[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4708-H4714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1415
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX ACT OF 2000
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3859) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
protect Social Security and Medicare surpluses through strengthened
budgetary enforcement mechanisms, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3859
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security and Medicare
Lock-box Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to--
(1) ensure that social security trust fund surpluses shall
be used to pay down the debt held by the public until social
security reform legislation is enacted; and
(2) ensure that the projected surplus of the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund shall be used to pay down the
debt held by the public until medicare reform legislation is
enacted.
SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.
(a) Points of Order To Protect Social Security Surpluses.--
Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Points of Order To Protect Social Security
Surpluses.--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not
be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to
consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or
conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would
set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
``(2) Subsequent legislation.--Except as provided by
paragraph (3), it shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form
recommended in that conference report,
would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal
year.
``(3) Exception.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to social
security reform legislation as defined by section 7(1) of the
Social Security and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000.
``(4) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`on-budget deficit', when applied to a fiscal year, means the
deficit in the budget as set forth in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to
section 301(a)(3) for that fiscal year.''.
(b) Content of Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) the receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, combined,
established by title II of the Social Security Act;''.
(c) Super Majority Requirement.--(1) Section 904(c)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting
``312(g),'' after ``310(d)(2),''.
(2) Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after
``310(d)(2),''.
SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF MEDICARE SURPLUSES.
(a) Points of Order To Protect Medicare Surpluses.--Section
312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (as amended by
section 3) is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Points of Order To Protect Medicare Surpluses.--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not
be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to
consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or
conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would
set forth an on-budget surplus for any fiscal year that is
less than the projected surplus of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year (as assumed in that
resolution).
``(2) Subsequent legislation.--Except as provided by
paragraph (3), it shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form
recommended in that conference report,
would cause the on-budget surplus for any fiscal year to be
less than the projected surplus of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund (as assumed in the most recently agreed
to concurrent resolution on the budget) for that fiscal year
or increase the amount by which the on-budget surplus for any
fiscal year would be less than such trust fund surplus for
that fiscal year.
``(3) Exception.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to medicare
reform legislation as defined by section 7(2) of the Social
Security and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000.
``(4) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`on-budget surplus', when applied to a fiscal year, means the
surplus in the budget as set forth in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to
section 301(a)(3) for that fiscal year.''.
(b) Super Majority Requirement.--
(1) Point of order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (as amended by section 3) is further
amended by inserting ``312(h),'' after ``312(g),''.
(2) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (as amended by section 3) is further amended by
inserting ``312(h),'' after ``312(g),''.
SEC. 5. REMOVING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM BUDGET PRONOUNCEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any official statement issued by the
Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget
Office, or any other agency or instrumentality of the Federal
Government of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the
United States Government as submitted by the President or of
the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget,
and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any
official publication or material issued by either of such
Offices or any other such agency or instrumentality, shall
exclude the outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors,
and disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act (including the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund)
[[Page H4709]]
and the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(b) Separate Social Security Budget Documents.--The
excluded outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act shall be submitted in separate Social Security
budget documents.
SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.
(a) Social Security.--(1) Chapter 11 of subtitle II of
title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding before
section 1101 the following:
``Sec. 1100. Protection of social security surpluses
``The budget of the United States Government submitted by
the President under this chapter shall not recommend an on-
budget deficit for any fiscal year covered by that budget
unless it includes proposed legislative language for social
security reform legislation as defined by section 7(1) of the
Social Security and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000.''.
(2) The chapter analysis for chapter 11 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the item relating
to section 1101 the following:
``1100. Protection of Social Security Surpluses.''.
(b) Medicare.--(1) Chapter 11 of subtitle II of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1100
the following:
``Sec. 1100A. Protection of medicare surpluses
``The budget of the United States Government submitted by
the President under this chapter shall not recommend an on-
budget surplus for any fiscal year that is less than the
projected surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund for that fiscal year unless it includes proposed
legislative language for medicare reform legislation as
defined by section 7(2) of the Social Security and Medicare
Lock-box Act of 2000 or social security reform legislation as
defined by section 7(1) of that Act.''.
(2) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 11
of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1100 the following:
``1100A. Protection of Medicare Surpluses.''.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Social security reform legislation.--The term ``social
security reform legislation'' means a bill or a joint
resolution to save social security and includes a provision
stating the following: ``For purposes of the Social Security
and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000, this Act constitutes
social security reform legislation to save social
security.''.
(2) Medicare reform legislation.--The term ``medicare
reform legislation'' means a bill or a joint resolution to
save Medicare and includes a provision stating the following:
``For purposes of the Social Security and Medicare Lock-box
Act of 2000, this Act constitutes medicare reform legislation
to save medicare.''.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This Act shall take effect upon the date
of its enactment and the amendments made by this Act shall
apply to fiscal year 2001 and subsequent fiscal years.
(b) Expiration.--(1) Sections 301(a)(6) and 312(g) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall expire upon the
enactment of social security reform legislation.
(2) Section 312(h) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
shall expire upon the enactment of medicare reform
legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
General Leave
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3859.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years, surplus dollars in the Social
Security Trust Fund were raided and spent on unrelated programs. Last
year, this Congress took the first step towards stopping the raid on
Social Security bypassing legislation I introduced, the Social Security
lock box, by an overwhelming 416 to 12 vote. Our efforts paid off, and
last year, not one penny of the $124 billion Social Security surplus
was spent.
But Social Security is not the only trust fund to be raided over the
years. Over the next 5 years, taxpayers will pay an estimated $126
billion more into the Medicare trust fund part A which pays for in-
patient hospital care than will be taken out for Medicare expenses.
Without a Medicare lock box, those surpluses will be spent.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to raise the bar and protect Medicare. The 40
million seniors and disabled in this Nation that depend on Medicare
deserve to know that their Medicare money is not being spent on
anything else.
In March, I introduced the Medicare lock Box we are debating today.
Through a point of order, this Medicare lock box prohibits the
consideration of any legislation that spends any of the Medicare part A
surplus. The Medicare lock box also prevents Medicare surpluses from
being intermingled with the rest of the budget. Additionally, under
this measure the protected Medicare surpluses will go towards paying
down public debt, accelerating our efforts to pay off the public debt
by 2013.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a win-win. It is a win for fiscal
discipline, it is a win for fairness in budgeting and, most
importantly, it is a win-win for our seniors.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for our seniors and vote for the
Medicare lock box.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Vice President introduced the idea of
taking the Medicare part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund off budget,
putting it off budget completely. There was no such plan on the other
side. Their budget resolution, which they pushed through 2 months ago,
used all of the projected surpluses, including the Medicare surplus for
tax cuts and a few program increases. To the extent that anyone
deserves credit here, I think we should say the Vice President has
initiated an idea which the Republican majority is today embracing, but
in a different form. They do not go as far as he proposes.
The version of this bill that is before us now was not drafted until
last night. It was not introduced or referred to the Committee on
Budget, which has jurisdiction. Section 306 of the Budget Act gives us
jurisdiction specifically over this kind of legislation. We have not
held hearings, we have not taken testimony, and our debate is limited
to 40 minutes without any amendments in order.
For that reason, I would like to put some questions to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), who is the sponsor of the bill, if he
would answer them for clarification and for legislative history.
Why does the gentleman propose not to take the Medicare part A Trust
Fund off budget as the Vice President proposed? Why has the gentleman
elected not to take it off budget and have a clean separation between
it and the rest of the budget?
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, my original bill actually did take it off
budget. That is what I would like to see done eventually. However, as
the gentleman knows, I did pass legislation last year, which I believe
the gentleman supported, on taking Social Security off budget which we
cannot even get out of the Senate, which the Vice President seems to be
opposing his President on over there. So what we are doing is taking it
one step at a time.
I might mention that even though it passed here overwhelmingly, and
even though the Vice President, who brought this out 2 weeks ago, and I
congratulated him, I authored it last March, it is better to come late
than not come at all, and I am glad he is joining us.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman begs the
question. If this is what we did with Social Security in order to
protect it, why not do the same with Medicare? Has the gentleman made a
compromise?
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, why do we not pass this first, and then we
will do it next year.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, section 3(b) of the gentleman's bill adds a
new requirement to the congressional budget resolution. It requires the
resolution to show receipts, outlays, and surpluses of deficits in the
Old Age and Survivors, OASDI Social Security Trust Fund. This is a new
requirement, for since 1991, budget resolutions have excluded Social
Security. Why does the
[[Page H4710]]
gentleman now require budget resolutions to show the Social Security
surplus when, for a decade, they have been prohibited from showing the
Social Security surplus?
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, I believe
we need to do that, because as the gentleman knows, during the years
that the Democrats controlled this House for over 40 years that these
surpluses were spent, they were counted as part of the ongoing budget.
So the intention is to separate them, to actually determine what is
being spent and what is not being spent, so that we can hold each of
our Members, 435 here in the House and 100 in the Senate, responsible
if they vote for spending that goes into that. That is why we want it
separate.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not
separating them. That is just the point. By putting them back in the
budget, the gentleman is undercutting the whole idea of having Social
Security off budget. It boggles my mind why the gentleman would want to
do that, when the idea is to separate these accounts and treat them
differently from the ordinary accounts of the budget.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was 1985 that we
passed the law to take Social Security off budget; and as everybody is
aware, even with that designation, we continued to spend the Social
Security surplus. So it would seem to me, I would say to the gentleman,
it is not how the gentleman might construct it where we put these
numbers, but it is the final decision whether we spend the money or
not.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the problem we have is
that section 3(b) requires that the congressional budget resolution
show receipts, outlays, and surpluses in the OASDI trust fund, while
section 5 prohibits it. Am I correct? I had to ask staff to make sure I
am correctly interpreting that. Why the contradiction? Is this a result
of midnight compromises made on how this bill was to be drafted?
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further to me,
again, looking back since 1935, almost all of those years were
controlled by the Democrats. These were, number one, being spent and
were included as part of the budget.
My ultimate goal is to do as we did last year with Social Security
and take it completely off budget. My concern is, because of opposition
on the gentleman's side and the fact that the Vice President evidently,
and Senator Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota, are not allowing us
to vote on it over there, we thought we would take it one step at a
time.
The first step would be that at least we were not going to count it,
that it would be secluded, that we would see the number and it would
have to be reported as a separate number, taking that as a half a loaf,
and then come back next year, which I can assure the gentleman I am
going to do, and go with the rest of the loaf to make sure it is
completely off budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just to say in
conclusion that we will take the whole loaf. If the gentleman wants to
go with setting it off completely, we will vote for that; and we do not
understand why the gentleman has not gone that far.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Members are reminded that they
should not criticize positions of Members of the other body during the
debate.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What our goal is, since 1935, we have been spending both Social
Security and the Medicare part of Social Security on ongoing programs.
I am very grateful that we have a bipartisan bill here, we have Members
of the other party; and I am very grateful for the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), who has been working with us on our last bill last year
and this one this year; and the goal is that we not spend it, and that
is what we are attempting to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith), who has spent many, many hours working on Social Security; and
I appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a good start. We need to
remind ourselves that simply not spending the money does not fix the
solvency problem of Social Security or fix the solvency problem of
Medicare. Mostly because of demographics, the actuaries have determined
that both of these programs are going broke, the challenge is, where do
we get that money to keep the commitment we have made to seniors that
those promised benefits are going to be there.
I think all Members can support this kind of legislation that
encourages not spending any of the Social Security or Medicare surplus
money on other government programs. This commitment is going to help
some with the huge problem of keeping Social Security and Medicare
solvent.
I was hoping in this presidential election that we could come debate
real specifics in terms of how we are going to save Social Security and
Medicare. Sadly, it would be demagogued because it is so easy to scare
the seniors that depend on these programs. This President, I think, had
a unique opportunity to lead us, in the last three years to keep Social
Security solvent forever. That did not happen, and now we are hoping
that the next President will do that. I congratulate the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger) for moving us ahead, at least in the effort to
encourage this Congress to have some fiscal responsibility, fiscal
discipline, of not using the Social Security surplus or the H I trust
fund surplus for either tax cuts or for spending on other government
programs. That is good.
Mr. Speaker, for the record, I have introduced legislation that
provides a sequester if we were to use either of these trust fund
surpluses for either of those purposes. So anybody that would like to
join me in cosponsoring H.R. 4694, I welcome their cosponsorship. Let
us pass Mr. Herger's bill. Let us make it unanimous, and let us have
the courage and fiscal discipline we need to save these two important
programs.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to come out here on
press release day and to see what the majority has got in mind for
press releases for the weekend.
As I look at this, this is a bill that reminds me of an automobile. I
remember there was an automobile called the Pinto, and it was out there
and it kept exploding and burning and people got in a terrible mess, so
they had a recall.
{time} 1430
Now, this is a recalled bill, because the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger) passed the bill last year to protect social security. By
George, we passed it 414 or whatever it was out of here. Now here we
are back fixing it.
What was the matter with the one we did last year? Was it the fact
that they left out Medicare, and the Vice President said that we ought
to take Medicare off-budget, too, like the President said in his State
of the Union message? Was it those issues that finally lead to, well,
as soon as the Vice President said it, the next thing we know we have
this bill here? It is the history of this bill.
I think, Mr. Speaker, and I am really serious about this, the reason
this is a pretend Congress is because nobody on the gentleman's side
takes this Congress seriously and its procedures when we have a bill
introduced and it never has a hearing, never has a hearing, no
testimony whatsoever, and then suddenly the Committee on Rules meets
all by itself and they pop a bill out that is not even the one that was
introduced into the Congress, so it has had no hearings in the
Committee on the Budget, who is going to have to work with us in the
future.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I have sat there
and watched this process, and this is going to make it even worse
because we are having bills introduced affecting that committee by
members of the Committee on Rules who apparently, I do not know, they
must have had some
[[Page H4711]]
revelation come down from heaven in the dark of the night that this was
the bill.
The Congressional Budget Act prohibits that, specifically prohibits
bills being considered on the floor of the House that have not been
considered in the committee that handles them, the Committee on the
Budget. So they broke the rules of their own Congress. It is like,
well, those are just rules, who cares, right?
In doing so, they do things that make no sense at all, because they
have section 3(b) that says we have to show the social security
surplus, and we have section 5 that says we cannot show it. Now, we
cannot have it both ways. We cannot show it and not show it. So they
did not even take the time last night to even proofread the bill.
This is a travesty and a joke. The other body will consider it the
same.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to quickly respond to the gentleman, again, this legislation was
authored last March 6. I am pleased that the Vice President came out 2
weeks ago and does not want to spend social security-Medicare trust
funds now.
Really, that is what it is all about, are we going to continue, as
the last Congresses have for over 30 years, spending social security
and Medicare trust funds, or are we going to save it just for that?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan), who serves on the Committee on the Budget and has worked on this
issue very diligently.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for all his hard work. He and I have worked on this issue
quite a bit in the last Congress, and the gentleman has worked on this
in prior Congresses. Let us clear this issue up and bring it out of the
process and the mechanistic talk. What we are talking about here is
stopping the raid on social security, stopping the raid on Medicare,
and equipping Congress with the tools to do that.
Does this bill go all the way and save social security and Medicare?
No. We are not suggesting it does.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, as a new Member of
Congress, I dedicated my time this year to trying to change the culture
in Washington. For the last 30 years there has been a culture in
Washington which has basically said this: If we are going to pay our
FICA taxes off of our paycheck for social security and Medicare,
Washington does not care if we pay it for social security and Medicare,
because Washington is going to take it and spend it on other government
programs that have nothing to do with social security and Medicare.
We need to stop those days, Mr. Speaker. We need to stop the days of
raiding social security, of taking money from Medicare and social
security and spending it on programs that have nothing to do with it.
What this bill does is fix the rules in Congress so we do not consider
that kind of legislation.
We have a point of order saying we are not going to consider
legislation if it attempts to raid social security and Medicare. We are
going to make sure that when we analyze our budgets, when we total up
the numbers of the Federal Government's budget, we are not counting the
social security and Medicare trust fund against our deficits or against
our debts. We are saying, honest accounting, stop the raid on the
program.
I have a bill which has some of these provisions in it which stops
the raid on the social security program indefatigably, stops it by law.
This bill changes the culture in Congress, a culture that has occurred
here for 30 years where people would vote for legislation that would
raid social security.
The President gave us a budget 2 years ago that took 38 percent of
social security out of social security and spent it on other government
programs. We are saying no to that.
This Congress, this Committee on the Budget, last year stopped the
raid on social security for the first time in 30 years. We are
following up on that promise. We are following up on that policy by
saying that we are changing the culture in Washington. We are changing
the rules in Congress so when we do legislation here from now on, we
are not going back to those old days of raiding social security and
raiding Medicare. If we pay our FICA taxes off of our paycheck, that
money will go to social security and will go to Medicare, period, end
of story.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Security
and Medicare Safe Deposit Lockbox Act. I want to commend the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger) for his work in introducing the
legislation.
I was proud to join him in sending out Dear Colleagues twice to our
colleagues encouraging them to support this legislation. But I must
say, I am rather disappointed that the gentleman's leadership chose to
change the legislation significantly last night between the time we
wrote the letter encouraging them to support it and what we have before
us today.
Why they did that only the gentleman and they know. That is not a
reason for us not to vote for the legislation today. It is still a step
in the right direction. By creating a firewall around Medicare trust
fund surpluses to protect these revenues for exclusive use in the
Medicare program, this bill will take another step forward in
maintaining fiscal discipline and improving our ability to meet the
fiscal challenges of the future.
For the last several years I have joined with my Blue Dog colleagues
to offer budgets that would truly balance the budget without counting
either Medicare or social security surpluses. As has already been
discussed, recently the Vice President put the issue on the national
agenda by proposing that the newly calculated surpluses be used to take
Medicare off-budget.
I want to congratulate those, now the House leadership, for endorsing
the wisdom of the Blue Dog position and following the Vice President's
lead on the issue, and following the lead of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), although I must say, I wish the gentleman on
this side of the aisle would have seen the wisdom, and more on our side
of the aisle would have seen the wisdom, in voting for our Blue Dog
budget earlier this year in which we would have already had this done.
While congratulating my Republican colleagues for bringing this
legislation to the floor today, I also remind them that this
legislation applies to both spending increases and tax cuts that would
dip into the Medicare surplus. Every Member who votes for this
legislation today and brags about protecting Medicare should keep that
in mind when talking about either large tax cuts or new spending
proposals later this year.
At the moment, the Medicare trust fund is running a surplus. That
story will change drastically in the next decade when the baby boom
generation begins retiring and depends on Medicare for their health
coverage. Rather than consuming current surpluses through large tax
cuts and new government spending, we should use them to prepare for the
challenges Medicare faces. That is what we do with this legislation
today.
I again repeat, I am disappointed the bill before us was changed last
night so it no longer excludes the Medicare trust fund from
calculations of the on-budget surplus, and would allow us to continue
the practice of using the Medicare surplus to inflate surplus totals.
It is not as good a bill as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
introduced or that I cosponsored, but it is still a good bill.
Whether we technically take Medicare off-budget or not, I hope all
Members will honor the spirit of this legislation and not count the
Medicare surplus when talking about the amount of surpluses available
to be divided between tax cuts, increased spending, and debt reduction.
We are headed in the right direction. We are headed in the right
direction by agreeing to save the Medicare trust fund surpluses to pay
down the national debt and protect the long-term solvency of both
social security and Medicare. However, we should go further by walling
off some of the on-budget surpluses beyond social security and Medicare
for debt reduction. Doing so would represent a much stronger commitment
to paying down our $5.7 trillion national debt.
[[Page H4712]]
Saving a portion of the non-social security and Medicare surpluses
for debt reduction would start to make up for the years in which we
borrowed from those surpluses instead of saving them, as we should have
done. In addition, walling off a portion of the on-budget surplus for
debt reduction provides a cushion if budget projections change for the
worse.
We should not kid ourselves that this legislation alone solves the
long-term challenges facing Medicare, but until we can reach agreement
on comprehensive Medicare reforms to put the program on a stronger
financial footing, the next best thing we can do is pay down the debt
by saving the entire Medicare surplus.
I encourage all Members to support this legislation, which is a good
step forward, and continue to move toward further fiscal
responsibility. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger) for his leadership in this endeavor.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), for his longtime support and work on walling off both social
security and Medicare.
Let me just point out again that this does take Medicare off the
table. It would require a special vote in order to spend anything above
that. It does not go quite as far as the gentleman from Texas and I
want to go. Hopefully next year in further Congresses we will do that,
but I do thank the gentleman for his help.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota
(Mr. Thune), and I want to again thank him for his tireless support in
working in this area.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I thank him for his great leadership on this issue.
In fact, the gentleman is such a great leader that the Vice President
has adopted the Herger position for his campaign, which I think speaks
to the power and potency of this issue.
Last year, the Republican Congress did the right thing. We said that
we are going to rope off social security and make sure it does not get
spent for other purposes, because for far too long in this Congress
social security and Medicare surpluses and trust funds have been
Washington's cookie jar to fund all these other programs in government.
We said last year, categorically, this has to stop. The American
people deserve better, our seniors deserve better. We made that
commitment with social security. Unfortunately, the legislation has
been stalled in the Senate, yet we need to move forward to ensure that
we have the same level of protection for Medicare, and that is what
this legislation would do today. Hopefully we can get action on the
social security lockbox as well as the Medicare lockbox.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Federal government dipped into Medicare
by about $21 billion to fund unrelated government spending in other
areas. We do not need bigger government and we do not need to finance
bigger government with social security and Medicare payroll taxes,
taxes that people pay with the expectation that those programs are
going to be there some day for them.
What we need is fiscal responsibility, and to provide more security
for all of Americans' retirement. This bill does just that, and it
provides the basis and foundation upon which we can build the Medicare
reform that the gentleman from Texas was talking about.
Mr. Speaker, my State of South Dakota is a very rural State. It is
not uncommon in South Dakota to have in a hospital 70 percent of the
patient load being Medicare-dependent. When Medicare funding is used to
fund other programs of government, it deprives that important program
of those funds that are necessary to fund the investment in technology
to make sure that grandfathers and grandmothers and parents in rural
areas have access to critical hospitals and to the other health care
requirements that they have to deal with. So it is important that this
funding in the Medicare trust fund be protected for just that purpose.
I signed onto this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it is the right
thing to do for America's seniors and it is the right thing to do for
America's taxpayers. We need to continue to be guardians of these trust
funds. Before last year, they were raided for some 40 years. It is time
that we stop the raid on these trust funds and ensure that we are doing
everything that we can to end the waste, fraud, and abuse in
government, and to put the additional safeguards in place to ensure
that social security and Medicare dollars are not stolen to pay the
other government bills that are wrapped up by this Washington
government, but that they are locked away and put to the use for which
they were intended. That is to provide health care for our parents, our
grandparents, and hopefully some day for our children.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill walls off the surplus in the Medicare Part A
trust fund. It says in effect that the surplus in the President's
budget and in the congressional budget resolution should be at least as
large every year as the Medicare Part A surplus. In addition, of
course, tax cuts and spending increases could not reach that target.
The idea of taking the Part A trust fund off the table, not off the
budget, is a small step forward, because it means that a slightly
higher share of the projected surpluses over the next 10 years are
going to be devoted to paying down publicly-held debt. That is good for
social security, that is good for Medicare, that is good for the
economy. That is why I voted yes.
But this is just a small step, a token step, since preserving the
Medicare surplus does not really extend Medicare solvency for one day.
Our long-term fiscal situation implies that over the course of the next
10 years, while we are generating these on-budget surpluses, we should
be devoting a significant share of them to Medicare solvency, to debt
reduction, and to social security solvency for the long run.
{time} 1445
That is why I said earlier on the previous bill that we ought to have
a piece of legislation here which simply says we resolve that now, and
into the future; we will set aside some fixed percentage of our own
budget surplus every year for debt reduction or for contribution to
these trust funds.
The Clinton administration and our congressional Democratic budget
resolution devoted more than 40 percent of the projected on-budget
surplus to debt reduction; and we took $300 billion out of the general
fund, that is out of the on-budget surplus, and put it in the Medicare
trust fund in order to extend the solvency of the Medicare program into
and past 2020. The Blue Dog budget, which was offered as an
alternative, committed 50 percent of the projected on-budget surplus to
debt reduction.
But the Republican plan devoted essentially none of the surplus to
debt reduction and took none of it, none of it, and put it into
Medicare where it would ensure, at least extend the solvency of the
program.
Unlike the proposal made the other day by Vice-President Gore, as I
have noted, this bill fails to take the Medicare trust fund off budget.
It simply takes it off the table or out of the calculation. In
addition, it has something in it that I would call a trap door. In
fact, it was in the Social Security legislation, too. Specifically, any
legislation that identifies itself as Social Security reform or
Medicare reform, it only has to recite those magic words, ``is
automatically exempt without further proof from the provisions of this
lockbox.''
This is very much like the emergency spending exemption that we have
got in current law. Any legislation that is designated an emergency by
somebody, no matter how routine, is exempt from the spending caps. The
same can happen with Medicare reform and Social Security reform.
The bill itself says in black letters, all one has got to do is
recite ``this bill is for Medicare reform, this bill is for Social
Security reform,'' and, bang, these provisions no longer apply to one.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the majority were really serious about using
projected surpluses to reduce debt and save and protect Medicare and
Social Security, then I think they would take this bill, this occasion,
to repeal section 213 of the budget resolution which they passed weeks
ago. In just a few weeks, the Congressional Budget Office
[[Page H4713]]
is going to increase its estimate of the projected on-budget surpluses
by $800 billion, a trillion dollars, maybe $1.2 trillion, maybe more.
Section 213 of their budget resolution will allow the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget to commit, give, devote as much as 100 percent
of that increase in the projected surplus to the Committee on Ways and
Means for additional tax cuts instead of debt reduction, instead of
saving Social Security, instead of protecting Medicare, use 100 percent
of it for tax reduction.
If my colleagues were serious about debt reduction, serious about
protecting Medicare and Social Security, surely, surely we would say
some of these additional surpluses will be retained, set aside, and
protected for these essential programs and this essential purpose, and
that is debt reduction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just briefly responding to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who mentioned this is at least a small step, I
really believe this is a major step. It is the first step, because it
is saying that, for the first time in more than 40 years, we are not
going to do as previous Congresses have done, the party of the
gentleman from South Carolina did, for all the years it controlled this
House, in that they spent it all. They counted it, included it as part
of the ongoing budget and spent it.
What we are saying is that this money is being removed from the
table. We are not going to spend it. We are dedicating it as the first
step to be used to saving and preserving and improving Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs.
Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, as a relative newcomer on the block in
Washington, people ask me all the time in my district if it seems
different to be in Congress, if Washington is different, if it is
different than our State legislatures, if it is different than our
local councils. I always tell them it is astoundingly different; that,
in fact, there is a culture of spending in Washington that is really
unmatched anyplace else around this country.
As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, it is an everyday
take-your-breath-away experience as I see one amendment after another
to spend millions, hundreds of millions, billions more dollars.
In fact, last week, there was an all-day markup that, that day alone,
Members made proposals to raise spending $10 billion. The culture that
there is no limit to the dollars, that there is no pain, that there is
no working family at the other end of those tax dollars that paid that
money in, in tax dollars and took it out of what they could spend for
their children has been just an amazing culture for me to behold.
I am proud to be part of a Congress that is trying to change that
culture that has been with us for 40 years, that one could spend every
dollar one could take, and that one could spend it when it is meant for
future obligations in what feels good today or programs that we have
today or new ideas that people have, that there is no limit.
So we are maybe making beginning steps, but they are powerfully
important. One of them is to take the Medicare dollars off the table
from what we consider as surplus. For years, we have used Medicare
dollars to fund new programs and programs that exist that we want to
put more dollars into.
What we have done, in essence, is to put an IOU in the cookie jar and
said, someday, when Medicare needs this money, they can take it out.
But of course when Medicare opens the cookie jar, there are no assets
there to pay the bills. We are not going to be able to sell off our
assets, our airports, our schools, our roads in order to recoup this
money for Medicare.
So this bill today, it is for our fathers and our grandparents. It is
for those who put the money in for so many years when it was not
respected for the purpose it was expected to be spent for. But it is
also for our children, our children who want the best for their
grandparents and for their parents who want to know that they can live
up to their responsibilities and who we owe them the possibility of a
program that is solvent enough that they can assume their
responsibilities.
I am lucky; I have both of my parents who are 78 who, for years,
contributed to this country and made their contribution. Let us
recognize that as we pass this bill today.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I
have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the colleagues that have come to the
floor today to support this incredibly important first step toward
protecting Medicare surpluses. Over the next 5 years, an estimated $126
billion more will be paid into the Medicare trust fund by taxpayers
than is currently being taken out for Medicare expenses.
Our seniors deserve to know that these Medicare surplus dollars are
not being spent on unrelated programs. The Medicare lock box prohibits
legislation that spends the Medicare surplus from being considered and
separates Medicare funds from future budget projections.
Last year, we locked away the Social Security surplus. Today we have
the opportunity to take it one step further and protect our seniors'
Medicare surpluses.
I urge my colleagues to support this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill because I think
basically we should segregate the part A trust fund. But I am going to
plead the abuse of process before acceding to the bill, because this is
not the way to make important law.
As I said earlier, this bill was not drafted, to the best of my
knowledge, until last night. We did not see it this morning until 10
o'clock or 11 o'clock. It was not introduced or referred to the
Committee on the Budget. It did not come through the Committee on
Rules. The Committee on the Budget has jurisdiction, but we have held
no hearings on it. We have taken no testimony.
Now the debate is limited to 40 minutes, and there are no amendments
in order. That is too bad. The House ought to be able to come out here
and work its will on a piece of legislation this important. If we were
allowed to, we could have corrected some of the flaws in the bill. I
think if we put it to the House as a whole, do we want Medicare taken
cleanly off budget, it would be an overwhelming yes. We still do not
know why that compromise was made.
Secondly, there are glitches in this bill that honest, open debate,
an amendment, could, number one, ferret out and, number two, correct.
For example, as I pointed out, section 3(b) adds a new requirement to
congressional budget resolutions. It requires the resolution to show
the receipts and outlays and surplus of the Social Security Trust Fund.
Then section 5 of the same bill flat prohibits any agent or
instrumentality of the Federal Government from including the Social
Security surplus in any document that shows the Federal surplus or
deficit. Any instrumentality. What if we were to do that in a
newsletter? Are we an instrumentality of the Government? This is a kind
of drafting error that we could wash out of the bill if we had an
opportunity to do; but we do not, not on the House floor today.
This bill requires that Medicare part A be set aside, but it does not
require the congressional budget resolution specify exactly how much is
being set aside. That seems to me elementary. Why would it not provide
that this is the part A trust fund, this is the amount we expect, and
we are setting it aside, taking it off the table, out of calculation.
So the House has not had an opportunity to do its will, and we are
passing a bill that is a lot weaker than it could be if we had an
opportunity to make it better.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H4714]]
Mr. Speaker, this is not a complicated bill. It is very simple. It is
basically saying that, for the first time in more than 40 years, that
we are not going to spend the surplus, whatever that surplus is. That
is, in Medicare and Social Security, we are not going to spend it. Very
simply, whatever it is, we are not going to spend. It brings about a
point of order to ensure that we do not.
Look how far we have come. It was only a few years ago that we were
looking at deficits of $200 billion and $300 billion, and that did not
even include the surplus of Social Security or Medicare. Then a few
years ago, we were reporting $80 billion, $90 billion, $100 billion
surpluses; but that did include, I am afraid, Medicare and Social
Security.
But guess what, those surpluses were only half true. Every penny of
those surplus dollars were really Social Security dollars. So what did
we do? We passed a Social Security lock box last year that said that we
would not spend any of the surplus of Social Security, and that passed.
Now Congress and the President speak of budget surpluses without Social
Security being included in it. This amount is estimated to be $40
billion this year.
Now we are raising the bar one notch higher. We are saying that we
are now going to stop raiding Medicare, just as we stopped raiding
Social Security last year. What we are doing is ensuring that Social
Security recipients deserve to know that their Medicare dollars are not
being spent on anything else except Medicare.
This bill is a win-win. It is a win for fiscal discipline. It is a
win for Medicare. Most importantly, it is a win for our seniors.
I urge all my colleagues to support this Medicare and Social Security
lock box.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that most of
today's American families can no longer live comfortably on one sole
income, in fact, most households depend on at least two incomes, and as
if that wasn't enough, today's American employees average more hours at
work than employees from other nations.
It is crystal clear that Americans work hard for their paychecks,
which is why it is disheartening to know that when a significant
percentage of their hard earned money is involuntarily removed for a
Medicare fund, our government will use it as a slush fund to operate
completely unrelated programs from which our seniors will never
benefit.
Our nation's population is rapidly aging and in response to this,
Congress must make the protection of Medicare dollars a high priority
in order to deliver healthcare for seniors.
Our seniors deserve the health care benefits they were promised.
Our seniors need to know that they will receive adequate healthcare
when they need it most.
They need not be terrified, as many are, about whether their doctor
visits, treatments and even prescriptions will be covered.
Today, the House of Representatives hopes to put seniors' worries at
ease as we will vote on H.R. 3859, the Social Security and Medicare
Safe Deposit Box Act.
I thank my colleague, Congressman Wally Herger for creating this
legislation which will reserve Medicare surplus dollars only for
responsible debt reduction or spending on the Medicare program.
Soon after today's vote, seniors will no longer need to fear that the
money set aside for their Medicare and well being will be used as a big
government slush fund.
Similarly to the Social Security lock box which passed by a vote of
417-2 last year, this Medicare lock box is the right thing to do; the
responsible thing to do.
Today's vote is the first step in ensuring our nation's seniors that
they will no longer need to fear about whether they will be taken care
of in their old age.
Today, Congress will make history because today we begin the
guarantee of security in healthcare for our senior citizens.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3859,
the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 2000, and urge
my colleagues to join in support of this bill.
H.R. 3859 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect the
net surplus of the Medicare Part A or Social Security trust funds by
moving them ``off budget.'' Specifically, they may not be counted as
part of the overall federal surplus by either the President or the
Congress. The bill further amends the Budget Act of 1974 to allow a
point of order to protect Social Security surpluses in both the House
and Senate from legislation whose enactment would either cause or
increase an on-budget deficit for a fiscal year, with the exception of
Social Security reform legislation.
Moreover, H.R. 3859 also makes it out of order for either chamber to
consider any measure whose enactment would cause the on-budget surplus
for a fiscal year to be less than the projected surplus of the federal
hospital insurance trust fund for that fiscal year. This provision
makes an exception for Medicare reform legislation.
Finally, H.R. 3859 requires that any statement or official estimate
issued by the Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management
and Budget must exclude any surplus in the Social Security trust fund
when issuing totals of the surplus or deficit of the United States
Government. The legislation applies to fiscal year 2001 and future
years.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress has made significant strides in the past
three years with regards to ending the practice of raiding the Social
Security Trust Fund to mask the true size of the Federal outlays. This
legislation will ensure that our practice of fiscal restraint will
continue.
By approving this bill, the House will demonstrate to the American
people its commitment to protecting the long term solvency of both the
Social Security and Medicare systems. For that reason, I urge my
colleagues to lend it their strong support.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3859, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________