Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 20 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H268-H276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX ACT OF 2001

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2) to establish a procedure to safeguard the combined
surpluses of the Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance trust
funds, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2

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 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and strong economic
growth have ended decades of deficit spending;
(2) the Government is able to meet its current obligations
without using the social security and medicare surpluses;
(3) fiscal pressures will mount as an aging population
increases the Government's obligations to provide retirement
income and health services;
(4) social security and medicare hospital insurance
surpluses should be used to reduce the debt held by the
public until legislation is enacted that reforms social
security and medicare;
(5) preserving the social security and medicare hospital
insurance surpluses would restore confidence in the long-term
financial integrity of social security and medicare; and
(6) strengthening the Government's fiscal position through
debt reduction would increase national savings, promote
economic growth, and reduce its interest payments.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) prevent the surpluses of the social security and
medicare hospital insurance trust funds from being used for
any purpose other than providing retirement and health
security; and
(2) use such surpluses to pay down the national debt until
such time as medicare and social security reform legislation
is enacted.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.

(a) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:

``lock-box for social security and hospital insurance surpluses

``Sec. 316. (a) Lock-box for Social Security and Hospital
Insurance Surpluses.--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--
``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent
resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that would set forth a surplus for
any fiscal year that is less than the surplus of the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
``(B) Exception.--(i) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
the extent that a violation of such subparagraph would result
from an assumption in the resolution, amendment, or
conference report, as applicable, of an increase in outlays
or a decrease in revenue relative to the baseline underlying
that resolution for social security reform legislation or
medicare reform legislation for any such fiscal year.
``(ii) If a concurrent resolution on the budget, or an
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, would be in
violation of subparagraph (A) because of an assumption of an
increase in outlays or a decrease in revenue relative to the
baseline underlying that resolution for social security
reform legislation or medicare reform legislation for any
such fiscal year, then that resolution shall include a
statement identifying any such increase in outlays or
decrease in revenue.
``(2) Spending and tax legislation.--
``(A) In general.--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--
``(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution, as
reported;
``(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the
form recommended in that conference report,
would cause the surplus for any fiscal year covered by the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget
to be less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
social security reform legislation or medicare reform
legislation.''.
``(b) Enforcement.--
``(1) Budgetary levels with respect to concurrent
resolutions on the budget.--For purposes of enforcing any
point of order under subsection (a)(1), the surplus for any
fiscal year shall be--
``(A) the levels set forth in the later of the concurrent
resolution on the budget, as reported, or in the conference
report on the concurrent resolution on the budget; and
``(B) adjusted to the maximum extent allowable under all
procedures that allow budgetary aggregates to be adjusted for
legislation that would cause a decrease in the surplus for
any fiscal year covered by the concurrent resolution on the
budget (other than procedures described in paragraph
(2)(A)(ii)).
``(2) Current levels with respect to spending and tax
legislation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of enforcing subsection
(a)(2), the current levels of the surplus for any fiscal year
shall be--
``(i) calculated using the following assumptions--

``(I) direct spending and revenue levels at the baseline
levels underlying the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget; and
``(II) for the budget year, discretionary spending levels
at current law levels and, for outyears, discretionary
spending levels at the baseline levels underlying the most
recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget; and

``(ii) adjusted for changes in the surplus levels set forth
in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to procedures in such resolution that
authorize adjustments in budgetary aggregates for updated
economic and technical assumptions in the mid-session report
of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Such revisions shall be included in the first current level
report on the congressional budget submitted for publication
in the Congressional Record after the release of such mid-
session report.
``(B) Budgetary treatment.--Outlays (or receipts) for any
fiscal year resulting from social security or medicare reform
legislation in excess of the amount of outlays (or less than
the amount of receipts) for that fiscal year set forth in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget
or the section 302(a) allocation for such legislation, as
applicable, shall not be taken into account for purposes of
enforcing any point of order under subsection (a)(2).
``(3) Disclosure of hi Surplus.--For purposes of enforcing
any point of order under subsection (a), the surplus of the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for a fiscal year shall
be the levels set forth in the later of the report
accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget (or, in
the absence of such a report, placed in the Congressional
Record prior to the consideration of such resolution) or in
the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying such
resolution.
``(c) Additional Content of Reports Accompanying Budget
Resolutions and of Joint Explanatory Statements.--The report
accompanying any concurrent resolution on the budget and the
joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference
report on each such resolution shall include the levels of
the surplus in the budget for each fiscal year set forth in
such resolution and of the surplus or deficit in the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, calculated using the
assumptions set forth in subsection (b)(2)(A).
``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) The term `medicare reform legislation' means a bill
or a joint resolution to save Medicare that includes a
provision stating the following: `For purposes of section
316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this Act
constitutes medicare reform legislation.'
``(2) The term `social security reform legislation' means a
bill or a joint resolution to save social security that
includes a provision stating the following: `For purposes of
section 316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
Act constitutes social security reform legislation.'
``(e) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.

[[Page H269]]

``(f) Effective Date.--This section shall cease to have
any force or effect upon the enactment of social security
reform legislation and medicare reform legislation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 316
in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is
amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 316. Lock-box for social security and hospital insurance
surpluses.''.

SEC. 4. PRESIDENTS' BUDGET.

(a) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
If the budget of the United States Government submitted by
the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, recommends an on-budget surplus for any fiscal
year that is less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year, then it shall
include a detailed proposal for social security reform
legislation or medicare reform legislation.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall cease to have any
force or effect upon the enactment of social security reform
legislation and medicare reform legislation as defined by
section 316(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in 1999, the Republican Congress led the effort to stop
the 30-year raid on the Social Security trust fund. Since then,
Republicans have made retirement security a top priority by committing
to protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus.
The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001 continues this
effort by once again protecting every cent of the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses.
Under this legislation, we will be honest with the American public
and exercise fiscal discipline by locking away all the surpluses from
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
This bill creates a point of order against consideration of any bill,
amendment, conference report, or budget resolution that spends any of
the Social Security or Part A surpluses.
According to the most recent estimates by the Congressional Budget
Office, known as the CBO, $2.5 trillion of the $5.6 trillion total
surplus over the next 10 years can be attributed to the Social Security
trust fund. The Medicare Part A surplus is expected to total $392
billion.
This means that senior citizens and all Americans can count on the
fact that the total of these two surpluses, $2.88 trillion over 10
years, will be set aside and will be available to them through these
crucial programs.
Under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger),
the House overwhelmingly passed a similar Social Security Medicare
Lockbox bill last year by a vote of 420-2. Unfortunately, Senate
Democrats eventually stalled the bill and we did not achieve consensus.
However, the importance of this issue has not gone unnoticed by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
In addition to the overwhelming support it received from this House,
we also witnessed former Vice President Al Gore's attempts to adopt
this issue on his own during the Presidential campaign. Though we are
all familiar with the television parities of the campaign season
regarding the Lockbox legislation, we must recognize that this is no
laughing matter. In fact, it is downright serious.
The irresponsible spending practices of the past must not be allowed
to happen again. Senior citizens now and beneficiaries in the future
who will depend upon these crucial programs must have assurance and
guarantee that the surpluses from the Social Security and Medicare
trust funds will be used only toward the strengthening and solvency of
these programs.
I am proud of this Republican Congress for its efforts to preserve,
protect and modernize Social Security and Medicare. This legislation is
simply another step in the long line of efforts to restore fiscal
stability to our Nation's retirement systems.
I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
opposed to the motion to suspend the rules?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XV, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will control 20 minutes.

{time} 1445

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent after speaking to
yield 15 minutes of the 20 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) will control 15 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
rise in opposition to this bill. I recognize that I rise in opposition
to almost every other Member of this House in both parties. But I think
it is time to speak out against this bill and against the nonsense of
the lockbox concept which for political reasons has been embraced by
Members of both parties at all levels.
It is not true that for the last 30 years we have raided the Social
Security system. The fact is the Social Security system when it has a
surplus must invest the money in something. The law has always said
that it can invest it only in the safest possible investment, namely,
government securities. When you invest money in government securities,
you are lending money to the government. You float bonds, you buy
securities, you lend money to the government.
When you lend money to the government, what the government does with
that money has no bearing on the security of the Social Security trust
fund. If the government spends that money on housing or education or
prescription drugs for Medicare or bombers or submarines, what is in
the Social Security trust fund is an IOU for that amount of money.
If the government spends that money to pay down the national debt,
what is in the trust fund of the Social Security system? The same IOU
for that amount of money. Whether it is wisest and most prudent to
spend a given amount of money borrowed by the government from the
Social Security system on bombers or missiles or education or housing
or paying down the debt is a budget question and a policy question. But
it has nothing to do with Social Security.
To say that if you use the proceeds that you have borrowed from the
Social Security system for anything other than paying down debt, you
are stealing that money from the Social Security system, makes exactly
as much sense as saying that your bank is stealing your money when it
lends it out as a mortgage loan or a car loan.
The only thing you care about with respect to the money you put in
your bank is that the bank has sufficient money to pay you your
interest on time and your principal when due. And the only thing the
Social Security trust fund cares about when it lends the government
money is that the government has sufficient funds to pay the interest
on time and to pay back the bond, the security, when it comes due in 10
or 20 years or whenever it may be. Period.
To say that we must not use the proceeds of borrowing from Social
Security and paying it back with interest for anything other than
paying down the debt, well, it is a good excuse on the part of some why
we cannot have government spending for things that otherwise the people
of this country and the people of this Congress might want to spend it
on, like prescription drugs or housing or health or education or
increasing the defense budget or whatever. And it is a good excuse on
the part of others why the tax cut cannot be as big as otherwise other
people

[[Page H270]]

might want it to be. But it makes no economic sense.
I oppose this bill because although it may make sense this year and
maybe next year and maybe the year after to take the entire surplus of
the Social Security system and use it for paying down debt because the
national debt of the United States is too big, maybe that is the best
use of that money this year and next year, it makes no sense to tie the
hands of future Congresses and say that always in the future, in all
circumstances, the best economic choice for the United States, the best
policy choice, the best budget choice is to use that money only for
paying down debt.
As I said before, what you do with money that the government borrows
from Social Security before it pays it back with interest is a budget
and policy question, but it has nothing to do with the safety of the
Social Security system. The only thing that bears on that question is
does the government have the money to pay it back on time, and then you
get into the questions of economic growth and the health of the economy
and so forth. To generate better economic growth, at one time it might
be that you should pay down debt and another time it might be that you
should invest in public works or whatever. We should not tie the hands
of future Congresses.
I felt impelled to start raising this today because the political
imperative to fool the American people on this subject which both
parties have been subject to the last couple of years ought to start
coming to an end.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. I just want to point one thing out. The lockbox is released
as soon as the Congress saves Social Security. So to say that this is
going to bind the hands or tie the hands of future Congresses
presupposes that we will not save Social Security, and I will tell the
gentleman that with some bipartisan support we will.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, the bill by its terms says that the
lockbox ends whenever Congress includes in a bill the words ``we are
saving Social Security,'' whether we have or not.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced less than a week ago. The House
has held no hearings or committee markups. There has been no chance to
discuss or consider alternatives. Bringing up the bill this way under
suspension of the rules further limits the opportunity for debate and
amendment. Even though the bill enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support,
that is no reason to shortcut the process, especially when it deals
with subjects as serious as Social Security and Medicare.
A group of Democratic Members, led by the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Ross) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) drafted an
alternative lockbox bill. Their bill supports the same goals as H.R. 2
but includes even stronger language to ensure the safety of Medicare
and Social Security. By bringing up the bill under suspension of the
rules, this substitute cannot be offered. Furthermore, debate is
limited to only 20 minutes, not the usual hour minimum for most
important bills.
H.R. 2 has worthy aims, which is the protection of Social Security
and Medicare. However, it does not take Medicare off-budget which would
give Medicare the same protection as Social Security. Moreover, it
contains a large loophole in the protection it offers against future
congressional actions.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to protect Social Security and
Medicare for future generations. As this bill continues through the
congressional process, I hope there will be more of a chance to shape
the bill to ensure it is the very best that we can do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Marysville, California (Mr. Herger), the cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to reiterate
this body's clear and unmistakable commitment to protecting 100 percent
of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses. Before this
body considers tax relief, before we consider spending priorities, and
before we engage in floor debate on even a single issue dealing with
the Federal budget, we are here to put the protection of Social
Security and Medicare first. Since the beginning of the Social Security
programs, over $850 billion in Social Security and Medicare trust fund
surpluses have been raided and spent on unrelated areas. Last year,
House Democrats and Republicans joined together overwhelmingly to pass
a lockbox very similar to the one we are considering today.
Unfortunately, it was blocked from consideration by the Democrats in
the other body. While we have come a long way in protecting the Social
Security trust funds, protection of the trust fund surpluses is still
not law. H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001,
amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to create a point of order
against any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference
report if the enactment of such legislation would result in a raid of
the Social Security or Medicare trust fund surpluses.
This measure ensures that the trust fund surpluses can only be spent
on providing retirement and health security, such as reforming Medicare
to provide a prescription drug benefit or reforming Social Security to
provide more options to younger taxpayers. Furthermore, as a result of
not spending the trust fund surpluses, the public debt will be paid
down by $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years. Our seniors deserve to
know that Congress is putting their retirement and health security
first.
Among many others, this measure is supported by the United Seniors
Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Americans for Tax
Reform. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this
critical measure.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Matsui).
Mr. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this month we are going to have Girl Scout cookie week
because you may have read in The Washington Post that Girl Scouts will
be selling cookies all over the United States, particularly in
Washington. For some reason Washingtonians like cookies. This proposal,
the lockbox proposal, has about as much weight to save Social Security
as if we would have declared this month the month in which we would
honor Girl Scouts for selling cookies.
It has no relevance at all. If you want to reduce the debt, just do
not spend the money. In fact, even if you try to spend the money, one
way to overcome it is if in fact you just waive points of order. The
real issue, and an issue that my Republican colleagues unfortunately
refuse to face is the $1.6 trillion tax cut that will probably be
coming up in the next month or so. That is the real rub. That is what
will endanger Social Security and Medicare in the long run.
The fact of the matter is the President is now talking about
retroactively applying it. That will make the $1.6 trillion debt $2
trillion. Plus the loss of interest, we are probably talking about $2.5
trillion that will be reducing taxes over the next decade. The surplus
will not sustain that. The fact of the matter is as we pay down the
debt with the Social Security surplus, in the next 10 years we are
going to have to increase the debt in order to pay the Social Security
benefits that will not be available because of reductions, because the
payroll tax will not match it. And as a result of that, the debt
reduction in all of this is just temporary. If you are 65 years and
younger, your Social Security benefits will be in jeopardy if in fact
this tax bill is passed. Because anybody 65 and younger will probably
be facing a situation in the next 10 years in which we are going to
have to make a decision to increase payroll taxes, reduce Social
Security benefits, or increase the national debt.
The reality is that this tax cut will be the key. It is not this
resolution that has no weight, no force, and is somewhat irrelevant.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a brand new Member of this
body.
Mr. SCHROCK. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a lead sponsor of this
legislation. Today

[[Page H271]]

Congress has the ability to state our clear and unmistakable commitment
to protect 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund
surpluses. Social Security and Medicare represents a sacred compact
between the people and their government.
During my campaign for Congress, I listened carefully to constituents
throughout my district. They told me that they wanted to make sure that
when they retired, their Social Security would be there. They also
wanted Congress to ensure that Medicare was solvent and would be there
to help cover their medical expenses. By placing surplus trust fund
moneys in a budgetary lockbox, we can pledge to all of our constituents
that these funds will be available for current and future generations
and pay down the national debt.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Social Security
surplus will be $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years and the Medicare
hospital insurance surplus will total $392 billion. We must lock away
this money from congressional appropriators and special interest groups
and keep our promise to our seniors and all Americans. We have a duty
to protect the money our constituents have paid into Social Security
and Medicare.
If you oppose raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust fund and
support securing these funds for current and future generations, then
please support H.R. 2.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).
Mr. McNULTY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. In the year 1980, the national debt was
less than $1 trillion. Today it is $5.7 trillion, six times as much. I
do not want to go back to the days of deficit spending. Let us look at
the figures we are talking about in the budget proposal this year. We
are estimating we will have a $5.6 trillion surplus in the next 10
years. I do not trust 1-year projections, let alone 10-year
projections, but let us assume that that is correct. Today we are going
to vote to subtract from that the Social Security and Medicare trust
fund moneys of $2.9 trillion. In other words, we are going to say to
the American people, ``We are going to stop stealing the money'' which
we did for many, many years.

{time} 1500

I think that bill will get almost unanimous support. So we are making
a pledge there. That gets us down to $2.7 trillion. Then we start
talking about this tax cut. I have only heard one person say that we
will be able to stick to the $1.6 trillion. Almost everyone says it is
going to cost a lot more than that. Just take the President's figure,
and only subtracting $1.6 trillion, no interest, no implementation
costs, nothing else, no retroactivity, and we get down to $1.1 trillion
for the next 10 years to do everything.
There are people running around this town saying we are going to
eliminate the national debt in 10 years. We are not even going to
eliminate one-fifth of the national debt in the next 10 years. If you
took the entire balance, and these are the administration figures, if
you took the entire balance and applied it to the national debt, you
would only be able to pay off one-fifth of the national debt, and there
would be nothing left for any spending, for the President's programs or
ours.
For the sake of our children and grandchildren, let us reduce the
size of this tax cut and stay away from the days of deficit spending.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is always wonderful when the opposition
agrees with you. I appreciate that support today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure and
urge my colleagues to join supporting it. I commend the gentleman from
Texas for bringing the measure to the floor at this time.
Mr. Speaker, this measure amends the 1974 Congressional Budget Act by
establishing a lockbox mechanism to make certain that the surpluses in
Social Security and Medicare part A, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund, from being spent on additional government programs and tax cuts.
One of the key components of this legislation is to provide for a
point of order to protect Social Security and Medicare part A surpluses
in the House and in the Senate against any resolution, bill, motion,
joint resolution, conference report or amendment whose enactment would
cause an on-budget surplus to be less than the surplus of the Medicare
part A surplus for the same given year.
The legislation makes it out of order in both the House and Senate to
consider any budget resolution, bill, joint resolution, conference
report or amendment whose enactment would cause an on-budget surplus
for any fiscal year to be less than the project surplus of the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Congress has proclaimed its desire to
protect Social Security for future generations, without following
through with any actions to match the proclamations of support. This
legislation will provide new budget procedures and parliamentary
requirements to make certain that the promises to safeguard Social
Security and Medicare will be kept.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2 is a good start, but I also
do not believe that it goes far enough. I believe we all agree on the
need for a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare. This bill has too
many loopholes, too many keys, if you will, that can open the lockbox.
There is a lot of talk these days about surpluses, a lot of talk
these days about the need for tax cuts. I support a tax cut for working
families. There is not much talk, unfortunately, these days, about the
debt, some $5 trillion.
When we talk about the surplus, let us not take Social Security and
Medicare into account. Let us take it off the table.
Yesterday I was in southeast Arkansas, the Delta region, one of the
poorest regions in the country. People young and old were telling me
that they want the politicians to keep their hands off of Social
Security and Medicare.
This is a personal issue with me. You see, my grandfather died when I
was a year old. My grandmother first learned how to drive a car, she
got her GED, and then she went to nursing school. She is 89 now. She is
blind, and she lives from Social Security check to Social Security
check.
That is why I, along with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), have
offered an alternative, a meaningful lockbox initiative that protects
both the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. It is H.R. 560. It has
no loopholes; it has no keys to unlock the box. That is why it is
supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare, the Nation's second largest senior advocacy group.
If you truly want to protect Social Security and Medicare, then take
the time to compare H.R. 2 with H.R. 560. If you do that, then I am
convinced we will join together, like we are here today, and do the
right thing by my grandmother and by seniors all across America.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support,
unconditional support, for H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare
Lock-Box Act of 2001.
Today Social Security protects 45 million Americans and provides one
out of three seniors with their primary source of retirement income.
According to the Social Security Administration, 39 percent of all
seniors are lifted out of poverty because of their Social Security
benefits. Clearly Social Security is one of the most successful and
most important Federal programs ever created that we have today.
But Social Security is in trouble. In less than 15 years Social
Security will spend more than it receives in taxes. By the year 2037,
the trust funds will be absolutely empty; and the program will only pay
less than three-fourths of its promised benefits. One of our most
important priorities this year is to put

[[Page H272]]

Social Security on sound financial footing so it can continue to pay
full benefits far into the future and full benefits without increasing
taxes to American workers.
H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act, is the first
critical step towards saving Social Security for all time. This
legislation prevents Congress from using the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses to cut taxes or increase spending. The lockbox
ensures that 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and 100 percent
of the Medicare surplus are used to reduce the debt, until we enact
legislation to save Social Security and Medicare.
Let me repeat: the full amount will go to pay down the debt until
such time as a portion of that is used to save Social Security and
Medicare.
The lockbox is important for three reasons: first, it ensures that we
have the money to pay for Social Security and Medicare reform once
reform plans are enacted; second, it promotes fiscal discipline by
forcing the Congress to balance the budget, without relying on Social
Security or Medicare surpluses; finally, the lockbox reduces our
national debt, resulting in higher national savings, faster economic
growth, and lower interest costs for our government.
I encourage all Members to show their commitment to Social Security
and Medicare by supporting this most important act and then continue to
work with us on the majority side to save Social Security for all time.
There have been a number of speeches that I have heard, mainly coming
from the other side, one from my ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Social Security, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), likening
this somehow to Girl Scout cookies.
This is very important legislation. Does this save Social Security
for all time? Absolutely not. It is just a first step. It keeps us from
spending the surplus, so it will be there for us to work together on,
whenever we can move the minority side to come aboard with us and work
to save Social Security for all time.
Is it irrelevant? Of course, it is not irrelevant. It is very
relevant, because how are we going to save Social Security if we are
giving the surplus away in tax cuts or in new spending programs? It
locks it away.
This is the right thing to do. This is the right time to do it. This
is important legislation, but it is only a first step. I would
encourage all Members to come aboard with us and to vote this most
important first step towards Social Security reform. It would be a
tragedy not to pass this bill, and not to pass it by an overwhelming
vote of well over two-thirds, the amount necessary in order to pass
this under suspension.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would commend the majority's proposal, but
for one reservation that I have. I am concerned that H.R. 2 contains a
giant loophole that would allow the Medicare and Social Security
surpluses to be spent for any purpose, so long as it is labeled
``reform.'' For the record, I want to be clear the term ``reform'' does
not and should not include new programs, such as providing a
prescription drug benefit under Medicare or changing Social Security to
provide for private accounts.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and I have introduced
legislation that would correct this problem by entirely preventing the
use of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, without exception,
except for their intended purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove from the Speaker's
desk H.R. 560, legislation that would correct the problems of the bill
and the loophole in the bill before us today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Kansas?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask is if we have a copy of this
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's guidelines, the Chair is
not able to entertain the gentleman's request to consider the bill
without appropriate clearance.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, retirement security is one of the most
important challenges that we in Congress are going to face in the years
to come. The amount of benefits provided to seniors in the not-too-
distant future is going to exceed the amount of payroll taxes taken in.
One of the reasons for that is because Americans are having smaller and
smaller families, Americans are living longer and longer, and, under
that scenario, protecting Social Security becomes absolutely essential.
That is why I cosponsored H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare
Lock-Box Act of 2001.
Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is establish a firewall to protect
100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Under this
bill, the trust funds will not be spent on other government programs.
I think all of us know that for some 30 years or so money was
borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund. Basically over the last
few years, if you will recall, President Clinton said, ``Let's protect
60 percent of the funds in the trust fund.'' The Republicans in the
House said, ``No, let's protect 100 percent.''
For the last few years, that is what we have done. We have set aside
100 percent of those excess FICA taxes that have gone into Social
Security. But setting it aside for the here and now is not enough. We
need legislation for the long-term, like this bill, to ensure that we
put up that firewall so that it is not borrowed again in the future.
Now, in my view, Americans deserve to know that every penny taken out
of their paychecks for Social Security and for Medicare will be used to
pay for benefits. This legislation will help ensure that.
Furthermore, under this bill the Social Security and Medicare
surpluses will be used to pay down the public debt until Social
Security and Medicare reform is enacted. This will help lower the
burden of debt placed on our children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, those who introduced H.R. 2 indeed had a good intent. I
think all of us want to find a way to lock in the security for both
Social Security as well as for Medicare. However, that bill is more
illusionary than real, particularly when you compare it with H.R. 560,
which the Democrats put in. It does not allow for the loophole.
This bill, therefore, is illusionary. Although well-intended, it does
allow for you to spend the money on other things called ``reform.''
But, more pressing, is to consider that if you took that off of
lockbox, took it off the budget, you are assuming you can still spend
that, so you say, to the contrary, that you do not want to spend it for
tax cuts.

{time} 1515

Take $1.6 trillion away from that, that suggestion, and we could not
meet the needs of the American people and keep our commitment to lock
those security funds aside.
So I urge Members to consider that this is well-intended but it will
not achieve it. It is more illusory than for real.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Lexington, Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, as we look back over the history of this
body for 40 years, since the mid sixties we have been spending the
money that individuals have paid in their payroll for Social Security
and for Medicare. We have been spending it on other government
programs.
I remember 2 years ago, my first year here in Congress, the gentleman
from California proposed this and we began the first lockbox to set
aside Social Security. I can remember some Members were making light of
it and saying it was not a real lockbox, and it had a hole in the
bottom of it.
That first year I was here 2 years ago we did not spend one penny of
Social Security money. The lockbox worked. It kept us disciplined so we
did not spend that Social Security. We did it last year with Medicare,
and we are repeating it again this year.
Some folks are concerned that we have allowed the use of this Social
Security money and Medicare money to

[[Page H273]]

be used for reform. We have to face the fact that if we do not make
some changes in improving and modernizing these programs to meet the
needs of an aging population, we are going to run into serious
problems. Sticking our head in the sand does not work. Using rhetoric
for political reasons does not solve the problems we are going to be
facing in the future.
I am proud we can support and hope we have bipartisan support for
this bill to lock up both the Social Security trust fund and the
Medicare trust fund for our future generations, and allow us to begin
to look at improvements that will preserve these great programs for
future generations.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. Holt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is so important to me that on the first day
of the new Congress I reintroduced my legislation that the body
considered last term. The legislation would prohibit the spending of
any projected budget surpluses until Social Security and Medicare are
made solid for today's workers and today's children.
The legislation would ensure that the projected surplus associated
would be off limits to Congress and used only for retiring the
publicly-held debt; no new spending, no new tax cuts until we have
dealt with this matter.
I am concerned that H.R. 2 is being brought up to the floor without
possibility of amendment to deal with its gaping loophole. What this
legislation's loophole is is to allow a tax cut or other bill if it is
presented as Social Security reform.
Mr. Speaker, most young workers do not believe that they will get a
dime from Social Security or Medicare. That is why we must assign the
highest priority to shoring up these programs and restoring confidence.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
legislation. Mr. Speaker, 45,351,200 persons received Social Security
benefits just this past year. About 63 percent of those people were
seniors.
One must ask, has Social Security had an impact in particular to our
seniors? When we take a look at the reason why Social Security was put
in place, it was to help those seniors not be below the poverty line
when they finished their work years.
In fact, if we look even just in California, my home State, we can
see that this past year 30 percent of seniors were lifted out of
poverty because of their Social Security benefits. Moreover, Social
Security is important for women because, as we know, women make less,
and women are out of the work force more often; they change jobs, they
stay home to take care of families, so they really need this in their
lean years at the back end of their lives.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important piece
of legislation.
45,351,200 persons received Social Security benefits last year.
Sixty-three percent of these people are retired workers.
We must ask ourselves, ``What impact has Social Security had on our
Nation's Seniors?'' A study issued by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities in Washington, DC shows that in 1997, 47.6% of the U.S.
population age 65 and older would have been living below the poverty
line in 1997 without Social Security benefits.
With Social Security, the poverty rate drops to 11.9%. This is a
staggering statistic that demonstrates the impact of this program on
our seniors nationwide.
In my home state of California, the same study showed that 43.2% of
people age 65 and older would have been living below the poverty line
without Social Security. Social Security reduces the number to 12.5%.
Thus, 30.7% of all elders in California were lifted from poverty by
Social Security.
Moreover, Social Security is particularly beneficial to women who
receive 54% of Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. In
1997, Social Security benefits lowered the number of women living below
the poverty line from 9.8 million to 2.7 million.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and establish a Social
Security and Medicare lockbox. We need to pass this bill to ensure that
our current and future seniors are provided the benefits they worked so
hard to earn. We must continue to move forward to ensure that both
programs are ready to meet the demands of the aging Baby Boom
generation and beyond.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding time to me.
Over 45 million seniors and over 30 million American citizens use
Medicare and Social Security. At a time when we have record surpluses,
we must make sure that we sustain those people and that we do what is
right with the surplus. It is going to be impossible to put in a
lockbox for Social Security and Medicare, and we should, and at the
same time take care of health care, housing, and other needs,
education, that the people of America want.
We need a lockbox, we need a tax cut, but they both must be
responsible. We must save Social Security, we must protect Medicare.
Let this House act accordingly and take care of the citizens of this
country.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this lockbox is leaking because the money
can be used for other reform purposes. But I want to stress something
else today, an inescapable big truth about the President's economic
plan. The big truth is that the President has proposed a Mother Hubbard
economic plan, a plan that leaves the cupboard bare.
Here is what I mean. We have an alleged surplus of $5.6 trillion.
Today the House will vote to take $2.9 trillion off the table. So that
leaves just $2.7 trillion for all the spending and tax relief for the
next 10 years.
The President has two priorities for that money: a tax cut that will
consist of $2.6 trillion, skewed largely to the wealthy, by the way;
and a missile defense system that will cost at least $100 billion.
So that is it. It is all gone before we reach anything else. We have
zero surplus for anything else; for prescription drugs, education,
health insurance, zero.
Mr. Speaker, it is a Mother Hubbard plan. The wealthy get to take a
tax cut picnic while the rest of this country faces an empty cupboard.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today has been, once again, an exceptional job on behalf
of my colleagues in the Democrat party, as well as my colleagues in the
Republican party, who have once again approached a very difficult issue
with the decision that rather than sticking our heads in the sand, we
are going to talk about Social Security, we are going to talk about the
things that not only Social Security does for America today and the
people who are on Social Security, but also a belief, an abiding
belief, that we can do something to make sure it is there for the
future of this country.
I would remind my colleagues that the one part about this legislation
that is fabulous is that there is an exception in the legislation that
any bill that saves Social Security contains this phrase, that if a
Member believes that a bill does not save Social Security or Medicare,
he or she can always raise a point of order against any part of that
legislation.
That is one of the wonderful parts about this bill that is good for
all of us. It is a matter of whether we are going to spend the Social
Security, or whether we are going to save it.

Re-referral of H.R. 2 to Committee on Budget and Committee on Rules

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill,
H.R. 2, be re-referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition,
to the Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2,
The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001. This legislation
protects the $2.9 trillion Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund
surplus from being used for any other government spending.

[[Page H274]]

More importantly, this legislation reaffirms our commitment to ensuring
a safe and secure retirement for current and future generations of
Older Americans.
This legislation in effect creates a security ``lockbox'' to ensure
that the FICA or payroll taxes we pay over the course of many years of
hard work are used exactly as they are intended to be used--for Social
Security and Medicare. This ``lockbox'' ensures our money is protected.
When I came to Congress in 1994, taxes were at an all time high, the
budget was out of balance, deficit spending was soaring out of control
and the Social Security and Medicare trust fund was being raided to pay
for other government programs. To put it bluntly, our fiscal house was
in shambles.
But what a difference a few years has made. Today, I am proud that we
have balanced the federal budget, paid down over $363 billion dollars
of the national debt and cut taxes, all the while protecting and
preserving Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, as we begin our work in the 107th Congress, the Federal
government's projected cumulative surplus--some $5.7 trillion dollars
over the next ten years--presents us with a historic and unprecedented
opportunity to continue on a bipartisan course of fiscal discipline.
Let's not look back at this moment as an era of missed opportunity.
In the coming days and months, there will be plenty of time to debate
what to do with the remainder of the surplus. But before we engage in
that debate, we must continue paying down the debt and make clear our
commitment to ensuring that Social Security and Medicare will be
available to current retirees as well as for our children and
grandchildren. That's three generations of Americans that we will
ensure have basic retirement security by preserving and protecting
Social Security and Medicare. For the past two years, Congress has put
aside Social Security and Medicare taxes so these monies aren't spent
on other federal programs. With this ``lockbox'' legislation, Congress
will be making these actions a permanent part of the budget process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2. Let us,
today, give future generations of Americans the security of knowing
that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they most
need it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the
Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act.
In this fortunate time of budget surpluses, it is imperative that we
use the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to ensure the long-
term viability of these critical programs. If we want to be truthful in
our budgeting, then these funds should not and cannot be used to pay
for other priorities.
I am nonetheless concerned about some of the provisions in the bill.
It is my belief that these provisions make this lockbox legislation
less than iron-clad. The bill stops the raid on Social Security and
Medicare Trust Fund receipts ``until such time as medicare and social
security reform legislation is enacted.
What this really means is that once we pass any legislation that
constitutes Social Security or Medicare reform, even if the bill does
not ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security or Medicare, we
are free to use Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund money for
whatever we choose.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in the year
2012, there will be a major demographic shift in the United States. The
Baby Boom generation will begin to retire and collect benefits under
Social Security and Medicare. And, at the same time, the labor force
will contract significantly, reducing the amount of money available to
pay those benefits. As a result, the CBO projects that instead of the
surpluses we now enjoy, we will suffer large budget deficits as we
struggle to pay for these programs.
I support this legislation and I support the idea of Social Security
and Medicare reform. But all the reform measures we pass won't mean
anything unless we begin to devote resources now to ensure that there
will be money available when Baby Boomers begin to retire. This bill is
a good start. We need to do much more.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Social
Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001, the latest in a string of
measures that the House has passed, with my support, to dedicate the
Social Security and Medicare surpluses to public debt reduction until
such time as the Social Security or Medicare reform legislation is
enacted. Like H.R. 5173, which we passed overwhelmingly in September
2000, H.R. 2 would remove the Social Security surplus from the budget
totals for the purposes of developing both the Congressional budget and
the President's budget. H.R. 2 would also require the President's
budget submission to include a detailed proposal for Social Security or
Medicare reform legislation if it recommends an on-budget surplus for
any fiscal year that is less than the surplus projected for the
Medicare HI trust fund.
My support for H.R. 2 is not without reservations. I am disappointed
that the Republican Leadership rushed this bill to the floor, it was
introduced last Thursday (February 8, 2001), bypassing consideration in
the committees of jurisdiction, including the House Budget Committee.
Had H.R. 2 been properly considered in the House Budget Committee, I
would have asked what protections are in place, under the bill, to
prevent tax cut bills from gaining access to lockbox funds, simply by
holding themselves out as Social Security or Medicare reform bills.
Additionally, as a longtime advocate for protecting Medicare, as well
as Social Security, I am pleased to see the Republican Majority has
joined me in recognizing the need to protect the Medicare surpluses
from being used to finance tax cuts. While H.R. 2 would create points
of order against spending and tax legislation that would cause a
reduction in the portion of projected budget surpluses equal to
Medicare trust fund surplus, I am, however, troubled that it stops
short of taking Medicare ``off-budget.'' H.R. 2 only requires on-budget
surpluses to be at least as large as any surplus in Part A of Medicare.
At this time, with Congress abuzz with talk of tax cuts and
incomprehensible surpluses, it is more important than ever that
Medicare by taken off-budget.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not only join me in
taking this step to secure Medicare but to also go further and take
Medicare off-budget.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. speaker, I will vote for this bill, in the
hope that its other supporters are as serious as I am about protecting
Social Security and Medicare.
Of course, that is what this bill is supposed to be about. But I
think anyone who gives it a careful look will understand why I have my
doubts.
On the one hand, the bill would establish the principle that Social
Security and Medicare are to be off-limits when Congress makes
decisions about federal revenues. It would do that by making it against
the rules to consider measures that would invade the Social Security or
Medicare surplus. Its sponsors say that this will put both Social
Security and Medicare into a ``lockbox'' to keep them safe.
However, on the other hand there is some fine print in this bill
suggesting that this ``lockbox'' is not all that secure.
In fact, when you read the bill carefully, it looks like this
`'lockbox'' is more like the treasure cave in the story of Ali Baba and
the Forty Thieves. Remember, the secret to opening that treasure cave
was to know the passwords--``open, sesame.'' Well, it's exactly the
same story here except that for this ``lockbox'' the passwords are
``Social Security reform legislation or Medicare reform legislation.''
Those are the passwords because under this bill the new rules to
protect Social Security and Medicare will not apply to any bill that
includes them.
If you doubt that it is that simple, just read the bill.
First it says that we will have these new rules--but then it says
they ``shall not apply to social security reform legislation or
medicare reform legislation.'' And it defines ``medicare reform
legislation'' as a bill that ``includes a provision stating the
following: For purposes of section 316(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, this Act constitutes medicare reform legislation'' and
also defines ``social security reform legislation'' as a bill that
``includes a provision stating the following: For purposes of section
316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this Act constitutes
social security reform legislation.''
So, regardless of what else may be in a tax bill or a spending bill,
if it includes those magic words the new rules won't apply--because
those are the passwords that will open the ``lockbox.''
Is it any wonder that some of us have our doubts about whether the
``lockbox'' is real? Is it any wonder that we have some fears about the
reliability of this promise to protect Social Security and Medicare?
Still, Mr. Speaker, today I will be guided by my hopes, not my fears.
I will vote for this bill, and I will hope that the promise of its
title--``The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act'' is not a false
one.
But, to rephrase Ronald Reagan, I think that the best policy is to
hope now--by voting for this bill--but when the tax and spending bills
come, to verify by making sure that we fulfill the promise of
protecting Social Security and Medicare for the future.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, The Social Security and Medicare Lock
Box Act locks away the entire $2.9 trillion Social Security and
Medicare surpluses, protecting it from increased government spending
and tax cuts. I am proud to be part of the first Congress in thirty
years which paid all the government's bills without raiding the Social
Security Trust fund. This legislation guarantees that we continue to
protect the surplus by creating a ``lock box'' which ensures that the
surplus can be used only to pay beneficiaries.

[[Page H275]]

Though the prognosis for the Social Security trust fund has improved
with the strong economy, Social Security is still scheduled to begin
drawing on the surplus by 2015 and the trust fund will be exhausted by
2037. It is Congress's duty to ensure that the surplus is there for
senior citizens while we work to reform the program for future
generations. I am proud to support the Social Security and Medicare
Lockbox. Senior citizens, as well as all Americans deserve to know that
their benefits will be there for them when they retire. I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2,
the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act. This legislation aims to
protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by establishing
points of order against bills that would produce a deficit in the non-
Social Security portion of the budget.
While this legislation won't do any harm, it certainly won't do any
good. There are gaping loopholes in this legislation which would allow
for raiding the trust funds if it is done under the cloak of
``reform.'' But this bill is not serious about either reforming or
protecting the Social Security and Medicare trusts funds.
In a few short years the baby boom generation will start to retire.
The addition of these 75 million Americans is a looming threat to the
Social Security and Medicare programs. Congress must act now to ensure
the long-term solvency of these valuable programs. This bill is not a
serious, long-term solution for our problems. Congress must make some
very careful choices in the coming months about our budget surpluses,
and how best to use them.
Anyone reading the papers in the last couple of days knows where the
president stands on tax-cuts. Now, I support broad tax cuts. I think
that we in Congress can work together to relieve the tax burdens of
Americans. But I cannot support a tax-cut plan that endangers our
economic stability, or the futures of the Social Security and Medicare
programs.
According to some estimates, the president's plan could cost as much
as $2.3 trillion over ten years. That's almost eighty-five percent the
projected on-budget surplus. This plan leaves almost nothing behind to
pay down the national debt, strengthen our national defense, improve
our children's education, or, as we're aiming to do today, ensure the
solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I assure you that this legislation will pass almost
unanimously. All Members of Congress can agree that Social Security and
Medicare funds should be spent only for those purposes, or for the
purposes of paying off the national debt. But it's time to make some
tough choices about the on-budget surplus, and whether or not Congress
is serious about protecting Social Security and Medicare. We must do
more than pay lip-service to these programs. Its time to put the on-
budget surplus money where our mouth is.
Mr. LaFalce. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Social
Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act of 2001. In the midst of tax cut
fever, when the federal government seems to be awash in black ink, this
legislation serves as a sobering reminder that we are, in fact, facing
a fiscal time bomb within the next twenty years. With the retirement of
the baby boomer generation, we will face an unprecedented fiscal
challenge, created largely by the demands on social Security and
Medicare.
The Social Security and Medicare Lock Boxes draw a line in the sand,
saying that, if we are to fund a large tax cut this year, then we must
do so without raiding the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
Establishing this imperative for the current tax cut debate is
absolutely critical. In recent weeks, some Republicans have been
inching away from the commitment to protect the Medicare Trust Fund,
led by statements from the Administration. But it is clear that
Medicare faces the same long-term funding problems that face Social
Security. In fact, Medicare will face them sooner than Social Security.
Raiding the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts, then, should be
absolutely unacceptable to this Congress.
Some might argue that it is unreasonable to allow concerns of 20
years hence to have too much influence over today's policies. But this
kind of thinking is akin to a family facing a balloon mortgage payment
who nonetheless budgets nothing for it, and worse yet, goes on a
spending spree in the years lending up to the balloon payment. Lest
anyone doubt that we are facing a long-term fiscal crisis, consider
this: today, the United States has 5 workers supporting each of its
retirees; by 2030, we will have just 2 workers for every retiree. The
fiscal implications of this demographic shift are enormous, and easily
overwhelm the surplus numbers we have been debating the past few weeks.
Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is a good first step in
acknowledging the true fiscal outlook. I hope we will also recognize
the true costs associated with meeting the full obligations of Social
Security and Medicare to all of tomorrow's retirees--costs that are
daunting no matter what versions of Social Security and Medicare reform
you favor. In recognizing these costs, it should be clear to everyone
that the President's tax plan is simply not affordable.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to join my colleagues in
strong support of the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act.
We have a surplus of $5.6 trillion. And, $2.9 trillion of that
surplus is money that people expect to be there for them when they
apply for their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
For the past several years, Congress has locked these trust fund
surpluses away through sound fiscal management, despite the absence of
a passed lockbox bill. But the American public understands that passage
of actual lockbox legislation is a solemn pledge between the Congress
and the people that we will not touch those surpluses. And, we should
make that pledge to our constituents.
Given the strength of the non-trust fund surplus--$2.7 trillion--we
can well afford to do this and still meet the other needs of our
constituents--providing them with much needed tax relief, paying down
the debt, and reinvesting in important priorities like defense and
education.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2 with a strong bipartisan vote.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
the Social Security and Medicare ``Lockbox'' Act. This bill locks up
the $2.9 trillion surplus from the Social Security and Medicare trust
funds by prohibiting their use for non-Social Security purposes. As a
result, it ensures that Congress will always devote 100 percent of the
Social Security and Medicare surpluses to only those retirement
programs.
Today, millions of elderly and disabled Americans rely on Social
Security and Medicare to provide them with income, basic health
insurance coverage, and retirement security. In fact, Medicare provides
significant health insurance coverage for 39 million aged and disabled
beneficiaries. Therefore, we need to make sure that our seniors receive
these much needed services and benefits in the most efficient manner
possible.
Because I believe that every working American should know
unequivocally that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them
when they retire, I am committed to making seniors a top priority by
taking the necessary steps to improve their quality of life. Beginning
with the Lockbox initiative, Congress can help protect our nations
elderly from fraud and abuse, inadequate and poor health care services,
and a false sense of retirement security.
After all, our seniors are a national resource that must be preserved
to the best of our abilities. therefore, I urge you to join me in
securing a future for our seniors by voting in favor of the Lockbox.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from
Texas as a cosponsor of H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare
Lockbox Act of 2001.
Although today, the Social Security program is able to meet its
requirements, we face the problem of fewer workers who pay into the
Social Security system, while at the same time, the number of retirees
eligible for Social Security benefits continues to increase.
I believe Congress and the new Administration can work together to
safeguard and strengthen the integrity of the Social Security program.
Our Nation's seniors rely on Social Security for approximately 40
percent of their income. Many depend on it for more.
Without a lockbox, approximately $2.9 trillion in projected Social
Security and Medicare Part A surpluses over the next ten years could be
spent on programs and initiatives which may do little, if any, to
protect our Nation's seniors. H.R. 2 will ensure that these surpluses
will be used only to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
Furthermore, protecting Social Security and Medicare makes it easier
for the Treasury Department to reduce the public debt.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 2.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001.
For too many years, the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have
been raided to pay for other government programs. This long-standing
practice has jeopardized the solvency of two programs that millions of
Americans depend on.
Today this practice will end.
Today, Republicans and Democrats will come together to stop the raid
and commit to protecting 100 percent of the Social Security and
Medicare Trust Fund surpluses, providing retirement and health security
for our parents, our grandparents, and hopefully some day for our
children.
All Americans deserve a Medicare and Social Security system that
rewards their hard work, increases their independence and secures their
future. H.R. 2 is a step toward this important goal.

[[Page H276]]

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Social Security and
Medicare Lockbox Act and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting
this important piece of legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the purported
purpose of this legislation before us today. We can and should
``lockbox'' our Social Security and Medicare surpluses so that monies
put into them by the working people of America are used as they were
intended--to provide financial and health security for them in their
senior years or if they become disabled--not to provide a tax break
aimed mostly at those with upper incomes.
Unfortuantely, the bill before us today talks the talk, but fails to
walk the walk.
This bill will not guarantee that either the Social Security or
Medicare surpluses are protected from being used to finance tax breaks
or any other government spending.
While the bill states that it protects Medicare and Social Security
trust funds, it creates a giant exception that if a bill is brought up
on the House floor that contains the words ``Social Security reform
legislation'' or ``Medicare reform legislation,'' then the protections
for either trust fund no longer exist. It doesn't define what would
constitute ``reform'' of either program. It would be very simple for
anyone to circumvent the stated intent of this bill by simply referring
to legislation as either Medicare or Social Security reform and then
the protections against using the trust funds would be overridden. I
could see the argument that a ``Star Wars'' missile defense system will
protect seniors--therefore it is a Medicare reform.
The legislation contains a further loophole that allows the President
to dip into the Social Security and/or Medicare surpluses in any budget
he presents to Congress as long as the budget claims to reform each of
the programs.
The public should not be fooled one moment. President Bush is pushing
a tax cut proposal in Congress that he admits costs $1.6 trillion. The
unstated reality is that the proposal costs $2.5 trillion by the time
you count all of the pieces that he's left out of his early version,
but that will be included in the end. The entire surplus over the next
ten years--if you really protect Medicare and Social Security
surpluses--is $2.7 trillion (and even that figure is highly
speculative).
What am I leading up to? There is no way that this tax cut package
can pass Congress and get signed into law in a way that leaves money
for other government priorities like education, Medicare prescription
drug coverage, improved Medicare solvency, or Social Security reform
without putting the Medicare and Social Security trust funds on the
chopping block.
Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves and passage of
this legislation today does nothing to change that fact.
Larry Lindsey, President Bush's chief economic advisor has already
been asked whether government should dip into the Social Security
surplus to make room for tax cuts and he responded: ``It's a question
that needs to be asked.''
President Bush's Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Mitch Daniels has already stated with regard to protecting the Medicare
trust fund from any other use that he would be: ``very hesitant to
treat those funds in the same way as we do in Social Security where I
think it is in order.''
A February 5 Wall Street Journal article states that, ``The Bush
Administration also won't wall off Medicare's current surpluses in a
`lockbox' . . . In fact, Mr. Daniels has said he's told his staff not
to talk about a Medicare surplus.
Finally, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has yet to make a
commitment on a Medicare lockbox. A recent BNA Daily Report for
Executives, asked him about whether he'd decided to lockbox Medicare
and he responded, ``We're going to think that through.''
I will vote for this legislation today. But, I do so with the firm
knowledge that my vote--and that of every other member of the House of
Representatives--really means nothing about whether we stand for
protecting the Medicare and Social Security surpluses for their
intended purposes. I hope that the weaknesses of the legislation are
not intended and that this vote is a good faith commitment by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to protect both the Social
Security and Medicare surpluses from use for tax cuts or any other new
spending. If that commitment is real, we've got a tough job in front of
us to ensure that the upcoming tax cut debate doesn't absorb all
available government monies--in addition to the Medicare and Social
Security trust funds.
Mr. THOMAS M. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act of
2001. I would also like to thank my colleague, Congressman Wally
Herger, for taking the lead yet again in ensuring that common-sense
measures are taken to preserve the Social Security and Medicare Part A
programs for our senior citizens.
Currently, both the Social Security and Medicare Part A programs take
in more revenue through taxes and premiums than they pay out in
benefits. This has resulted in large surpluses in both Trust Funds,
estimated to be $157 billion for Social Security and $29 billion for
Medicare. However, as the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement age,
the situation changes significantly. Over the coming years we will see
a decrease in the ratio of workers to beneficiaries from 5-to-1 to 2-
to-1, causing a precipitous decline in the amounts held in both Trust
Funds. By the year 2037, it is estimated that the combined Social
Security Trust Funds will be depleted, with revenues only sufficient to
pay about 72 percent of benefits. The situation for Medicare is even
more dire, with the Part A Trust Fund projected to be depleted by 2025.
We cannot simply put off the difficult decisions for a later day. It
is clear that we can enact significant reforms now that are necessary
to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent for the future. It is also
evident that while this is a challenging task in and of itself, it will
be even more difficult, if not impossible, if we allow the surpluses
that we currently have to be raided for other government spending. To
this end, H.R. 2 creates a lockbox by creating a point of order against
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
that would raid either the Social Security or Medicare Trust Fund. This
lockbox ensures that the Trust Fund surpluses will only be used to
further pay down our national debt or to strengthen these vital
programs for our children and grandchildren. This is a modest, common-
sense step to help preserve social security benefits for future
retirees.
We have an obligation to keep our promises to our senior citizens.
They have paid into Social Security and Medicare over the course of
their working lives in the expectation that these benefits would be
there to help support them in their later years. We do them a severe
injustice if financial mismanagement on our part robs them of the
security they deserve. By approving H.R. 2, we will show the American
people that we remain committed to saving these invaluable programs. It
is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to lend it their full
support.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Security and
Medicare Safe Deposit Lockbox Act.
Passage of this legislation will make certain that the Social
Security and Medicare surpluses are protected in a ``lock-box'' and are
not affected by spending increases and tax cuts. However, the Medicare
surplus is not taken off-budget by this bill and therefore is not
ensured the same protection as the Social Security surplus under
current budget rules. This is a critical flaw in this bill and I do not
believe that H.R. 2 alone will solve the long-term challenges facing
Medicare. Nevertheless, I support passage of the Social Security and
Medicare Safe Deposit Lockbox Act of 2001 and will remain committed to
protecting these surpluses.
I believe it is absolutely essential that we maintain our fiscal
discipline and continue paying down our debt. We must provide resources
to deal with long term problems facing Social Security and Medicare,
while making room for targeted tax cuts and investments in priority
programs.
I am also proud to have joined my colleagues, Mike Ross and Dennis
Moore, in introducing H.R. 560, a bill that would take Medicare off-
budget, giving it the same protected status as Social Security, and
would lock away Medicare surpluses unless they are to be used for
current Medicare programs. While I support the bill before us, our bill
has a much stronger enforcement mechanism and would be even more
difficult, if not impossible, to violate.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.

____________________