[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E185-E186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 13, 2001

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, 
The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001, that seeks to 
amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prevent the surpluses of 
the Social Security and Medicare Part A, Federal Hospital Insurance 
Trust Fund from being used for any purpose other than providing 
retirement and health security.
  Mr. Speaker, during the 106th Congress, the House passed not one, but 
two, ``lock boxes.'' On May 26, 1999, the House passed H.R. 1259, the 
``Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999,'' which 
set aside just the Social Security surplus, by a vote of 416 to 12 and 
on June 20, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3859, the ``Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 2000,'' which set aside both the 
Social Security and the Medicare surplus, by an even wider margin--420 
to 2. Yet, even though neither of those bills became law, we still 
managed to protect both the Social Security surplus and the Medicare 
surplus.
  Not only is the Republican Leadership covering the same ground by 
bringing up this bill today, it is also making the same mistakes that 
it made in the past.
  Just as with both ``lock boxes'' from the 106th Congress, the bill 
before the House today has not been considered by any of the Committees 
of jurisdiction, thereby denying Members the opportunity to debate and 
to improve the bill.
  Just as with both ``lock boxes'' from the 106th Congress, the bill 
before the House today does nothing to improve the long-term solvency 
of either Social Security or Medicare. Certainly, it is critical to 
ensure that these surpluses are not used to finance a huge tax cut or 
to fund spending on other programs. However, strengthening Social 
Security and Medicare requires more than simply protecting the 
surpluses they already possess. It requires actually adding to those 
surpluses, but this bill would not add a single dollar to either the 
Social Security Trust Funds or the Medicare Trust Fund.
  Just as with both ``lock boxes'' from the 106th Congress, the bill 
before the House today will not protect Social Security and Medicare 
surpluses nearly as stringently as the Republican Leadership would have 
you believe. Like its predecessors, this vaunted lock box can be 
``unlocked'' by any bill that defines itself as either ``Social 
Security reform legislation'' or ``Medicare reform legislation.'' This 
means that any bill, including bills to privatize Social Security or 
Medicare, can use the Social Security and Medicare surpluses as long as 
it designates itself as ``reform.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we have already reached an agreement about the 
necessity of protecting the Social Security and Medicare surpluses and 
if there are obvious improvements that could be made to this bill, why 
is the Republican Leadership rushing this bill through the House?
  The answer is obvious. When the Republican Leadership brings the 
President's tax cut to the House floor later this year, it wants to be 
able to claim that ``Republicans protected Social Security and 
Medicare,'' regardless of the price tag for that tax cut and regardless 
of how much it drained away resources needed for other priorities.
  It is one thing to claim that you have protected Social Security and 
Medicare, but it is quite another to actually do it. Despite the 
assertions that Republicans make about this bill, the President's tax 
plan could easily dip into the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. 
All it would take is for the Rules Committee to waive the points of 
order contained in this bill.
  Indeed, it is not Democrats here in the House who need to be 
persuaded about setting aside Social Security and Medicare surpluses. 
Democrats here in the House voted in favor of a Social Security and 
Medicare lock box in overwhelming numbers in the last Congress and will 
vote in favor of one again today.
  The people who need to be persuaded about setting aside Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses are Republicans, both in the other body 
and in the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, even President Bush's chief economic advisor, Larry 
Lindsey, when asked whether the government should dip into the Social 
Security surplus to make room for tax cuts that he thinks might 
stimulate the economy, responded: ``It's a question that needs to be 
asked,'' and OMB Director Mitch Daniels, when asked whether Medicare 
should get the same protection in terms of its surplus as Social 
Security, said: ``I don't agree . . . We could allow the concept of a 
Medicare surplus which exists in Part A, but not en toto, to obscure 
the need for real reform to which this administration will be committed 
as a fairly early priority. So for that reason I would be very hesitant 
to treat those funds in the same way as we do Social Security where I 
think it's quite in order.''
  Furthermore, according to a Wall Street Journal article from February 
5, 2001, ``The Bush administration also won't wall off Medicare's 
current surpluses in a ``lockbox' . . . In fact, Mr. Daniels said he 
has told his staff not to talk about a Medicare surplus.''
  In addition, according to BNA's Daily Report for Executives (February 
7, 2001), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has yet to make a 
commitment to a Medicare lock-box, suggesting `` `We're going to think 
that through' before deciding whether to back the Medicare lockbox 
measure . . .''
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats strongly support setting aside the Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses, but we also understand that doing that 
alone is not enough. Both programs need more resources. Unfortunately, 
once the President's tax plan moves through Congress, it will likely 
consume all available budget surpluses.
  We can not afford to squander the opportunity that budget surpluses 
provide. Democrats favor a tax cut, but one that is enacted within a 
fiscally responsible framework. Tax cuts should leave room for 
priorities like debt reduction, education, transportation, a bipartisan 
program for defense, and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, 
including the

[[Page E186]]

addition of coverage for medicines. We can not afford to completely 
drain budget surpluses to finance an enormous tax cut, instead of using 
them to address the challenges that the nation faces.

                          ____________________