence in the membership of that 
commission as presently constituted. It is a stacked deck, and it is a 
stacked deck full of jokers.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a very brief colloquy 
with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) related to the fifth 
proviso under the heading ``Office of Management and Budget.''
  It is my understanding that this proviso would prohibit the use of 
funds for the purpose of OMB calculating, preparing or approving 
tabular or other material that proposes the suballocation of a budget 
authority or outlays by the Committee on Appropriations. Is this the 
correct understanding of this provision?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to enter into a dialogue with 
the gentleman regarding this and would advise him that his 
understanding of the provision is correct.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman 
be amenable to reviewing the need for revision during the conference 
deliberations on this bill?
  Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would 
certainly agree to review this provision during the conference 
deliberations, and I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from 
Colorado and his patience and understanding that some things, of 
course, cannot be resolved until we come to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing, 
and I want to echo the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) regarding his appreciation for the constructive comments that 
were made during the course of this debate.

                              {time}  2000

  Social Security is an extremely important issue to all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, in opposing the amendment that was offered, I think it 
is necessary that everyone understand that when we are trying to find a 
solution to a very challenging circumstance, we do not find that 
solution by saying before we look for a solution, we have got to put on 
the blindfolds, put on the handcuffs, and put in the ear plugs. If my 
colleagues do that, they are going to be restricted from the start in 
what they can do. If my colleagues do that, they are not likely to find 
something that will resolve the problem; and the problem is very real.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) pointed out, it was 
officials during the former administration, the Secretary of Treasury 
and HHS and so forth, who made a very compelling case for the major 
significance of the problem and the need to address it.
  We cannot address it in a satisfactory way if we say solutions are 
going to be taken off the table before we even consider them, including 
solutions put forth by one of the leading Democrats, Senator Moynihan, 
formerly the Senator from New York.
  I think we have to understand many people want very different 
solutions. Sometimes that differs a great deal with age. When talking 
to somebody who has already retired or who is about to retire, they 
want to make sure that they have everything that has been promised to 
them and it is not in jeopardy. I do not think that any Member of this 
body would want to place the benefits of anyone in jeopardy. I think we 
all want to make sure that everybody receives what has been promised to 
them.
  But at the same time, there are a significant number of Americans who 
say, I want to control more of my own destiny. For so many years, I put 
so much into Social Security and I am not satisfied, either with the 
rate of return or what they deem to be the level of security. And they 
want to control more of their destiny, just as those who participate as 
Federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan and the 401(k) plan have 
different options from which to choose. It is perfectly possible that 
we may establish an opportunity for people to choose whether they want 
to continue in exactly the same thing they have now, or they want to 
have some choices, but without enabling either one to impose their 
choice on the other.
  If we adopt this amendment, we are foreclosing opportunities to be 
flexible. We are foreclosing opportunities for Americans to have a 
greater level of choice in this crucially important decision in 
influencing their retirement. I believe this amendment should be 
defeated, but I believe the debate has been very healthy.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the final matter of debate. We will be voting 
on the amendments held back, and then move on to final passage. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this amendment; but certainly to vote in 
favor of the bill as we move towards its final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 24, 
noes 401, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 272]

                                AYES--24

     Baker
     Bilirakis
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Duncan
     Gibbons
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Jones (NC)
     LaTourette
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Royce
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Tancredo
     Traficant
     Watson (CA)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--401

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn

[[Page 14583]]


     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachus
     Blumenauer
     Lipinski
     McGovern
     Scarborough
     Snyder
     Spence
     Watkins (OK)

                              {time}  2031

  Messrs. BROWN of Ohio, ROEMER, LANGEVIN, HEFLEY, WAMP, BRADY of 
Texas, LEWIS of Kentucky, HAYWORTH, SHIMKUS, PALLONE, WEINER, FOSSELLA, 
SKEEN and GREEN of Texas, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. McCOLLUM and Ms. RIVERS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CHAMBLISS and Mr. HILLEARY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that it will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                      Amendment Offered by Filner

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 238, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--238

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)

[[Page 14584]]


     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachus
     Blumenauer
     Knollenberg
     Lipinski
     Scarborough
     Snyder
     Spence

                              {time}  2039

  Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 2002''.

  The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2590) 
making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States 
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 206, he reported 
the bill, as amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House with 
further sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 334, 
nays 94, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               YEAS--334

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--94

     Andrews
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Berkley
     Berry
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Matheson
     McInnis
     Menendez
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Walden
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blumenauer
     Lipinski
     Scarborough
     Snyder
     Spence

                              {time}  2057

  Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________