What follows is the congressional record of the proceedings

On the passage of H.J. Res. 32 note the vote was 417 to 1.  My how things have changed, SSA has gone from a good and effective program to out dated junk.

 

 

SOCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEE INITIATIVE -- (House of Representatives - March 02, 1999)

 

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 32) expressing the sense of the Congress that the President and the Congress should join in undertaking the Social Security Guarantee Initiative to strengthen and protect the retirement income security of all Americans through the creation of a fair and modern Social Security Program for the 21st Century, as amended.

 

    The Clerk read as follows:

 

    H.J. Res. 32

 

     Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Social Security Guarantee Initiative''.

 

   SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

 

    The Congress finds that--

 

    (1) the Social Security program provides benefits to 44,000,000 Americans, including more than 27,000,000 retirees, 5,000,000 people with disabilities, and 2,000,000 surviving children, and is essential to the dignity and security of the Nation's elderly, disabled, and their families;

 

    (2) the Social Security program's progressive benefit structure is of particular importance to women, due to their (A) longer life expectancies than men, making the Social Security program's lifetime, inflation-adjusted benefits a critical income support especially for widows; (B) lower average earnings; and (C) lower pension and other retirement savings, stemming in part from their lower incomes and their spending an average of 11 years out of the paid workforce caring for families;

 

    (3) the approaching retirement of the Baby Boom Generation will result in the Social Security program's benefit costs exceeding its tax revenues beginning in 2013;

 

    (4) the Social Security program faces looming insolvency and instability in the next century so that by 2032 the Social Security Trust Funds will be fully depleted and the program will be able to honor less than 75 percent of benefit commitments; and

 

    (5) prompt action is necessary to restore Americans' confidence that their retirement benefits will be protected.

 

   SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

 

    The President and the Congress should join in strengthening the Social Security program and protecting the retirement income security of all Americans for the 21st century in a manner that--

 

    (1) ensures equal treatment across generations to all Americans, especially minorities and other low-income workers;

 

    (2) recognizes the unique obstacles that women face in ensuring retirement, disability, and survivor security and the essential role that the Social Security program plays in protecting financial stability for women;

 

    (3) provides a continuous benefit safety net for workers, their survivors, their dependents, and individuals with disabilities;

 

    (4) protects guaranteed lifetime benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation, for current and future retirees; and

 

    (5) does not increase taxes.

 

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL) each will control 20 minutes.

 

    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW).

 

    GENERAL LEAVE

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 32.

 

    The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

 

    There was no objection.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

 

    Mr. Speaker, our work on Social Security is well under way. We have held numerous Social Security hearing already this year, and the President has provided us with a framework for the Congress to consider as we work towards a bipartisan solution to Social Security's problems.

 

    In fact, we are in agreement with President Clinton on many of the major issues relating to preserving and strengthening our Social Security system; namely, one, action is necessary now to shore up Social Security's financial underpinnings; two, 62 percent of the Federal budget surplus should be set aside until Social Security is indeed saved; three, investment in markets can be a part of the long-term solution for Social Security; and, four, personal savings accounts are both technically feasible and a necessary part of the solution.

 

    Passage of H.J. Res. 32 will add to this strong start and will further strengthen our bipartisanship as we face the challenges ahead. The joint resolution says that Congress and the President should protect benefits for current and future retirees while avoiding any tax increases.

 

    On a program as vital to our country as Social Security, I am sure all of my colleagues will agree that we must work together, and H.J. Res. 32 is a measure that deserves all of our support. I hope they will join with me in showing the American people that Congress is committed to strengthening and preserving Social Security for the future and for future generations.

 

    Let me also add that I view this resolution as a test of whether the two parties can work together. We certainly

[Page: H849]

 did in the passage of this in the full committee. If we divide into partisanship over a simple, noncontroversial resolution affirming our support for Social Security, why should the American people expect us to be able to work together to actually save Social Security.

 

    Whatever our differences may be, and I am sure we will have plenty of differences, surely we can agree on this resolution as it is vitally necessary to the future of Social Security that we do work together and we work together in this Congress.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

 

    Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

 

    Mr. Speaker, in the old partisan days, I would say this resolution is good because Santa Clause is coming through. But recognize that we have not had too many legislative accomplishments. Being very anxious to display some degree of bipartisanship, let me congratulate the majority for this resolution for whatever it means.

 

    In the olden days, when people saw a problem, they started legislating. But if this is a new thing, where you send a message that I recognize the problem and I do intend to legislate, well, who can be against that?

 

    So let me join with my Republican colleagues and say we have a very, very serious problem with Social Security in its present form. The majority party is acknowledging that it is going to do something about it. They have met the President halfway in terms of identifying the set-aside of the 62 percent. But they have a great deal of difficulty in stating that they will not entertain a tax cut from using the surplus until such time as we take care of the Social Security system and the Medicare trust system as we know it.

 

    Now, I do not know why these things are omitted. I have no idea as to why they are difficult to talk about. But let me join with my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) and say that half a loaf is better than nothing. I sincerely hope that we get beyond these resolutions and see what we can do in a bipartisan way to find a solution to this serious problem.

 

    The reason I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) and I know that this problem does not lend itself to a Republican answer or to a Democratic answer. If it is going to be done, and we both hope that it will be done, it has to be done in a bipartisan way.

 

    What has been done to move us closer to a bipartisan effort besides this resolution, I do not know. But if, with a great deal of imagination, I can say that let this be that one first step toward a journey which has to be concluded this year if we are going to do anything at all, then I want to be on the floor to join with the gentleman from Florida in this resolution.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. MATSUI), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

 

    The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

 

    There was no objection.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. RYAN), the architect of this joint resolution.

 

    Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security for yielding me this time.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL) and the comments that were made. We do have to get beyond resolutions and get to real solutions. But as we debate what we are going to do on Social Security, we need to send a message to our Nation's Social Security retirees, our current beneficiaries, that they will be held harmless in this debate as we move forward on Social Security.

 

    I authored this resolution because I believe it is vital that Congress send a very clear message to the millions of Americans who rely on Social Security today.

 

    As we debate how best to fix and preserve Social Security, we must also commit ourselves to guaranteeing this generation of retirees that their benefits will be there when they need them.

 

    I recently completed 21 town hall meetings over the Congressional recess on Social Security throughout southern Wisconsin. At every single one of these meetings, I had constituents who are concerned about the talk they hear on Social Security. Whether it is 62 percent, 38 percent, whatever percent, they are concerned that their current level of benefits will be diminished.

 

    I think it is very important that we, as a conference, on a bipartisan basis, send a signal that their benefits will not be cut; that we have to preserve guaranteed benefits for current retirees and people who are about to retire. Then we have to look at how we are going to keep Social Security solvent for future generations.

 

    This is the most important task that is facing this Congress this year. I think that this resolution gets us off to a good start, gets us off to a bipartisan agreement.

 

    From the western edge of my district in Brodhead, Wisconsin, to the shores of Lake Michigan in Racine, at every stop, I heard these types of comments. There was one thing that I learned, that I heard from an older gentleman in Evansville, Wisconsin; and this is a remarkable recommendation. I want to quote him. He said, ``If Congress allows Social Security to go broke, and seniors can no longer receive their benefits, then Members of Congress should not be allowed to receive their pensions.''

 

    The people will hold this Congress and this administration accountable, and they should. Thousands of other seniors throughout my district have echoed these concerns. They have great concerns about whether Social Security will be there as we negotiate and as we put together a bipartisan agreement to fix this program for the seniors in the future.

 

    But I want to be very clear about what this resolution does. One, for current and soon-to-be retirees, there will be no loss of benefits, no additional costs to beneficiaries, and no increased payroll taxes. Two, for the next generation of retirees who are now paying into the Social Security program, we must guarantee that the program will be saved and that their benefits will be there in their retirement years.

 

    Mr. Speaker, we have a historic opportunity to preserve what has been one of our Nation's most successful programs. I look forward to working with both seniors in my district and my colleagues in Congress on this important issue.

 

    I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of the resolution.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CARDIN).

 

    Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the most successful domestic program in the history of our Nation, keeping 40 percent of our elderly out of poverty and 800,000 children out of poverty.

 

    I support this resolution. But the real issue is whether Congress will finish the work begun by the President when he introduced the framework for Social Security, strengthening our system. The President's plan lays out a good foundation of reducing public debt and shoring up the program's assets.

 

    Social Security is too important of a program to play partisan politics. We must focus on improving the Trust Fund rate of return, restoring long-term solvency, and protecting benefits for current and future retirees. We should also focus on helping Americans save for their retirement to supplement the guaranteed benefit they receive from Social Security.

 

    Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should make strengthening Social Security and Medicare our top fight and enact those reforms before any other aspect of our budget. Let us make it our top priority. Let us get it done. Let us get it done in a bipartisan way, and let us move on, really, to the bill itself rather than just this resolution.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. GARY MILLER).

 

    (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

 

    Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of House Joint Resolution 32. I want to thank my fellow freshman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. RYAN) for his leadership on this issue.

 

    This bill is our opportunity to stand up and say our government will pay what it owes the people. We are committed to keeping the promise of Social Security.

[Page: H850]

 

    When our constituents look at their pay stubs, they see a large portion of their hard-earned money going to Social Security. Ninety-six percent of all workers pay 12.4 percent of payroll taxes. That is 148 million workers and their employers.

 

    

[Time: 14:00]

 

    Every one of those workers sees the exact dollar amount on the Social Security portion of their paychecks. In exchange for that money, they expect a certain amount of help in their retirement years. They expect that money to come back to them in later years. I repeat, they expect that money to come back to them in later years. They do not care about charts and graphs here in Washington, they just know that money is going out of their pockets and expect to have some of it come back. They have paid for Social Security, they have been promised the money will come back to them when they retire, and we are committed to making sure that promise is kept.

 

    I know that some changes, some of them possibly difficult changes, will have to be made to make Social Security solvent, but we need to keep our promise.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. NADLER).

 

    (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

 

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the historic importance of Social Security and commits the Congress to protect guaranteed lifetime benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation, for current and future retirees. For this reason, I will vote for it, but I must note several flaws in the resolution.

 

    We should have included a provision that states that Social Security should be strengthened in a way that does not cut benefits, does not raise the retirement age, and does not place individuals at financial risk in their senior years by diverting Social Security tax revenues to individual private accounts. These ought to be the guiding principles of the Social Security debate.

 

    This resolution also states as fact the prediction of the trustees that by 2032 the trust funds will be fully depleted and the program will be able to honor less than 75 percent of benefit commitments. But this prediction will be correct only if the trustees' other prediction, that our economic growth rate will decline from 3.8 percent to 1.5 percent, and stay at that absurdly low level for 70 years, is also correct.

 

    All of the budget calculations of the administration, the House Committee on the Budget, the Senate Committee on the Budget, and CBO assume much higher growth rates. Nobody really believes that the 1.5 percent prediction of the trustees is anywhere near correct. So we should not make a congressional finding of fact we do not really believe to be true.

 

    But even granting the trustees' projection for the sake of argument, the shortfall predicted by the trustees is still small and manageable, can be completely funded in a way that does not cut benefits, raise the retirement age, raise tax rates or shift economic risk to individuals by shifting to a system of individual accounts.

 

    I plan on introducing legislation later this week that will do just that.

•    [Begin Insert]

 

   Raising the retirement age, which is a key component of many so-called ``reform'' proposals, is cruel and unnecessary, especially for those whose careers demand hard physical labor, and this resolution ought to say so.

 

    Cutting benefits, either directly or by replacing the defined benefit nature of Social Security with a defined contribution program, would devastate millions of Americans who are just barely getting by right now. Benefits should not be reduced and the basic guarantee of Social Security must not be undermined in any way. This is crucial, and it ought to be included in this resolution.

•    [End Insert]

 

   Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. SMITH), who has early on been working very hard on a reform package.

 

    Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his good words.

 

    This resolution is good. All resolutions are good that move us ahead with a commitment to fix this significant problem. I think maybe we will start believing these resolutions and we will do it.

 

    But, look, everybody needs to understand it is not easy. A Committee on the Budget staffer just figured out if we put every cent of the surplus into Social Security at a nominal return of 10.5 percent, every cent of the surplus over the next 5 years, it would only keep Social Security solvent until the year 2040.

 

    I mean this is a tough question. It is so easy to demagogue. I hope there will be a commitment by both sides of the aisle and the President of the United States to not criticize parts of the program as we try to move ahead with a very serious effort to make a solution. I would ask the Democrats to give us their ideas and their proposals that can be scored to keep Social Security solvent and, likewise, Republicans do the same, to try to seriously move ahead with saving a very important program.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture.

 

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I wish to use this opportunity for a little prekindergarten 101 budget talk.

 

    Through all the rhetoric we hear today and we are soon to hear as we anxiously await the budget for 2000, let us remind ourselves today there is no surplus to be divided for any purpose for the next 2 years, other than by using Social Security Trust Fund. And for the next 5 years there is $82 billion that are non-Security Trust Fund.

 

    Let us remind ourselves of that and use this opportunity in a bipartisan way, as we unanimously vote for this resolution today, that what we are saying is, unequivocally, that a lot of the rhetoric we hear about who and how much we are going to spend, and how much we are going to cut taxes, will not fit within the spirit of the resolution that is voted on today.

 

    Let us remind ourselves of that today as we vote for this and use this in a positive way to do what all of us want to do, both sides of the aisle. And I agree with the gentleman from Michigan, there are some of us on this side, as on that side, that are willing to make some of the tough choices. That will come through committee work.

•    [Begin Insert]

 

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This resolution doesn't do anything to actually strengthen Social Security, but I hope that it is the beginning of a bipartisan process to honestly address the financial problems facing Social Security.

 

    Social Security reform should start by walling off the Social Security surplus and saving it for Social Security. We shouldn't even talk about budget surpluses until we have truly taken Social Security off-budget by balancing the budget without counting the Social Security surplus. All of the Social Security surplus should be saved for Social Security by using them to reduce the debt held by the public.

 

    There is no surplus today unless you count the Social Security surplus. A tax cut that is not paid for will require us to increase borrowing from Social Security trust fund for purposes other than saving it for Social Security.

 

    I want to remind all of my colleagues that there is no free lunch. The promised benefits under Social Security will cost $9 trillion more than we can afford over the next 75 years--that money will have to come from somewhere. The Directors of the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan have all testified that Congress and the President must make tough choices to bring Social Security costs in line with revenues. Many proposals that appear on the surface to offer painless resolutions have significant hidden costs and shortcomings which must be taken into consideration.

 

    I have been critical of the President's plan for avoiding the heavy lifting of proposing reforms to deal with the unfunded liabilities of the system. I am equally troubled by the proposals being floated by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that suggest that individual accounts are a magic bullet that offers a painless solution to save Social Security without making any structural reforms.

 

    Rhetorically acknowledging that tough choices are inevitable is not enough. Reaching agreement on fiscally responsible legislation that truly makes Social Security financially sound without simply shifting costs to future taxpayers will require leadership by the President and Congressional leadership. I encourage both the President and the Leadership hear in Congress to provide the leadership necessary to move the debate beyond the misleading suggestion that projected surpluses

[Page:

H851]

 alone will save Social Security and begin a serious discussion about the tough choices that remain.

 

    There is a bipartisan bill that meets all of the principles in this resolution which makes Social Security financially sound and gives future generations the flexibility to address other priorities. JIM KOLBE and I have proposed legislation, the 21st Century Retirement Security Plan, which would preserve the best features of the current system while modernizing it for the 21st century. Our plan would strengthen the safety net, restore the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, reduces future liabilities and increase individual control over retirement income, all without increasing taxes.

 

    The plan would create individual security accounts, funded through a portion of the current payroll tax, to explicitly replace unfunded liabilities by prefunding a portion of future retirement income. The plan also establishes a minimum benefit provision which, for the first time, guarantees that workers who work all their life and play by the rules will be protected from poverty, regardless of what happens to their individual accounts. We make benefit changes in a progressive manner through bend point changes that affect middle and upper income workers, who will benefit from individual accounts. Perhaps most importantly, our legislation ensures that future governments will have resources to deal with other problems in addition to providing Social Security by honestly confronting the future unfunded liabilities of the system that will threaten other budgetary priorities if we do not take action.

 

    I encourage all my colleagues to follow through on the bipartisan rhetoric embodied in this resolution and roll up our sleeves to tackle the tough choices necessary to strengthen and preserve Social Security for the 21st Century.

•    [End Insert]

 

   Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. HAYWORTH), a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.

 

    Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

 

    Mr. Speaker, there is a daunting challenge at hand, and part of that challenge of saving Social Security is to approach this problem not as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans; understanding the dependence of many in their old age on this program, understanding the concerns of those of generations just entering the work force, understanding the concerns of baby boomers who have paid into the system and hope to see it continue.

 

    As we begin this debate, as we work to solve this problem, this resolution is a good starting point. In committee we accepted many amendments from our friends in the minority. Now, there is not unanimity, to be sure, but with this resolution we reaffirm the primacy, necessity and commitment of this Congress to the Social Security program. And, more importantly, we say, let us save it without increasing taxes and protecting against inflation. So that is where we start.

 

    I would echo the comments of my colleague from Michigan; that we should avoid the temptation to point fingers, to engage in fear rather than facts. And the reality must be borne out by our rhetoric and, more importantly, our resolve. The American people look to us and count on us, and in this spirit today it begins now with the passage of this resolution.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH).

 

    Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I basically support this resolution. Americans have been misled by some to doubt that Social Security will provide retirement security. In fact, Social Security does not face a financial crisis. A projected shortfall occurring 34 years in the future is not a crisis, it is a projection. No other organization, public or private, has a plan for operation nearly two generations into the future.

 

    Social Security does face a political crisis if Congress abandons its commitments to guarantee benefits. This resolution is a good first move and should put to rest whether Social Security will pay full benefits. With this resolution Congress pledges to guarantee paying full benefits to current and future retirees.

 

    A pledge is good. Making it the law would be better. Congress will have to add this concept in any reform legislation we adopt to make the words of this resolution meaningful. We must work to ensure that any reform legislation Congress passes also upholds the Social Security guarantee that promised benefits are as good as money and are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, just like our currency and bonds.

 

    I hope everyone will join me in adding meaning to this resolution by writing the Social Security guarantee into law.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. HAYES).

 

    Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. RYAN) for his introduction of a resolution that undertakes the Social Security Guarantee Initiative. Through this resolution we establish a framework for debate and reaffirm our commitment to the long-term solvency of Social Security.

 

    It is clear to me that the moment is prime for a national debate on Social Security. The citizens of our Nation understand the importance of Social Security's fiscal health, not only for the time being but for generations yet to come. They expect their elected officials to come together in a bipartisan fashion to provide solutions.

 

    I recently had the opportunity to lead a forum on the future of Social Security reform. What struck me the most about this particular event was that its main participants were not a panel of experts or a group of politicians. Instead, those most interested were concerned North Carolinians who have a stake in the system and expect a fair return on their investment. They do not need policy experts from Washington to explain to them that in a few years the government will not have enough money to keep the promises it made when the program began.

 

    Mr. Speaker, ensuring the viability of Social Security is a tall challenge, and I realize there is no silver bullet, but we must take one step at a time. I support the resolution before us now and the spirit of cooperation that it represents. Citizens from my district, the Eighth District of North Carolina, expect their elected officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, to work together for a better future.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. POMEROY).

 

    Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

 

    The resolution calls for equal treatment in Social Security across generations, especially for workers of minorities. It says Congress must recognize the unique obstacles facing women and the disabled. The resolution says we must guarantee a lifetime benefit for America's elderly and those future retirees and avoid, in the process, increasing taxes.

 

    Now, I support these principles, and I believe the President's framework also advances these principles in the administration's proposal for dealing with Social Security. I am, therefore, going to vote for this resolution. But I want to note the resolution, in and of itself, does nothing.

 

    A point of concern I would have about it is that sometimes I have seen resolutions offered by majorities that have no intention on actually advancing legislation to get something done. I have also seen resolutions extolling principles advanced when the plan is to advance legislation that actually achieves something quite different.

 

    Now, the ultimate question, and the point of uncertainty, can only be addressed by a plan. So I say to the majority, give us a plan. Let us move the debate past meaningless resolutions to actual debate.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN).

 

    (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

 

    Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution because it involves the most important of all issues, preserving Social Security and Medicare. But while I appreciate the sentiments, I think it is most important we really get down to legislation.

 

    In a sense, this is a baby step when we need a great leap forward. It is entitled Social Security Guarantee Initiative, but it really guarantees nothing. We have to get busy on legislation. The President has proposed his position, now we need to hear from the majority and then begin to compare notes and to act.

 

    This resolution would be more meaningful if it had said that the first priority should be to save Social Security

[Page: H852]

 and Medicare as we proposed in the full committee. But in any event, let us pass this resolution and then get down to a bipartisan effort to secure Social Security and Medicare for the long run.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER).

 

    (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

 

    Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this resolution, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) and the gentleman from California (Mr. MATSUI) for the statements they have made publicly to work together in a bipartisan way.

 

    One statement we will make very clear today is every Member of the House, I expect, will vote for this. Because even though we may disagree a little bit on how to do it, we all stand here because we want to save Social Security. In fact, we are committed to saving Social Security not just for today's seniors but for future generations, the next three generations, who depend on Social Security.

 

    When I think of Social Security, I think of my own mom and dad, now in their 70s. I think of my nieces and nephews that are college age and entering the work force out of high school. They all look for Social Security. They have paid their dues into Social Security, and they want Social Security to be there when it is their turn.

 

    Social Security today, as some have pointed out, is sound for today's seniors. But the question is how are we going to make Social Security sound for future generations. That is the challenge that is before us.

 

    I hope we remember as we go through this process the importance of looking at how Social Security impacts women as we look at the numbers; as we look at ways to ensure that we treat women equally and fairly when it comes to Social Security. Because it is clear that statistics show that elderly women have been almost twice as likely as elderly men to live in poverty. That is a challenge we need to meet, and I hope we can do it in a bipartisan way.

 

    Once again, I also plan to offer an additional solution to help supplement Social Security. I believe that we should reward retirement savings. I believe that we should eliminate discrimination against retirement savings and allow people to contribute more to their 401(k)s and their IRAs.

 

    

[Time: 14:15]

 

   We should also allow working moms to make up missed contributions through catch-up IRAs, allow them to make up the contributions for their retirement accounts that they could have made had they stayed working and instead chose to stay home with their children.

 

    We should allow working moms to have that opportunity. Catch-up IRAs will be a big help for women. Let us work in a bipartisan way.

•    [Begin Insert]

 

   Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Social Security Subcommittee, I strongly support H.R. Res. 32. This resolution expresses the willingess of Congress to work with the President to strengthen and protect the Social Security system for current and future generations. Just last week, this resolution passed the Ways and Means Committee with a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 32-0.

 

    Social Security affects the majority of Americans, whether it be a 70 year old retiree, a 40 year old parent, or a 19 year old college student. We all pay our Social Security taxes with the promise that when we retire, we will collect the benefits that are due to us. Unfortunately, our Social Security system is in dire straigths and it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure that the program remains healthy and stable far into the 21st century.

 

    As we discuss ways to change the system, we must also remember that women, even more than men, rely on the Social Security system for financial security in their golden years. Over their lifetime, because of family commitments, many women cannot accumulate adequate pension savings. By the mid-1990s, only 18 percent of women over the age of 64 received their own pension benefits and their pension benefits were less than half of those received by men.

 

    Additionally, we must keep certain important statistics in mind. In 1997, elderly women were almost twice as likely as elderly men to live in poverty. Additionally, the poverty rate for unmarried elderly women was 19 percent in 1997. This is a crucial statistic because 60 percent of elderly women are unmarried. Also significant, nearly 30 percent of elderly black and Hispanic women lived in poverty in 1997, making Social Security especially important to minority, elderly women.

 

    To help women save for their later years, I plan to again offer legislation to help improve retirement savings opportunities for women and other individuals who opted out of the workforce to raise families. These Catch-up IRAs will also allow individuals approaching retirement the ability to save more for their golden years, and for all savers the ability to make additional ``after tax'' contributions to their savings plans.

 

    I am encouraged by H.J. Res. 32 and I hope that President Clinton will join us in finding bipartisan solutions to the problems that plague our Social Security System. Additionally, I hope that we can continue to work together to find Social Security reform solutions which protect the special needs of women in their retirement years.

 

    Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important resolution.

•    [End Insert]

 

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. JEFFERSON).

 

    Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

 

    Mr. Speaker, the debate on H.J.Res. 32 in the Committee on Ways and Means was not a debate about whether we should save Social Security or give the American people a tax cut. Both the Democrats and Republicans favor tax cuts so long as they are paid for. The debate was about whether we would memorialize our commitment and then keep our promise to the American people not to touch a dime of the surplus until we have saved Social Security for future generations. This resolution does not make that commitment.

 

    Mr. Speaker, the Social Security system is the most respected and successful system in U.S. history. While my remarks will not change the resolution, I want to let the American people know that I, along with my Democratic colleagues, are serious about addressing the long-term solvency problems facing the Social Security system and stand by our commitment to save Social Security first.

 

    We owe it to the over two-thirds of older Americans who rely on Social Security for 50 percent or more of their total income. We owe it to the hard-working American families who rely on Social Security for continued prosperity as they enter into retirement. And, most of all, we owe it to our children who deserve to know that Social Security is going to be there for them.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. FLETCHER).

 

    Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. RYAN). Today, this Chamber takes an important step towards strengthening our Nation's Social Security system. However, this goal can only be achieved if we work together to find a permanent solution to the problems facing this important program.

 

    The American people deserve more than Washington simply placing a Band-Aid on the problem by offering a temporary solution. This would not be leadership. It would be politics as usual. In order to assure retirement income security for all Americans, both sides of the aisle will have to work together, not against one another.

 

    Ronald Reagan once said, there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.

 

    As we debate Social Security reform, it must not be about who gets the credit but how can we shore up the system, provide equal treatment, protect benefits and avoid tax increases for our fellow Americans.

 

    Citizens of the Sixth District of Kentucky and across America want genuine leadership. Let us give them just that and let us support this resolution.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. GEORGE MILLER).

 

    (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

 

    Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I want to thank the committee for bringing this resolution to the floor.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, but let us understand that this resolution is only the beginning. It pledges all of us to save Social Security. That pledge will also have to include a decision not to invade those Social Security trust funds.

[Page: H853]

 

    This week, on the cover of Barron's Magazine, they have the headline which screams to people in Washington, D.C. This week, the Dow Jones financial magazine says there is no budget surplus. And they are quite correct; there is no budget surplus. There is only money that is in excess in the Social Security trust fund, and whether or not we save Social Security will depend upon the decisions we make in this Congress about whether we are going to break the budget caps that restrain spending in this Congress; whether or not we are going to invade these trust funds for a whole range of spending proposals that are currently before the Congress.

 

    If we do that this year and if we do that before 2001, every dollar we spend will come out of the Social Security trust funds. Because Barron's has it right. There is no other surplus. There is only the Social Security trust funds.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. PORTMAN), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

 

    Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

 

    Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today and just heard from the previous speaker, both in terms of politics and substance, reforming Social Security and making the needed changes to preserve the system over time is going to be very, very difficult. It is going to require bipartisanship; it is going to require trust; and it is going to require small steps, many small steps, to get us there.

 

    That is what I see this resolution being all about, it is a small step in the right direction. It is not a solution. It is not the plan to save Social Security. But it does lay out for the first time in this Congress principles, basic principles, that I hope we can agree on, on a bipartisan basis. That seems to me to be a very good starting point.

 

    I would say also that there is a need to supplement Social Security with more private retirement savings, and I hope that we can work on a bipartisan basis on that as well. This is our 401(k) plans, our IRA plans and so on. Because, ultimately, that is an important part of retirement security for all Americans.

 

    There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot get this done and get it done this year, so long as we reach out across the aisle and work on a bipartisan basis. And I see us beginning to do that with this resolution today; and, therefore, I strongly support it.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT).

 

    Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that here in Washington a promise is never really a guarantee. And so the resolution that we have before us today has been self-styled by the Republican leadership as the ``Social Security Guarantee Initiative.'' But it is important for every American to understand that there is no guarantee in the Guarantee Initiative. It guarantees absolutely nothing in the way of any substantive improvement in the Social Security system.

 

    I believe it was not a Democrat but a Republican member of the committee that studied this measure, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE), who conceded that this resolution, H.J. Res. 32, is solely, in his words, and I quote, ``a political document. It has no teeth.'' No teeth, indeed. I would suggest that this resolution offers less promise than an ill-fitting set of dentures.

 

    On day one of this Congress, we Democrats proposed a rule to save Social Security first, to see that the surplus was not dissipated, that we utilized it to preserve the future of the Social Security system. That was rejected on day one of this Congress; and, since that time, now entering month three of this Congress, not much progress, a few hearings but not much progress, has been made towards strengthening and preserving Social Security.

 

    Instead of meaningful action, as Americans will remember in 1995 our Republican colleagues said they wanted a revolution. We have now come another 4 years, and they present us a resolution. I believe what we really need is a bipartisan solution to preserve and protect and strengthen the Social Security system.

 

    What might that bipartisan solution, not a meaningless resolution like we are considering today, what might it include and what might it exclude? We have an excellent idea of that today in a new report.

 

    One of the groups that has been working toward a solution of this problem is the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. They turned to a Republican economist, who did a simulation, looking at various proposals to reject the Social Security system as we have known it for the last many decades and substitute for it some type of private system. This study is entitled ``Winners and Losers from `Privatizing' Social Security.''

 

    What this study concluded was that there are many losers and not very many winners. In fact, the conclusion of the study is that, with these various schemes to reject our current Social Security system, instead of to strengthen and preserve it, that every person alive today, in these United States or anywhere else, who is drawing Social Security or could draw Social Security in the future, every person will lose under the various schemes to privatize fully or partially the Social Security system instead of to strengthen and preserve it.

 

    The only people who might stand to gain, we were told in this simulation, which fortunately is just that, a simulation instead of an experiment on the American people as some have advanced, but the only people who would gain are a few high-income males to be born somewhere 20 or 30 years from now after the full transition costs to a private system are effected.

 

    So with that kind of information now available, it is time to reject ideology and focus on real, meaningful changes in this system that will strengthen and preserve it.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an important study with important findings. There has been so much held out about how if we had a revolution in Social Security and we rejected the system as we have known it for the last many decades, that everybody would be the winner. But when one looks at the facts, the winners just are not there.

 

    Everyone loses if we reject this system and substitute the kind of revolutionary system that some of these Washington think-tank ideologues have been advancing. So I hope we will come together behind some of the proposals the President has advanced to strengthen and preserve Social Security in a truly bipartisan manner.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to just comment on the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) with respect to what the Subcommittee on Social Security has been doing and what the full Committee on Ways and Means has been doing since the beginning of this Congress.

 

    We have already had more hearings on Social Security than we did on welfare reform, and that is just from the beginning of this year, than we had in drafting the welfare reform bill.

 

    The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT), a valuable member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, knows this well. He has attended these hearings, and he has been very attentive in these hearings, so I would not want anyone listening to this proceeding to in any way think that Congress has been sitting on its hands. It has not. There will be proposals out there, and these proposals will be in the form of draft legislation.

 

    I would hope and I intend to, as the subcommittee chairman, to be part of a majority bill that will be put in place and hopefully will become the framework for moving forward on a bipartisan solution.

 

    I would also invite the minority to put forth their bill. I would also invite the President to put forth his bill. They will be received with great courtesy and cooperation, and I would pledge hearings on any such bills that would come before my subcommittee that have the backing of the minority party or the White House.

 

    I believe this is very important. That is how strongly I feel about a bipartisan solution and a bipartisan effort. The Committee on Ways and Means is working very, very hard. The system is in crisis and we do need to find a solution, because we can avoid this crisis very early and be sure that the Social Security system is in place and continues to be a very safe system for all

[Page: H854]

 Americans, both of this generation and generations to come.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

 

    Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW).

 

    First of all, the gentleman is correct. We have had four full committee hearings and we have had three, I believe, subcommittee hearings. But I have to say, and I think most people would confirm my comments, and I have sat through almost all of the hearings except maybe 3 hours of the 20 hours of hearings, and most of the purposes of these hearings and most of the people talking at these hearings have been basically just trashing the President's proposal.

 

    The Republicans asked that the President come up with his proposal last year. The President has come up with an outline that everyone understands. There is no complexity to it. We have just been spending all our time just trashing the President. We have spent very little time on real substance.

 

    And I think what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) was referring to is a comprehensive study that actually was done by John Mueller. John Mueller, for those who were here in the 1980s, was the economist for the Republican Conference under the leadership of then Jack Kemp; and Mr. Mueller came in with the idea of doing this study with a bias actually toward private accounts.

 

    What basically happened is that he completed the study and now he believes that private accounts would really do bad damage. This was commissioned, by the way, by Martha McSteen, who happened to be the administrator for the Social Security Administration in 1983 to 1986, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

 

    So we had two Reagan people, one Reagan and one Jack Kemp, and they basically have said private accounts are the wrong way to go. It is easy to figure out why. There is $8 trillion of unfunded liability, $8 trillion of unfunded liability. If we go with private accounts, we have those people living today in the workforce and paying for the retirement of their parents or grandparents.

 

    

[Time: 14:30]

 

   That means they are going to be paying twice the amount for half the benefit. That is the real problem with private accounts. You can talk about private accounts all you want, but the real person that is going to benefit from private accounts will be born 25 years from now in the year 2025, and he will be a single male. Every other economic group will lose. The biggest losers, believe it or not, are going to be women. Because women live longer than men, they are going to have to set up an annuity, they will get less even though they may have made the same amount in the workforce.

 

    In addition, we all know that women make about 70 percent of what men make normally in the workforce. So they are going to start off way behind, anyway. This is going to do damage to Democratic women, Republican women, conservative women and liberal women.

 

    This is not an issue of ideology. It is a question of getting the facts and making sure we know the facts before we move. I am afraid all those hearings and everything we have been doing over the last 2 months have been basically to create a partisan division against the President's plan rather than to do anything really substantive and trying to understand this issue. But I do appreciate what the gentleman has done. He has come up with this resolution. I think, as the previous speaker said, resolutions really do not mean much. On the other hand, I guess we might as well do something since we are not doing much else. We are going to be out at 3 o'clock today so we might as well use some of that time at least pretending like we are doing something significant, but we all know that this resolution will not advance the cause of reforming the Social Security system one second.

 

    As a result of that, we will pass it with a unanimous vote, but let us not kid ourselves. We have got to come up with a proposal. The President has. I like the President's proposal. Let us hear from the Republicans and let us see how they deal with an $8 trillion transition cost if they want to go to private accounts and protect women and minorities and middle-income people and suburban people at the same time. You will not be able to do it. I hope you try but you will not be able to do it. Instead what we should be doing is picking up the President's plan, moving forward with it and at least solving this problem for the next 55 years.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

 

    Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentleman from California with regard to the remarks that he has made. We have heard the minority trash a proposal which has been characterized as a Republican proposal which has not been made as yet. There is no Republican proposal out there. We have had hearings, we have had statements with regard to the direction we should go, but there has not been a concrete proposal laid upon the table.

 

    By contrast, I think it is interesting to note that on this side not one single speaker has gotten up and trashed the President's proposal. The President's proposal is out there. I am treating it with great courtesy. I want to encourage the President and his staff and the Treasury Department and all those connected with the Social Security system to come forward with a concrete proposal in writing that we can receive. So I am hopeful yet that we do receive a formal proposal from the President.

 

    The purpose of this resolution is to bring us together, to show that there is some unity in this House between Democrats and Republicans. I am not going to spoil the day by going out and trying to retaliate and bring about argument or try to accent what separates us, because this resolution is what brings us together.

 

    Both sides have said that we are going to preserve the Social Security system. Both sides have said that we are not going to raise payroll taxes. Both sides have said that we are not going to cut benefits. When you have that as a perimeter, there is not too many other places you can go except to look at the investment of the system itself. That is where we are going to concentrate. That is where we are going to have to move forward.

 

    This resolution is a good step forward, albeit a single step forward, but it is a good step forward in trying to show that there is unity in this House, that we do have unity of purpose and that we are going to draw together.

 

    I will be actually out there soliciting help from the minority side in trying to craft this legislation to see that we can come up with something that is quite meaningful. This task is far too important than to bicker in a partisan manner. This is the most important item to come before this Congress either this year or next year. It would be a terrible tragedy if we were to back away from this point of history. We have a surplus. We have divided government. Both of those are very important. Because we need the divided government to be sure it is bipartisan, and we need the surplus to be sure that we save Social Security.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the resolution.

•    [Begin Insert]

 

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 32, which expresses Congress' desire to strengthen and protect Social Security. Saving Social Security must be our top priority as we prepare America for the next century.

 

    Without fundamental changes in the Social Security program, either massive tax increases or a reduction in benefits will be required or the program will reach financial crisis by 2013. This is of special concern for most women, who have a vital interest in Social Security. The fact is, on average, women live longer than men, earn less, and are more likely to be dependent on Social Security for most or all of their retirement income.

 

    Mr. Speaker, having paid into Social Security myself for over forty years, I will never support hasty reforms that threaten the financial futures of those who have committed a lifetime of earnings to the system. As a father and a grandfather, I will insist that our reforms provide more choices for those now entering the workforce. It is time we take action to ensure this program will be available to our children and grandchildren.

[Page: H855]

 

    Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 32 to ensure a stable future for Social Security.

 

    Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 32, the ``Social Security Guarantee Initiative.'' As we all know, one of the most important questions facing Congress today is how best to preserve Social Security and Medicare for this and future generations. We need to ensure that benefits are not cut for today's Social Security recipients, while at the same time guaranteeing that our children and grandchildren will have the piece of mind that Social Security brings.

 

    Before Social Security was enacted in 1935, retirement meant financial insecurity and poverty for many seniors. This program, however, has dramatically changed that and has allowed millions of Americans to enjoy their later years with greater tranquility and less worry. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it best when, upon signing the Social Security Act, he stated that ``[t]he Social Security Act was primarily designed to provide the average worker with some assurance that when cycles of unemployment come or when his work days are over, he will have enough money to live decently.''

 

    It is imperative that Congress and the President work together in a bipartisan manner to achieve this goal. Arguably the most successful domestic government program in world history, it is our duty to do everything in our power to ensure its existence for years to come. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. And even more importantly, I urge my colleagues to put partisan differences aside, and to take concrete actions beyond this resolution, to strengthen the Social Security system.

 

    Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that focuses on the need to restore our Social Security program in a fair manner for all Americans.

 

    With the looming prospect that its funds will be depleted by 2032, the issue of ensuring the solvency of Social Security needs to be addressed. But there are a number of priorities we must keep in mind as the debate on reforming Social Security begins to take form.

 

    First, it is important that any reform to Social Security guarantees equal benefits to all Americans, including women and minorities.

 

    We also need to ensure that cost-of-living adjustments and a continuous benefit safety net are provided for all Social Security recipients.

 

    Most importantly, we want to do all we can to save Social Security without raising taxes. Americans are already over-burdened by high taxes, and it is our duty to ensure that more of their money stays in their pockets. We owe it to the American people to provide them with a fair plan that saves Social Security for generations to come without increasing their tax burden.

 

    I am proud to support this initiative and want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. RYAN) for introducing this important piece of legislation.

•    [End Insert]

 

   Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

 

    The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SHIMKUS). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) that the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 32, as amended.

 

    The question was taken.

 

    Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

 

    The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

 

    The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

 

    Pursuant to clause 8(c) of rule XX, this 15-minute vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on H.R. 609.

 

    The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, nays 1, not voting, 17, as follows:

 [Roll No. 29]YEAS--416

 

   Abercrombie

 

    Ackerman

 

    Aderholt

 

    Allen

 

    Andrews

 

    Archer

 

    Armey

 

    Bachus

 

    Baird

 

    Baker

 

    Baldacci

 

    Baldwin

 

    Ballenger

 

    Barcia

 

    Barr

 

    Barrett (NE)

 

    Barrett (WI)

 

    Bartlett

 Barton

 

    Bass

 

    Bateman

 

    Becerra

 

    Bentsen

 

    Bereuter

 

    Berkley

 

    Berry

 

    Biggert

 

    Bilirakis

 

    Bishop

 

    Blagojevich

 

    Bliley

 

    Blumenauer

 

    Blunt

 

    Boehlert

 

    Boehner

 

    Bonilla

 

    Bonior

 

    Bono

 

    Borski

 

    Boswell

 

    Boucher

 

    Boyd

 

    Brady (PA)

 

    Brady (TX)

 

    Brown (CA)

 

    Brown (FL)

 

    Brown (OH)

 

    Bryant

 

    Burr

 

    Burton

 

    Calvert

 

    Camp

 

    Campbell

 

    Canady

 

    Capuano

 

    Cardin

 

    Carson

 

    Castle

 

    Chabot

 

    Chambliss

 

    Chenoweth

 

    Clay

 

    Clayton

 

    Clement

 

    Clyburn

 

    Coble

 

    Coburn

 

    Collins

 

    Combest

 

    Condit

 

    Conyers

 

    Cook

 

    Costello

 

    Cox

 

    Coyne

 

    Cramer

 

    Crane

 

    Crowley

 

    Cubin

 

    Cummings

 

    Cunningham

 

    Danner

 

    Davis (FL)

 

    Davis (IL)

 

    Davis (VA)

 

    Deal

 

    DeFazio

 

    DeGette

 

    Delahunt

 

    DeLauro

 

    DeLay

 

    DeMint

 

    Deutsch

 

    Diaz-Balart

 

    Dickey

 

    Dicks

 

    Dingell

 

    Dixon

 

    Doggett

 

    Dooley

 

    Doolittle

 

    Doyle

 

    Dreier

 

    Duncan

 

    Edwards

 

    Ehlers

 

    Ehrlich

 

    Emerson

 

    Engel

 

    English

 

    Eshoo

 

    Etheridge

 

    Ewing

 

    Farr

 

    Fattah

 

    Filner

 

    Fletcher

 

    Foley

 

    Forbes

 

    Ford

 

    Fossella

 

    Fowler

 

    Frank (MA)

 

    Franks (NJ)

 

    Frelinghuysen

 

    Frost

 

    Gallegly

 

    Ganske

 

    Gejdenson

 

    Gekas

 

    Gephardt

 

    Gibbons

 

    Gilchrest

 

    Gillmor

 

    Gilman

 

    Gonzalez

 

    Goode

 

    Goodlatte

 

    Goodling

 

    Gordon

 

    Goss

 

    Graham

 

    Green (TX)

 

    Green (WI)

 

    Greenwood

 

    Gutierrez

 

    Gutknecht

 

    Hall (OH)

 

    Hall (TX)

 

    Hastert

 

    Hastings (FL)

 

    Hastings (WA)

 

    Hayes

 

    Hayworth

 

    Hefley

 

    Herger

 

    Hill (IN)

 

    Hill (MT)

 

    Hilleary

 

    Hinchey

 

    Hinojosa

 

    Hobson

 

    Hoeffel

 

    Hoekstra

 

    Holden

 

    Holt

 

    Hooley

 

    Horn

 

    Hostettler

 

    Houghton

 

    Hoyer

 

    Hulshof

 

    Hutchinson

 

    Hyde

 

    Inslee

 

    Isakson

 

    Istook

 

    Jackson (IL)

 

    Jackson-Lee (TX)

 

    Jefferson

 

    Jenkins

 

    John

 

    Johnson (CT)

 

    Johnson, E. B.

 

    Johnson, Sam

 

    Jones (NC)

 

    Jones (OH)

 

    Kanjorski

 

    Kaptur

 

    Kasich

 

    Kelly

 

    Kennedy

 

    Kildee

 

    Kilpatrick

 

    Kind (WI)

 

    King (NY)

 

    Kingston

 

    Kleczka

 

    Klink

 

    Knollenberg

 

    Kolbe

 

    Kucinich

 

    Kuykendall

 

    LaFalce

 

    LaHood

 

    Lampson

 

    Lantos

 

    Largent

 

    Larson

 

    Latham

 

    LaTourette

 

    Lazio

 

    Leach

 

    Lee

 

    Levin

 

    Lewis (CA)

 

    Lewis (GA)

 

    Lewis (KY)

 

    Linder

 

    Lipinski

 

    LoBiondo

 

    Lofgren

 

    Lowey

 

    Lucas (KY)

 

    Lucas (OK)

 

    Luther

 

    Maloney (CT)

 

    Maloney (NY)

 

    Manzullo

 

    Markey

 

    Martinez

 

    Mascara

 

    Matsui

 

    McCarthy (MO)

 

    McCarthy (NY)

 

    McCrery

 

    McDermott

 

    McGovern

 

    McHugh

 

    McInnis

 

    McIntosh

 

    McIntyre

 

    McKeon

 

    McKinney

 

    McNulty

 

    Meehan

 

    Meek (FL)

 

    Meeks (NY)

 

    Menendez

 

    Metcalf

 

    Mica

 

    Millender-McDonald

 

    Miller (FL)

 

    Miller, Gary

 

    Miller, George

 

    Minge

 

    Mink

 

    Moakley

 

    Mollohan

 

    Moore

 

    Moran (KS)

 

    Moran (VA)

 

    Morella

 

    Murtha

 

    Myrick

 

    Nadler

 

    Napolitano

 

    Neal

 

    Nethercutt

 

    Ney

 

    Northup

 

    Norwood

 

    Nussle

 

    Oberstar

 

    Obey

 

    Olver

 

    Ortiz

 

    Ose

 

    Owens

 

    Oxley

 

    Packard

 

    Pallone

 

    Pascrell

 

    Pastor

 

    Payne

 

    Pease

 

    Pelosi

 

    Peterson (MN)

 

    Peterson (PA)

 

    Petri

 

    Phelps

 

    Pickering

 

    Pickett

 

    Pitts

 

    Pombo

 

    Pomeroy

 

    Porter

 

    Portman

 

    Price (NC)

 

    Pryce (OH)

 

    Quinn

 

    Radanovich

 

    Rahall

 

    Ramstad

 

    Rangel

 

    Regula

 

    Reyes

 

    Reynolds

 

    Riley

 

    Rivers

 

    Rodriguez

 

    Roemer

 

    Rogan

 

    Rohrabacher

 

    Ros-Lehtinen

 

    Rothman

 

    Roukema

 

    Roybal-Allard

 

    Royce

 

    Rush

 

    Ryan (WI)

 

    Ryun (KS)

 

    Sabo

 

    Salmon

 

    Sanchez

 

    Sanders

 

    Sandlin

 

    Sanford

 

    Sawyer

 

    Saxton

 

    Scarborough

 

    Schaffer

 

    Schakowsky

 

    Scott

 

    Sensenbrenner

 

    Serrano

 

    Sessions

 

    Shadegg

 

    Shaw

 

    Shays

 

    Sherman

 

    Sherwood

 

    Shimkus

 

    Shows

 

    Shuster

 

    Simpson

 

    Sisisky

 

    Skeen

 

    Skelton

 

    Slaughter

 

    Smith (MI)

 

    Smith (NJ)

 

    Smith (TX)

 

    Smith (WA)

 

    Snyder

 

    Souder

 

    Spence

 

    Spratt

 

    Stabenow

 

    Stark

 

    Stearns

 

    Stenholm

 

    Strickland

 

    Stump

 

    Stupak

 

    Sununu

 

    Sweeney

 

    Talent

 

    Tancredo

 

    Tanner

 

    Tauscher

 

    Tauzin

 

    Taylor (MS)

 

    Taylor (NC)

 

    Terry

 

    Thomas

 

    Thompson (MS)

 

    Thornberry

 

    Thune

 

    Thurman

 

    Tiahrt

 

    Tierney

 

    Toomey

 

    Towns

 

    Traficant

 

    Turner

 

    Udall (CO)

 

    Udall (NM)

 

    Upton

 

    Velazquez

 

    Vento

 

    Visclosky

 

    Walden

 

    Walsh

 

    Wamp

 

    Waters

 

    Watkins

 

    Watt (NC)

 

    Watts (OK)

 

    Waxman

 

    Weiner

 

    Weldon (FL)

 

    Weldon (PA)

 

    Weller

 

    Wexler

 

    Weygand

 

    Whitfield

 

    Wicker

 

    Wilson

 

    Wise

 

    Wolf

 

    Woolsey

 

    Wu

 

    Wynn

 

    Young (AK)

 

    Young (FL)

 NAYS--1

 

   

 

    Paul

 

    

 NOT VOTING--17

 

   Berman

 

    Bilbray

 

    Buyer

 

    Callahan

 

    Cannon

 

    Capps

 

    Cooksey

 

    Dunn

 

    Evans

 

    Everett

 

    Granger

 

    Hansen

 

    Hilliard

 

    Hunter

 

    McCollum

 

    Rogers

 

    Thompson (CA)

 

    

[Time: 14:55]

 

   So the joint resolution, as amended, was passed.

 

    The title of the joint resolution was amended so as to read: ``Joint resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President and the Congress should join in undertaking the Social Security Guarantee Initiative to strengthen the Social Security program and protect the retirement income security of all Americans for the 21st century.''

 

    A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

 

    Stated for:

•    [Begin Insert]

 

[Page: H856]

 

   Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

 

    Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

 

    Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

•    [End Insert]

 

END