[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1585-1591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 743, SOCIAL 
                    SECURITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 520 ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 520

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 743) 
     to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to provide additional safeguards for Social 
     Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with 
     representative payees, to enhance program protections, and 
     for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order, a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall 
     be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page 1586]]


  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 520 provides for the consideration of a 
motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
his designee to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 743. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of debate in the House on the motion, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  H. Res. 520 provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall 
be considered as read. It waives all points of order against 
consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment, and it 
provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H. Res. 520 is to expedite the final 
consideration of H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003. 
Adopting this rule will allow the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means to offer a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House-
passed version of H.R. 743, which, if approved by the House today, will 
clear this bill for the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this rule.
  Last April, the full House of Representatives approved H.R. 743 with 
a 396 to 28 vote. The overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on House passage 
was preceded by the House rejecting the Green amendment. The Green 
amendment sought to maintain the so-called ``last day rule,'' which is 
a loophole that a small number of workers in certain States have 
exploited in the past. To its credit, the underlying legislation before 
us closes down that loophole. Last December, the U.S. Senate approved 
its amendment to H.R. 743 by unanimous consent.
  Let us be clear: H.R. 743 is noncontroversial legislation that has 
wide bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, and promptly 
adopting the Senate amendment to H.R. 743 will enable the President to 
sign this legislation into law this month.
  The Committee on Rules approved this rule by voice vote yesterday, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with debate 
and consideration of the underlying, bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my fellow Texas Democrats have joined me here today on 
an issue of fairness. Will this House be fair to those who stand to 
lose a Social Security pension that has been fairly paid into and is 
fairly deserved, or will they vote to drive valuable public servants 
out of a system that desperately needs them?
  Some Members believe that the Texas teachers and other public 
employees want some sort of special treatment. They do not. Their 
spouse correctly and completely paid into the Social Security system. 
And if they were just not teachers, policemen or firefighters, then 
they would receive their spousal benefit. Is this the message that we 
want to send, that the Social Security system will treat everyone 
honestly except those who are most valuable to our society?
  Every Member here today supports the underlying bill, the Social 
Security Protection Act. Its main provisions would deny Supplemental 
Security Income, SSI, to fugitive felons, make it easier for seniors to 
get a lawyer for the complicated disability process, and reform the 
representative payee program so that seniors are not defrauded.
  In fact, the House considered all of these reforms during the 107th 
Congress in a bill that passed the House unanimously. Unfortunately, 
that bill, H.R. 4070, was not conferenced before the end of the 
Congress, and it has returned in this much more controversial form.
  I support all the reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker; and if the bill 
consisted of just these provisions, we would again pass this bill 
unanimously. But the same bill that helps protect our seniors from 
Social Security fraud hurts our teachers, firefighters, police officers 
and other public servants around the country, including in my home 
State of Texas. Specifically, section 418 of this bill would prevent 
those hard-working public servants from protecting their retirement 
benefits from the harsh impact of the Government Pension Offset.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue may appear complicated to some, but it is 
very clear to the thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and 
other public servants who are affected by it. So clear, that both the 
National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers 
are opposed to this bill.
  Many teachers in this country have pension plans that are not covered 
under Social Security, but they have spouses who are working in jobs 
that do pay into Social Security. Under normal circumstances, a 
surviving spouse, such as a teacher, would be eligible for spousal or 
survivor's benefits if their spouse, who paid into Social Security, 
dies. But under current law, the Government Pension Offset reduces or 
eliminates the spousal or survivor's benefits for teachers and others 
who pay into pension plans that are not covered by Social Security.
  Fortunately, there is a provision in the law right now that helps 
some people in this situation. It allows you to protect your retirement 
by switching jobs at the end of your career. This ``last day 
exemption,'' as it is called, has helped many teachers in Texas and 
other States protect the Social Security benefits they deserve and that 
they now need to retire. However, section 418 of the underlying bill 
would eliminate this exemption. Instead, it would force teachers, 
police officers, firefighters, and other public servants to work 5 
additional years before receiving full spousal benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat hard-working people who have 
dedicated their entire lives to serving their communities and this 
Nation. It hurts real people, especially women and lower-income 
individuals. That is why I will ask Members to defeat the previous 
question on this bill today. If we do, then I will do something that 
285 of our colleagues have asked this Congress to do, and that is to 
eliminate the Government Pension Offset.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), has a 
bill, H.R. 594, which 285 of us have cosponsored, which calls for the 
elimination of the GPO. If we defeat the previous question, then I will 
attach that bill to H.R. 743 without section 418 and then bring the 
measure before the House for its immediate passage so that teachers and 
other public servants can continue to protect their retirement 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, there should not be a Texas Member in this House who 
does not vote to defeat the previous question. I would hope others 
would join us. I urge my colleagues to support Social Security fairness 
for teachers, firefighters, and police officers by voting to defeat the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
Texas for his hard work on this issue and urge my colleagues to oppose 
this rule and support his amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, if cosponsoring a bill is any indication of support for 
an issue, then the Frost amendment should pass by a minimum of 285 
votes to 150. That is because 285 Members of this House have 
cosponsored H.R. 594, which is the underlying bill that the Frost 
amendment would add to H.R. 743. But now it is time to put our money 
where our mouth is. I am afraid that the so-called supporters of the 
GPO repeal are going to turn their back on the hundreds of thousands of 
public servants who are affected by the Government Pension Offset.
  As we have heard, the Government Pension Offset unfairly reduces an 
individual's Social Security spousal benefit

[[Page 1587]]

if he or she receives a government pension from employment not covered 
by Social Security. This is unfair and arbitrary and affects 
individuals at the Federal, State, and local level. Most often it hurts 
teachers, anyone who works for a school district, firefighters, police 
officers and other public servants.
  Our office hears more about the GPO than practically any other issue. 
Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and civil servants are finding 
out every day that their Social Security spousal benefits are being 
reduced by the Government Pension Offset.
  These are people who have dedicated their lives to making America 
better. When it comes time to retire, they lose out. That is because 
the GPO unfairly reduces Social Security spousal benefits by two-
thirds, regardless of how much your government pension is. This is 
particularly unfair to low-income folks and widows, the very people 
Social Security was designed to protect. The Frost amendment would give 
us a chance to correct this serious problem and make sure that public 
servants receive a fair spousal benefit.
  Like I said earlier, this is clearly a good idea, because 285 Members 
of the House have cosponsored this legislation, and that is why I urge 
support of the Frost amendment.
  It is interesting to note we have someone, for example, in my own 
district who is a teacher for 30 years and has been married for 30 
years; and when she retires, when her husband passes away, she is 
penalized for her spousal benefit under Social Security because she 
worked at a public school system, not by her choice; but they decided 
not to pay into Social Security because in 1983 that was one of the 
groups left out.

                              {time}  1315

  They did not pay into it, rightfully so, but under Social Security, 
under our law, if they are married 10 years to an individual, they have 
a right to those benefits, a spousal benefit.
  It is interesting that our law punishes a group of teachers, for 
example, in Texas and Georgia who have said, okay, the law says I have 
to work 1 day; I will go work 1 day somewhere that pays both the 
teacher retirement and the Social Security. Is that right? Sure, it is 
not, but neither is the GPO, and that is why the Frost amendment is so 
important.
  We need to reform the Government Pension Offset, and the best time is 
today, not waiting until the end of this year. We have been waiting for 
15 years to reform the Government Pension Offset. So by voting for this 
legislation today, we are making the Government Pension Offset even 
worse. That is why the Frost amendment is so important.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House stands to make a choice. We can choose 
to support our widowed teachers or we can choose to oppose them. The 
choice is ours. It is as simple as that.
  I am appalled that our friends on the other side of the aisle would 
take a stand against our teachers and claim, as they have, that the 
teachers are engaged in a gimmick or a trick or a fraud. That is 
absolutely insulting to America's teachers. Obtaining spousal benefits 
is not a trick or a fraud. It is a payment for an entire lifetime of 
work by a spouse. It is a payment for an entire lifetime of a man and 
woman working together.
  Saying that teachers receive Social Security for working 1 day is 
simply not true, and our friends on the other side of the aisle know 
it. It is embarrassing for them to say that. The real fraud is that the 
Republicans have failed to address the GPO.
  Here is the way the Republican plan works. If someone works for an 
insurance company, there is no offset. If someone works for a 
pharmaceutical company, there is no offset. If someone works for an 
HMO, there is no offset. But if that person elects to be a teacher and 
educate our children, there is an offset and their spouse's lifetime of 
work is absolutely meaningless under the Republican plan.
  At least our friends on the other side of the aisle are consistent. 
They believe that neither veterans nor teachers should receive benefits 
they have earned. Teachers work hard. They follow the rules. They 
deserve their earned benefits.
  Section 418 was not included in the version of this legislation that 
the House passed with my support during the 107th Congress. I support 
other provisions of this legislation but cannot support H.R. 743 as 
introduced. Allowing section 418 to remain will strike at the very 
heart of public schoolteachers in Texas and at the very heart of our 
children.
  The greater issue of this bill is the failure of Congress to address 
the Government Pension Offset. Our Republican leadership stood on this 
very floor during consideration of H.R. 743 last April and testified to 
their commitment towards ending the GPO. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a representative of Congress and a supporter and champion of 
Texas teachers, read an excerpt from a letter of the Majority Leader to 
a constituent stating, ``I strongly believe that the GPO is an unfair 
and misguided piece of legislation. It undercuts the people who have 
spent their entire working life paying into the Social Security system 
by denying them their fair share of the hard-earned money they 
contributed. Married couples should be able to share those benefits 
with their spouses.''
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means: ``Is there a problem 
with the offset? Of course there is. We just had a colloquy on the 
floor with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and there was an 
agreement we will seriously address the pension offset.''
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee 
on Ways and Means: ``We absolutely need a full discussion of all Social 
Security provisions affecting public employees, which is why the 
Subcommittee on Social Security will have a hearing on these issues and 
legislative opportunities.''
  Well, enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Talk is talk. Enough hearings. 
This is an example of actions speaking louder than words. Surely the 
leadership, who only scheduled four suspension bills and H.R. 743 for 
this entire week, can find the time to vote to repeal the GPO and the 
windfall elimination provision. All they have to do is call up a vote 
on H.R. 594, a piece of legislation that has 285 bipartisan cosponsors.
  Here is the deal. Either we support the teachers, we support first 
responders, we support firefighters, we support police, we support 
public employees, or we do not. That is it. It is that simple. Put up 
or shut up. That is the deal.
  Until we vote on H.R. 594 to repeal the GPO, we cannot allow H.R. 743 
to pass. We cannot be involved in changing the rules of the game right 
in the middle of the game. And truthfully, Mr. Speaker, this is no 
game. This is our retired teachers' livelihood. Our teachers should be 
rewarded, not punished. Let us stand up for teachers today. Let us vote 
for the Frost amendment and let us vote ``no'' on H.R. 743.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the Committee on 
Rules and certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for 
initiating these kinds of needed changes.
  My suggestion is, let us start dealing with some of the real problems 
of Social Security and move this, allow this bill to proceed, because 
what is in this bill is fair and it is needed.
  I just want to take a couple of seconds to say how important I think 
it is to deal with the huge problem that we are going to be facing in 
Social Security.
  We have an unfunded liability now of $12 trillion in today's dollars. 
If we look at the dollars in future years that is going to be required 
to keep our promises in Social Security, then it is going to be over 
$25 trillion. It is something that is terribly disrespectful of

[[Page 1588]]

current and future retirees to continue to put off the solution to 
Social Security. I would hope that we would continue this debate and 
discussion and look for ways that we can keep Social Security solvent.
  It has been a good program. Putting off the problem that we are 
facing and demagoguing in elections is not the solution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there is something ironic when we have 
17,000 soldiers from my district in Fort Hood, Texas, fighting for 
democracy in Iraq, yet right here on the floor of the House with this 
bill the House leadership is denying democracy in the people's House of 
Representatives in America.
  Basically, what is happening is that we are being denied, 435 Members 
are being denied the right to even vote on an amendment to this bill. 
Regardless of the substance of amendments, that is wrong. We cannot be 
preaching democracy in Iraq and fighting for it there while denying 
democracy here in America.
  Secondly, for this bill to be called the Social Security Protection 
Act, I think it needs a large asterisk, Mr. Speaker, because the same 
people pushing this legislation are the ones who are the architects of 
the largest fiscal deficit disaster in American history. The greatest 
threat to the solvency of Social Security, its trust fund and benefits 
for seniors is the massive $7 trillion national debt that is stealing 
money away from the Social Security Trust Fund, money that should be 
saved to provide benefits for Social Security recipients.
  So let us point out that, despite some of the good things in this 
bill, the fact is that this is not going to truly protect Social 
Security unless the leadership and the administration are willing to 
change their fiscal policies and stop the largest deficits in American 
history that are stealing $200 billion in just the last years from the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  Thirdly, while I support most of the specific reforms in this bill, I 
take great exception to the provisions that I think will harm not just 
firefighters and police officers, those who are protecting our homeland 
from burglars and problems here at home, as well as threats from 
abroad, but this is going to hurt soldiers. And let me tell my 
colleagues how.
  The 17,000 soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas, who are in Iraq right now 
are paying Social Security taxes. When they get home, if they finish 20 
years of service in the military and then they decide to continue that 
public service as a public schoolteacher in Texas, they are basically, 
under this bill, going to be punished in their retirement benefits, 
simply because they served our country for 20 years in the military, 
paid Social Security taxes, and they are going to have those Social 
Security benefits reduced.
  It is wrong to be saluting them with our words, our soldiers in Iraq, 
while passing legislation today that is going to hurt thousands of 
Texas soldiers fighting in Iraq from being able to become a public 
schoolteacher and still receive the Social Security benefits that they 
have already paid into for 20 years.
  The ultimate victim of this bill is going to be the children of 
States like Texas. Because, right now, teachers are planning on 
retiring in Texas, experienced teachers in communities that desperately 
need them to stay in the classroom. But this bill is going to deny 
those teachers an opportunity to receive their full Social Security 
benefits within the public school classroom.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should be defeated. This rule should be 
defeated. It is wrong.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  Anyone watching this debate today must wonder, what in the world is 
the Congress doing to the schoolteachers? What in the world is going on 
here? I think a few things need a little bit of explaining.
  We have two people, a man and a woman, working and receiving and 
paying into the Social Security Trust Fund. When one dies, the 
surviving spouse gets either surviving benefits or their own Social 
Security, whichever is higher. If we take a situation now and say, 
well, let us look at people who are not covered under Social Security. 
If they work 1 day under Social Security, they get both their survivor 
benefits and their pension plan. This is not fair.
  If we were to allow this to happen for all American workers under 
Social Security where they could receive both their pension and the 
survivor's benefits, within 10 years we will have a $1 trillion deficit 
in the Social Security Trust Fund and we will be bankrupt.
  This bill passed this House with only 28 people in the whole House 
voting against it. It passed the Senate under unanimous consent. There 
are some wonderful parts of this bill that we need to address. The 
problem with the noncovered workers, we are simply putting them on a 
level playing field with those that are covered. It is the right thing 
to do. It is the fair thing to do.
  This House has already been through this. We have had a vote. The 
Senate has passed it by unanimous consent, and we should have a similar 
vote.
  So when my colleagues come down to vote, look also at other 
provisions within the bill which are tremendously important to all of 
us. Waste, fraud, and abuse, paying in to fraudulent caregivers, all of 
these things are covered throughout this bill.
  The amount that we are talking about, it affects some, and only a few 
and I might say a minority of the schoolteachers in Texas, but it does 
affect some of them, there is no question about that, but it in no way 
discriminates against them. They still are at an advantage, because 
they can work 5 years under Social Security, pay into for 5 years, and 
then they will receive the higher of their benefits or survivor 
benefits. But those people who give up their job and work 1 year in the 
cafeteria or something of this nature under a job that is not covered 
under Social Security, then they will collect, for paying 1 year into 
this, they will collect approximately $100,000 in Social Security 
dollars. It is wrong. It is not fair.
  Mr. Speaker, let us pass this rule. Let us pass this bill and send it 
to the President for signature.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being able to 
ask a question to the chairman of our Subcommittee on Social Security, 
but all of Texas educators, teachers, administrators, custodial, 
cafeteria workers, everyone is affected by this bill. It moves it to be 
qualified to 5 years.
  But let me explain the reason. They are not paying into Social 
Security now. They do not receive anything for what they pay into 
Social Security. It is for them as being a widow of someone who paid 
into Social Security.
  The best example is that someone in my district works at a machine 
shop for 40 years and they are married to someone who works in a public 
school system in Texas, that the vast majority of the Texas school 
districts are not participants in Social Security by law from this 
Congress. That widow, that person dies, the person who paid in their 
whole work life into Social Security, their widow is penalized by this 
legislation. So Texas has found a way around it by letting them go to 
find a school district and work 1 day. Well, it is a loophole, but, in 
all honesty, it is a loophole that benefits widows.
  It is interesting. I want to deal with the big issues in Social 
Security, but, in all honesty, we need to deal with it without 
punishing the widows of people who have paid into Social Security their 
whole work life and may have been married for 40 years and then they 
get penalized by the Government Pension Offset.

                              {time}  1330

  This legislation may have good parts in it, but the GPO part is 
wrong. We

[[Page 1589]]

ought to deal with the Frost amendment so we can have reform of GPO on 
this House of Representatives floor without waiting for the Committee 
on Ways and Means to deal with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I take offense to the words that were 
used by the chairman when he talked about fraud and abuse when you talk 
about the widows of these individuals. Their husbands have worked 30, 
40 years of their life.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) controls the time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have yielded my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). I would have gladly asked a 
question, and we would not have had to have this debate if we could 
have asked the question earlier.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) for more illumination on this exciting subject which 
will be covered at great length in the next hour.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would just speak to the gentleman who just 
spoke when he referred to what I talked about in taking offense of 
fraud and abuse. If the gentleman would read the bill, he would see 
what I am talking about is a completely different section.
  This is the area where caregivers are receiving checks and 
misappropriating them. It has nothing to do with spouses.
  This is a very large bill, and I would suggest that the gentleman 
read it and understand it, and then he would not misinterpret what I 
have just said.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriquez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my disappointment 
with the provisions of this bill that affect many of the public service 
employees in Texas. Although the legislation has a number of good 
provisions, and I agree there are some good provisions in it, it does 
not correct the injustice that is hurting many of the firefighters, the 
policemen, officers and our teachers.
  This act fails to correct the unjust Government Pension Offset, the 
windfall elimination provisions in the Social Security Act. These two 
sections of the Federal law take billions of dollars in earned Social 
Security benefits away from public service employees that have 
dedicated their lives to our communities; and often it is not until 
retirement age that these employees find out that their Social Security 
benefits will be cut, in some cases even eliminated.
  Currently, the Government Pension Offsets can completely wipe out the 
amount these public service employees expect to receive based on Social 
Security contributions made by their spouses. In addition, the windfall 
elimination provision can dock their retirement benefits and their 
Social Security by as much as $303 dollars a month.
  The original intent, Mr. Speaker, of the GPO was not to hurt public 
service employees. Rather, its purpose was to prevent higher paid 
workers from reaping extra benefits, and it was not the intent to have 
such a drastic effect on low-paid workers. Health insurance premiums 
and other out-of-pocket health costs alone can easily eat up more than 
half of a retiree's State retirement annuity. In some circumstances, it 
is sufficient to throw the worker into poverty. So we have got to look 
at this issue. It is critical.
  By targeting the pensions of teachers and other school employees, the 
offset discourages qualified individuals from serving in our public 
schools, precisely at a time when our Nation faces a severe shortage in 
teachers. This is going to discourage someone who has worked out there 
for 20, 30 years in one job and chooses to go into education on the 
offset because they know that they are going to lose money because they 
have earned that Social Security. This is not the way to go about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in expressing my opposition to the 
Government Pension Offset; and my Republican friends know this. In 
fact, 285 House Members on both sides of the aisle have added their 
support to the legislation which would repeal their unjust provisions. 
So they know that if it is allowed most people will support it and vote 
for it. The thing is that they are not allowing this to occur, which is 
unfortunate.
  If you agree that this provision is unfair, which 285 people have 
indicated that it is, then I would strongly urge you to vote in favor 
of the amendment that will be brought forth.
  In addition, let me say we have an opportunity to take care of this. 
Let us take care of it. We are only working with the Republican 
leadership two days out of the week. My God, we can at least take care 
of this issue.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, as we take up H.R. 743, the Social Security 
Protection Act, for a third time in the 108th Congress, I cannot help 
but feel we still find ourselves with a flawed piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the original intent of this bill was a worthy one, to 
reimburse Social Security benefits if people representing the recipient 
misuse them. That is not controversial. But the provision reducing the 
spousal Social Security benefits for countless teachers, school support 
personnel, police officers, firefighters and other public servants is 
most certainly controversial; and I intend to oppose the entire bill 
since it contains this provision and will adversely affect teachers and 
others across our State.
  Let me say one thing, when teachers work one day, that does not mean 
that they are going to qualify to get a Social Security benefit for 30 
years. What it means is that their spouses who have paid in 30 or 40 or 
50 years into the Social Security system and then they die, that is 
money that they have earned, the family has put into Social Security. 
That is the money that you will get.
  Now we need to understand that targeting pensions of teachers and 
other school employees will discourage qualified individuals from 
entering the classroom at exactly the same time the Nation is 
experiencing a shortage of teachers.
  We say we are committed to education, yet in this bill we are 
profoundly uncommitted to educators.
  I am also a co-sponsor of H.R. 594, a bill introduced in the 108th 
Congress that will eliminate the Government Pension Offset and windfall 
elimination provisions that target our teachers and other public 
servants by denying them the opportunity to retain their full Social 
Security benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that this provision was 
included in an otherwise good bill because the rest of the bill is a 
good bill, and I compliment my friends.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has any other 
speakers.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to me to reduce the Social Security of 
a retiree simply because the spouse of that person happens to be a 
teacher or firefighter or police officer. These jobs are not high-
paying jobs. Those who chose this path have done so because they want 
to make life better for all of us. And what do we do? We deprive them 
of a significant portion of their hard-earned retirement benefits just 
because one spouse works for a government entity instead of a private 
company. That is just wrong.
  I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question 
is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will do two 
things.
  First, it will strike Section 418, the portion of the bill that 
prevents certain public employees from receiving the full amount of 
their deceased spouse's Social Security survivor benefits, benefits to 
which they are otherwise entitled.

[[Page 1590]]

  It will also add to the base bill, H.R. 743, the text of H.R. 594, 
the Social Security Fairness Act which will once and for all eliminate 
the pension offsets that so unfairly diminish all the retirement 
benefits of our valued public employees.
  I want to point out that H.R. 594 is a broadly bipartisan bill and 
has the support of 285 co-sponsors, nearly two-thirds of the membership 
on the House.
  Vote no on the previous question so we can help all of those who were 
unfairly penalized in their pension benefits simply because their 
spouse is a government employee and one works for the private sector.
  Let us support those who go into the public service. Let us support 
our teachers, our policemen and our firemen, not penalize them.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record immediately 
before the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to vote 
against the previous question.
  This is a more complex bill than we have heard in the last 40 
minutes. This bill protects beneficiaries from representative payees 
who misuse benefits. It denies Social Security benefits to fugitive 
felons and probation parole violators. It deters program waste, fraud, 
and abuse on a much broader scale than that dealing just with the Texas 
schoolteachers. It helps individuals with disabilities gain access to 
representation and encourages disabled beneficiaries to return to work.
  It improves and simplifies the SSI program, especially for members of 
the military and their families. It has bipartisan support and the 
support of key stakeholders and actually saves money; and, yes, it does 
close the loophole that enables some teachers in Georgia and Texas to 
contribute just a few dollars to Social Security to receive nearly 
$100,000 in additional lifetime spousal benefits.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out against 
this egregious rule for the Social Security Protection Act of 2003. 
There is much good in the underlying bill. But there is one poison pill 
that will hurt our teachers and firefighters and police. Subjecting our 
teachers to the Government Pension Offset is a brutal blow to Texas 
teachers especially. 286 Members of this House have cosponsored H.R. 
594 to repeal the GPO, because it is unfair. 286 Members, both 
Democrats and Republicans, from across the nation, want to get rid of 
the GPO. Texas teachers have been waiting for House leadership to hear 
the call of those 286 Members and bring up H.R. 594 for a vote on the 
floor. While those retired Texas teachers, widows and widowers, waited, 
they found a legal loophole that enabled them to get what is fair. Now, 
instead of doing what is right, House leadership wants to close the 
loophole.
  This is the wrong way to go, and with one amendment we could get rid 
of this blow to Texas teachers. Or with the Democratic motion to 
recommit, that is the normal right of the minority party, we could have 
brought up H.R. 594, and fixed this problem the right way.
  But the Rules Committee has issued an undemocratic rule that will not 
allow a vote on any amendments and that will not allow a motion to 
recommit. Obviously, they are afraid to hear the voices of our 
colleagues on this issue.
  I am proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues from Texas, to 
fight for our teachers. I will vote against this rule and vote ``no'' 
on the underlying bill until the offending provision is taken out, or 
we fix the GPO once and for all.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

                   Previous Question for H. Res. 520

                H.R. 743--Social Security Protection Act

       Amendment in nature of substitute:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the House 
     shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table 
     the bill (H.R. 743) to amend the Social Security Act and the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional 
     safeguards for Social Security and Supplemental Security 
     Income beneficiaries with representative payees, to enhance 
     program protections, and for other purposes, with Senate 
     amendment thereto, and a motion to concur in the Senate 
     amendment with the amendment specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution shall be considered as pending without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     a d Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for the division of the question.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as 
     follows:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
     amendment, strike section 418 and add a new title at the end 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 594.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 197, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               YEAS--226

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--197

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman

[[Page 1591]]


     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     DeGette
     Doggett
     Filner
     Honda
     Kucinich
     Meek (FL)
     Rahall
     Watson
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1407

  Messrs. PALLONE, CARDOZA, LIPINSKI, MORAN of Virginia, SKELTON, Ms. 
MAJETTE and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. CALVERT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote 
22 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no'' on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________