Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to go back to the basics and point out what we are actually accomplishing in this budget. For the first time in over 30 years, for the first time in my lifetime, we are proposing to stop the raid on social security. We are proposing to stop taking our FICA taxes, our social security payroll taxes, and spending it on other government programs. We are saying that for every dollar in social security taxes we pay, that will go to social security. For every dollar of Medicare taxes we pay, that will go to those programs. No longer will this become a slush fund for politicians. This money that we pay in our payroll taxes will go to those programs. That is a sea change. On the contrary, the President has proposed to raid social security by the tune of $341 billion over the next 10 years. We hear this talk about social security surpluses, non-social security surpluses. What our budget plan is doing is doing this: One hundred percent of social security revenues go to social security. If we do begin to overpay our income taxes, off of our income taxes, non-social security surpluses, rather than spending that money in Washington, we should get that money back. That is the difference we are talking about here. The President, in his State of the Union address, did say he was going to extend the life of social security, but what he actually achieved was putting more IOUs in the social security trust fund. We need real reform of social security, not more IOUs. We have to start reforming social security by putting real money in the trust fund, by making sure that our payroll taxes do in fact go to social security, not to fund other government programs. That is what this is about, honesty in accounting, honesty to the American people, and making sure that our payroll taxes go to the very programs they were designed to go to. If we begin overpaying our taxes after we have set social security aside, after we have got our debt going down on a downward glide path, we ought to get our money back. Rather than sending more of our income tax dollars here to Washington and letting people sit around and finding different ways to spend it for us, we ought to get our money back.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to address the issue that we have been talking about here on saving Social Security that the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget was talking about. What their proposal does, and let us be very clear about what this does. It just puts more IOUs in the trust fund. It simply says that from now until the year 2055, we have got IOUs in there, that one day a future Congress and a future President when they get around to it will honor these IOUs to save Social Security. The letter from the Social Security Administration essentially admits just that. So the plan that the President has offered and that the Democrat substitutes offer does not give us real reform of Social Security. It simply says more IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. What we need is real money, from our FICA taxes, going to pay down debt so we are in a better position of fixing Social Security and improving its solvency.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the economic security of our country, the issue that we are now talking as we debate the Humphrey- Hawkins portion of this. But as we talk about the economic security of our Nation, we do realize that an economic security for this Nation must put as its foremost goal retirement security, retirement economic security for our seniors. So that is why we have this raging debate down here in the well of the floor of the House of Representatives on how we preserve and protect Social Security. I would like to draw our attention to the efforts under way to protect and preserve Social Security. We have been talking about these different plans. We have three plans on this side of the aisle, the President's plan and a couple of different Democrat plans, and the Republican plan on Social Security. Let us assume for a second that this podium I am standing at here is the Social Security trust fund. I have the Social Security kitty right here. For the last 30 years, our FICA taxes have been coming in from our paychecks, real money coming in from our paychecks. We then deposit it in the Social Security trust fund. But what they have been doing over the last 30 years has been raiding that money. They have been taking this money out of the Social Security trust fund and spending it out on other government programs and putting in place of it IOUs, putting IOU after IOU coming off of our FICA taxes into the Social Security trust fund. Now, we have asked the Comptroller of the United States Government to analyze the President's plan, which virtually resembles the Democrat plan being considered here as a substitute. David Walker, who is the Comptroller General of the United States, took a look at the President's plan and said, ``Although the trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the President's proposal, in reality nothing about the program has changed. The proposal does not represent Social Security reform.'' What does that mean? What does it mean when he says, ``Although the trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the President's proposal, in reality it does nothing''? What that means is the President's plan and the Democratic substitute we are talking about here today simply does this: They print up more IOUs and stick it in the Social Security trust fund, more IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. It does nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security. If we take a look at this chart here, here is what we are talking about. The Democratic substitute and the President's plan are double-counting the surpluses. Same old smoke and mirrors, same old gimmicky accounting. We are dedicating all of FICA taxes plus interest to Social Security to pay down publicly held debt. But the Democratic bills say that they are putting $4.3 trillion to Social Security to extend the solvency. This $4.3 trillion is a sham. They are simply saying $4.3 trillion of IOUs to go into the Social Security trust fund, money that a future Congress and a future President one day will have to come up with to pay for Social Security. But it is not real reform. It is not real reform. And it does not do one thing to save Social Security. What we are doing in our budget is saying, let us stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. We have got to act as a Congress to stop the raid on Social Security. What we do with our plan on Social Security is this: 100 percent of all payroll taxes plus interest is dedicated solely to Social Security and Medicare. We save that money to strengthen the program until we have a solution by the President and the Congress to fix Social Security on its long-term. But here is what we do that the Democrats are not doing. We are being honest with the number and we are saying it is going to require a supermajority vote in Congress to pass any future budget resolution that attempts to raid Social Security. Because the President will not sign legislation into law preventing the further raid on Social Security, we have got to do it ourselves. We have got to change the rules of Congress to do that. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget says that a point of order is meaningless in the House of Representatives. In the U.S. Senate, it is not meaningless. Under our rule and under our budget, the way we change the rules, one United States Senator can go to the floor of the Senate and say, ``I raise a point of order against this budget because it raids Social Security.'' That one United States Senator can therefore require a supermajority vote on any budget plan into the future that attempts to raid Social Security. We are trying to make it as difficult as possible for Congress to continue to raid Social Security. And we are not playing fun and games with the numbers. We are not trying to give retirees the false sense of security that we are extending the solvency of Social Security into the year 2055 as the President is doing. We are not going to print up more phony IOUs and stick them in the Social Security trust fund. What we want to do is put real money toward the Social Security solution, put that into Social Security, that is what we want to do, by buying down our debt, by making sure we are in a better cash position to fix Social Security. Mr. Chairman, it is important as we go through this debate on how to improve the economic security of our country that we improve the economic security for our Nation's retirees. That is why the Republican budget here today is the only budget that puts away $1.8 trillion toward Social Security and Medicare, more than the President does, but makes sure that Congress will not renege on this deal. It really stops the raid on the trust fund, short of passing a bill by the President, because the President does not want to pass a bill stopping the raid of the Social Security trust fund because the President's budget raids the Social Security trust fund by $341 billion over the next 10 years. We are simply saying, stop the raid on the trust fund, stop dipping into Social Security from now on. We are putting the measures in place to prevent Congress from doing so in the future. On top of it, we are going to pay down the debt so we can make sure we are in a better position to save Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear about what our budget does and what their budget does not do. This chart tells my colleagues what our budget does. Our budget locks away the entire Social Security Trust Fund surplus, $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years, to save, strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare. We set aside $100 billion more towards Social Security than the President does. We are creating a safety deposit box to make sure that we do not raid the trust fund in the future. We are paying down $450 billion more in debt than the President is. We are also maintaining the fiscal discipline of the 1997 Budget Act. And the most important thing is that we are doing this honestly, we are not playing a shell game. Honest numbers are finally coming into town, into Washington. We are maintaining strong defenses, and we are recognizing a historic commitment to education. What I would like to talk briefly about is our Social Security lock box, our safety deposit box. This is very important because no other budget proposal coming to the floor today, the President's proposal, the Democratic proposal, locks away Social Security. If we take a look at this chart one moment here, we asked David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, to analyze the different Social Security proposals and in looking at the President's budget proposal he said, although the trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the President's proposal, in reality nothing about the program has changed. The proposal does not represent Social Security reform. Here is what we are doing. We in our Republican plan are setting aside 100 percent of all payroll taxes, plus interest, for Social Security and Medicare. We save this money to support those programs, and what is more important we implement legislation that prevents future raids on Social Security by creating a lock box. The President's plan does nothing to do that. The Democratic plan does nothing to do that. If we look at page 41 of our budget resolution, we have section 5, which sets up a safety deposit box legislation because Congress over the last 30 years has been raiding Social Security. There was nothing to stop Congress from raiding Social Security. We are stopping the raid on Social Security. We are saying that beginning today, there will be no more raids on the Social Security trust fund and that in the future, we are putting a point of order to require a supermajority vote in Congress that any budget resolution ever coming to Congress again has to have a supermajority vote if it attempts to dip into Social Security. We are essentially saying, we need discipline now to stop raiding Social Security but we want to make sure that future Congresses will not raid Social Security. That is why we have meaningful legislation, meaningful changes, in this budget resolution. Now we are told that the President is not interested in passing legislation to prevent future raids on Social Security. In fact, the President raids the Social Security trust fund by $341 billion over the next 10 years. We raid zero dollars. We put all of it towards Social Security and Medicare. So because we cannot get a statutory fix to stop the raid on the trust fund, because the President will not sign that into law, we are changing the rules in Congress. We are changing the rules in Congress so we will not raid Social Security, so that future Congresses will have to go after a higher threshold. If they try to bring a budget to this floor of Congress in the House and the Senate, they are going to have to take a supermajority vote to raid Social Security in the future. Even though we cannot get a law passed by this President to prevent the raids on Social Security we are changing the rules in Congress so that Congress now and into the future will not raid Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to bring up one more point, and that is the question that I get asked in a lot of my town hall meetings. What if these surpluses never materialize? What if the money does not come? We have to do everything to assure that it does materialize. But by creating 120 new government programs in Washington, that can become and will become tomorrow's tax increases above and beyond the $176 billion of tax increases in the President's current budget. That becomes tomorrow's debt increases. One thing that is very important that we need to keep in mind as we look at these budgets is we need these surpluses to materialize so we can pay off these obligations, so we can get ready for the baby boom generation on Social Security, so the money is there in the Trust Fund to pay out benefits when the baby boomers begin to retire, when younger generations begin to retire. The best thing that we can do to assure strong economic growth which gives us more jobs, produces more taxpayers paying more taxes, giving us the surpluses that they are projecting is to reduce the burden of taxation on the working families of Wisconsin, Colorado, New York, South Dakota, and Illinois. The best thing that we can do, in addition to keeping our interest rates low by reducing our national debt, which we are doing, is to let people keep more of their own money time after time. Every time we have done that in this century, cut tax rates under Hoover, under Kennedy, under Reagan, we increased economic growth. We actually increased revenues from those taxes which are going to help us keep the economy growing, produce more jobs in this country, keep these surpluses coming in, so we can pay off our debt, so we can fix Social Security. Because if these surpluses do not materialize, if we go into a recession, all bets are off, and we are stuck with these new government programs. So that is why it is so important to make sure that we pay these obligations down and let people keep more of their money.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think it is important to look at why were they raiding the Trust Fund in these early years. I wanted to find out why could they possibly justify taking FICA taxes and spending it on other government programs when they were dedicated to Social Security in the first place. What we found out is that we have been running these massive deficits on the general revenue side of the government, the general fund. To pay for this deficit spending, rather than Congress passing the balanced budget amendment, which we have passed out of this House in prior Congresses but the President will not sign into law, rather than balancing the budget and cutting spending when we have deficits, they raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay to these other deficits on the other side of the government ledger book. But now we are even running surpluses over there. So there is absolutely no conceivable justification for continuing to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, no justification whatsoever. What we are simply saying is this, from now on, under this Congress and under the budget we are going to present, every dollar coming from Social Security will go to Social Security plus interest. Then when we start overpaying our taxes on the other side of the government ledger book through income taxes and other types of taxes, one should get one's money back. We are going to accomplish three historic goals that have not been accomplished here in my lifetime, which is this: we are going to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. We are going to pay that money back. We are going to give people their money back when they overpay their income taxes, and we are going to pay down our debt. We are going to start paying down massive payments of our publicly held national debt. For the first time, because of the fiscal discipline of this Congress, we made the first down payment on our national debt last year to the tune of about $60 billion. But here is the question that is being posed to all of us, and here is the question and the alternatives that America is facing: Do we want to continue to go down the road where Congress still plays this shell game, where they continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, as the gentleman mentioned, the President continues to raid it by $252 billion; or do we say enough is enough, stop the raid, put the money back that was taken out? Then when Americans start overpaying their taxes for the next 15 years in income taxes and other areas, do we plow that money into new spending as the President has asked for for these 120 new programs he is proposing in this budget, or do we let people have their money back? That is the difference.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me. I am a new Member from Wisconsin, and I was very honored and privileged to serve on the Committee on the Budget. What we have been doing in the Committee on the Budget has been two things, analyzing the President's budget proposal, taking it very seriously, and crafting our own budget proposal. It was my first time to sit in this well of this House to watch the State of the Union Address. When the President stood right behind me here and talked about his plans to save social security, everybody remembers that 62 percent number, saving 62 percent of the surplus for social security, well, I was wondering and scratching my head at the time, why 62? Why not 100 percent? Where did the 62 number come from? We have been analyzing that in the Committee on the Budget. It looks like actually he is not saving even that much for social security. But what that policy that the President has subscribed to allows the President to do is to continue raiding the social security trust fund. Where I come from in Wisconsin, people believe that if they pay taxes for social security off of their payroll taxes, their FICA taxes, it ought to go to social security, not to other government programs. For 30 years our Congress, our presidency, this Nation has been raiding the social security trust fund. We have been taking money out of the social security trust fund that we have been paying every paycheck in our FICA taxes and spending it on other government programs. I had thought that we would be able to end that process. Today we have two surpluses coming in Washington. We have a social security surplus and we have an income tax surplus, a surplus from non-social security taxes. In my opinion, what we have to do, and in fact what this Republican Congress is going to do, is to end that 30-year practice of raiding social security. This chart right here beside me shows the differences that exist between our emerging budget plan and the President's budget plan. It shows that this year we have a $137 billion surplus, this year, 1999. It is all from social security. The President wants to take $85 billion and put it toward social security. Some $52 billion of social security dollars are going to go to new spending. We are putting all of social security dollars back into social security. We are putting a firewall in our budget back in place that simply says that from now on, Congress can no longer raid the social security trust fund; that every ounce of FICA taxes we pay for social security plus interest will be dedicated solely to social security. Then when Washington starts running other surpluses from non- social security parts of the budget, from our income tax overpayment, we should get our money back. The good point about the Social Security surplus is that that is part of our national debt as well. We have been raiding our Social Security for so long that we owe over $700 billion back to the Trust Fund. The Trust Fund contains nothing but a bunch of IOUs. But our budget plan is going to pay down that debt. We are going to pay down our publicly held national debt. The President's plan actually increases the national debt by about $1.6 trillion. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) talked about the new tax increases in the President's budget. It is very clear that what is emerging here is a sharp division of philosophy, a difference of opinion on the role of the Federal Government, on whose money is whose. Are we the stewards of the taxpayers' money, or does the government own their paychecks? That is the difference. I think the President did a very good service to the Nation when he was speaking about the budget in Buffalo, New York about 4 weeks ago. I want to quote him, because I do not want to put words in the President's mouth. In talking about the surplus, the other 38 percent of the surplus he planned for other programs, he said this, ``We could give you your money back in the surplus, but we would not be sure that you would spend it right.'' Therein lies the difference. Therein lies the difference of philosophy. We are going to take all the money that people pay in Social Security taxes and dedicate it to Social Security. We are going to stop the raid on Social Security from now on. Then we are going to pay back the money that was stolen out of there in the first place. Then when people start paying overpayments in income taxes over the next 10 to 15 years, we are going to let them have their money back.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, in going down the same direction the gentleman from South Dakota was, what our budget plan is going to include is, we are going to make sure that Social Security is walled off, $100 percent of Social Security goes to Social Security. We then use that money to pay off the Social Security debt and our publicly held debt. So we get our national debt going down, the debt held by the public. All those bonds that are out there by individual Americans, we are going to start retiring those bonds. But in the non-Social Security side of the surplus, that is what we are trying to spend. These surpluses are growing very rapidly over the next 10 years. Our budget is going to include a budget mechanism, a trigger mechanism which simply says, we are going to save us from ourselves, we are going to save Washington from itself by making sure that these non- Social Security surpluses, when they materialize, that that money can only be used for reducing our debt or reducing our tax burden, not for new spending. Because if we do look at the President's budget, he is dedicating all of those new surpluses for more spending. Our budget is going to protect against that.

Mr. RYAN

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodling and my colleagues Mr. Castle and Mr. Roemer for their leadership on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, by and large the education system in my home State of Wisconsin is excellent. In fact, our State ranks as one of the best in the Nation. Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and our State legislature have done a wonderful job of working with parents, teachers and school board members. Students are learning in Wisconsin. But more can be done; we can grant our teachers the opportunity and the freedom to use innovative approaches to raise student achievement. Expanding the Ed-Flex program is a great step for Wisconsin in its efforts to develop an education system focused upon high standards for all students, flexibility, and strong accountability for results. Mr. Chairman, as I've talked with parents, school board members, teachers and superintendents back in my district, I've asked them what can Congress do to make their jobs easier. Time and time again they've told me, ``Cut the red tape. Give us the freedom to do what we know works best.'' For example, I received a letter last month from a constituent of mine, John Bechler. John is a Kenosha Unified School District board member, and he wanted to share with me his concerns regarding the impact Federal education programs have had upon his local school district. In his letter, John asked me, ``Did the Federal Government ever ask school districts what they needed most or did they just assume one approach fits all?'' The answer is no, they never asked. I am concerned that even today members from other States are attempting to dictate education policy for my district's public schools. Mr. Chairman, we can't have bureaucrats in Washington blindly deciding that programs that may work in Los Angeles or Detroit must also work in my district. This is simply not true. John, and his fellow school board members all across the country, should be asked, ``what works?'' We should let them make the decisions, and this very important piece of legislation begins the process of returning decision-making power to the local level. John concluded his letter to me by saying, ``I would hope the Federal Government would allocate the education funds to the local school districts and allow the local school boards to determine what is the best use of funds to achieve quality education.'' I couldn't agree more. Mr. Chairman, this is what educators all throughout my district are saying. They're saying enough of the cookie- cutter, public relations driven education policies. Enough Federal mandates. We're here every day and we know what works best for our schools. Sound bites and press conferences do not and should not educate our children. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has failed in its attempts to design a one-size-fits-all education system for our Nations' schools. I hope that the students back in Janesville, Beloit, Kenosha and Racine are paying attention to this debate today, because this legislation will greatly affect their education. I'd ask my colleagues to support H.R. 800, and allow local decision- makers, not Washington, to determine what's best for our students.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe that Ed-Flex is wonderful for Wisconsin, my home State, and for our country. Unfortunately, this amendment is anti- flexibility. As proponents of this amendment discuss, it demands local control, it demands our local school board members, our local educators, do what they do in Texas. The law of Texas is great for Texas but the law of Wisconsin should be better for Wisconsin. I believe that we have to go down the road of having more flexibility for our local schools. As I have talked to parents, school board members, educators and our superintendents, I ask them time and time again, what is it that we can do in Congress to help them educate our children best? They tell me the same thing: Cut the red tape. Give us the freedom to do what we know works best. I was written by a constituent of mine, a guy named John Bechler, who is a very active member in our Kenosha School District. He is on the Kenosha Unified School District board, and I would like to quote a few things from the letter from Mr. Bechler, our school board member. He said, ``Did the Federal Government ever ask school districts what they needed most or did they just assume one approach fits all?'' The answer is no. They assumed that one approach fits all. I am concerned that even today Members from other States are attempting to dictate education policy for my district's public schools. This amendment seeks to dictate education policy from other States on to our local public schools. Mr. Chairman, we cannot have bureaucrats in Washington or in other parts of the country blindly deciding that programs that work in Los Angeles or Detroit or even in Texas must also work in southern Wisconsin. This is simply not true. John Bechler and his fellow school board members all across this country should be asked, what works? We should then let them make the decisions, and this very important piece of legislation begins the process of returning decision-making power to the local level. John concluded in his letter to me saying that I would hope the Federal Government would allocate the education funds to the local school districts and allow the local school boards to determine what is the best use of funds to achieve quality education. I could not agree more. Mr. Chairman, this is what educators throughout my district are saying. They are saying enough of the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all public relation driven education policies. This legislation gets us toward the movement of giving more flexibility to our local school districts. This amendment is anti-flexibility. I applaud the efforts of the members of the committee to produce the amendment, but it does go against the grain. We need more local control. I believe that the educators in our local school districts know best how to solve the problems in our local school districts. After all, they are there on the front lines of the fight, improving our education standards. I believe we should vote against this amendment and vote for the Ed- Flex bill. It is a move in the right direction.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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.

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. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today the House will be considering H.J. Res. 32, the Social Security Guarantee Initiative. I recently introduced this resolution that expresses Congress' commitment to protecting Social Security benefits for all current and future retirees. This bipartisan resolution sends an important message that sets the stage for what will soon be an historic debate on how best to reform our Nation's Social Security System. I recently completed 21 town hall meetings during our congressional recess on a listening tour throughout Wisconsin's First Congressional District. At every stop a great number of people I represent expressed their grave concerns over any changes that would be made to the Social Security System. Quite frankly, many of them felt that Washington could not be trusted to fix their problem. We have to prove them wrong. This resolution sends a very clear signal to our constituents that any reforms made by Congress will not result in a loss of benefits or place any increased costs upon them. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we make this bipartisan commitment before we move forward on any Social Security reform proposals so that current and soon-to-be retirees will not have their benefits cut. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Social Security Guarantee Initiative. This legislation would express Congress' commitment to protecting all Social Security benefits to current and soon-to-be retirees. Last week, Congress received the President's budget request for next year. A major priority for this Congress and for this President is the need to save Social Security for present and future generations. Several proposals have been brought forward and will be debated extensively this session of Congress. The President has proposed investing some of the payroll tax revenues in the stock market. The problem is, the President wants a Washington-based government board to decide which stocks to buy and in which companies the government might take a share. A better idea would be to allow individuals and families to make those decisions. A government board will inevitably be influenced by politics. Mixing politics with Americans' retirement could have disastrous consequences. In all of this discussion, however, to reform Social Security, many seniors in Wisconsin and throughout the country have expressed their concerns that any reforms would ultimately end up costing them something. While we must improve the system for working Americans, the benefits today's senior have come to count on cannot and will not be changed in any way. As we move forward to reform Social Security, I believe we must send a bipartisan message to our nation's seniors that, while we must fix Social Security for future generations, current and imminent retirees will be held harmless. The Social Security Guarantee Initiative would protect all guaranteed benefits for current retirees and those nearing retirement. We have a historic opportunity to preserve the nation's Social Security program. I look forward to working with the senior community in my District and my colleagues in Congress on this important issue.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the President signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was not a member of Congress then. But I had been, I would have supported the goals of the act to create an environment where new technologies, consumer choices and jobs would flourish. Today, I am frankly disappointed that those goals have largely not been met. There is local phone competition because local phone companies have opened their markets. However, due to the manner in which the FCC has implemented the act, new local competitors are ``cream skimming'' and are providing service to predominantly businesses, not residential customers. Due to the FCC's implementation of the act, local phone companies are still tangled in a thicket of FCC regulations and are unable to provide consumers with more choices in long distance service. And advanced telecommunications services, which provide American households benefits including fast internet access, are not reaching millions of consumers. In fact, in one region of the country (which has sadly become known as the `No High Speed Internet Access Zone''), not a single citizen has high-speed internet access. Mr. Speaker, the act is not the problem, the FCC's implementation is. The Federal Communications Commission has disregarded the intent of Congress, and in my view, consumers are suffering. It's time to designate, and let the marketplace do its job.