[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11150-11173]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 186, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1259) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
protect Social Security surpluses through strengthened budgetary 
enforcement mechanisms, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 186, the bill 
is considered read for amendment, and the amendment printed in section 
2 of that resolution is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 1259, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1259

       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 
     Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Congress and the President joined together to enact 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to end decades of deficit 
     spending;
       (2) strong economic growth and fiscal discipline have 
     resulted in strong revenue growth into the Treasury;
       (3) the combination of these factors is expected to enable 
     the Government to balance its budget without the social 
     security surpluses;
       (4) the Congress has chosen to allocate in this Act all 
     social security surpluses toward saving social security and 
     medicare;
       (5) amounts so allocated are even greater than those 
     reserved for social security and medicare in the President's 
     budget, will not require an increase in the statutory debt 
     limit, and will reduce debt held by the public until social 
     security and medicare reform is enacted; and
       (6) this strict enforcement is needed to lock away the 
     amounts necessary for legislation to save social security and 
     medicare.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to prohibit the 
     use of social security surpluses for any purpose other than 
     reforming social security and medicare.

     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.--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.--The point of order set forth in paragraph 
     (2) shall not apply to social security reform legislation or 
     medicare reform legislation as defined by section 5(c) of the 
     Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999.
       ``(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

[[Page 11151]]

     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. 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) 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. 5. 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 only to fiscal year 2000 and subsequent fiscal years.
       (b) Expiration.--Sections 301(a)(6) and 312(g) shall expire 
     upon the enactment of social security reform legislation and 
     medicare reform legislation.
       (c) Definitions.--
       (1) Social security reform legislation.--The term ``social 
     security reform legislation'' means a bill or a joint 
     resolution that is enacted into law and includes a provision 
     stating the following: ``For purposes of the Social Security 
     and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, this Act 
     constitutes social security reform legislation.''.
       (2) The term ``medicare reform legislation'' means a bill 
     or a joint resolution that is enacted into law and includes a 
     provision stating the following: ``For purposes of the Social 
     Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, this Act 
     constitutes medicare reform legislation.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 20 minutes of debate on the 
bill.
  The Chair will exercise discretion to recognize managers from each 
committee in the following order to control their entire debate time: 
the Committee on Rules, the Committee on the Budget and the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1259.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise first to once again state what you just did so well, and that is 
that it is our intention to have the 40 minutes of debate that the 
Committee on Rules will be handling on this go ahead right now, and 
then we will have 40 minutes of debate that will be handled by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) representing the Committee on 
the Budget, and then 40 minutes of debate handled by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) representing the Committee on Ways and Means and 
then the ranking minority members on the opposite side, for our 
colleagues who would be requesting time on this.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sanibel, Florida, (Mr. Goss) is 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the 
Committee on Rules and is going to be managing the time for the 
Committee on Rules here, but I would like to begin by stating that I 
believe that this is a very important piece of legislation that we are 
considering. There has consistently been a high level of frustration 
over the fact that the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have 
been raided for years for a wide range of well-intended programs, but 
unfortunately it has jeopardized the solvency of those programs, the 
Social Security and Medicare programs. So we today are making an 
attempt to put into place a procedure that will help us keep from 
moving into those funds at all; and I think it is the right thing to 
do.
  I believe it is the right thing to do because, as I said during the 
debate on the rule, the American people have been not voluntarily, they 
have been told that they have to pay into the trust funds through 
payroll tax withdrawal. The employee puts in one-half, the employer the 
other half, and yet we, since 1969, have seen these funds raided and 
used for other programs. That is wrong. The American people know that 
it is wrong, and we are trying to do our doggonedest to make sure that 
it does not happen.
  Our very good friend from California (Mr. Herger) has spent a great 
deal of time working among the three committees of jurisdiction, 
talking with us, getting cosponsors on his legislation, urging Members 
of the other body, other side of the aisle, at the White House to 
support this provision, and I think that he has come forward with what 
is a very balanced approach.
  As my colleagues know, there are people who are saying, oh, we are 
going to be delving into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. 
The fact of the matter is a point of order under this Herger bill can 
be raised, and when it is raised, what happens, Mr. Speaker?
  What basically happens is that we have to get 218 Members to cast 
votes to override that, waive that point of order, and so we are going 
to work very hard to ensure that we do not, in fact, see a raid on 
those very important trust funds; and it has been Republican leadership 
that has stepped up to the plate and acknowledged the responsibility of 
that under the able direction of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger) here.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while I am going to be turning this over, as I said, 
to my good friend from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), at this point I 
yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from 
the big ``D'' in Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, every time we take on a new legislative 
issue, bring something to the floor, bring it up in committee or 
discuss it in leadership, I like to stop and ask for a moment, what is 
this really all about?
  We are going to use a lot of technical talk here, we are going to 
talk about lockboxes and points of order and so forth, but let me talk 
for a moment about what it is really all about.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are about to do today for the first time ever, 
ever in the history of Social Security, we are going to pass a 
resolution that commits this Congress to honor our children as they 
honor their mothers and fathers.
  What do I mean by that? Let me illustrate it with a point.
  My young adult daughter, Cathy, in her middle 30s, working hard as a 
young professional woman oftentimes wears a little button on her lapel. 
The button says: Who the devil is FICA and why is he taking my money? 
She represents a lot of pain and difficulty that is experienced by 
these young people as they pay these very, very difficult payroll 
taxes; and the young people feel the stress in their own budgets, in 
their own household budgets as they try to buy their homes, they try to 
buy braces for their children, as they try to think forward about their 
own retirement, as they think forward to their own youngsters' college. 
They know the burden of that tax as well as any other tax.
  But do my colleagues know what is beautiful about these children, 
these young 20- and 30-year-olds, worried as they are about their own 
retirement security, believing more in UFOs than they believe they will 
ever see a dime out of Social Security?

[[Page 11152]]



                              {time}  1645

  They are not complaining. They feel the pressure, they feel the 
burden, but they do not complain. Why do they not complain? Because, 
Mr. Speaker, they exhibit every day a love for grandma and grandpa. And 
they will tell us when we talk to these young adults, these payroll 
taxes are killing me, but this is what pays for grandma and grandpa's 
retirement security, and they are happy to do it.
  We ought to listen to that. We ought to appreciate that, and indeed, 
Mr. Speaker, we ought to applaud the generosity and the love we find in 
these young people.
  Now, imagine the hurt and the disappointment they feel as they have 
exhibited that faith and that love, for them to now realize that for 
years, for years much of that payroll tax that they have paid so 
painfully has not been used for grandma and grandpa's retirement 
security, has not even been set aside for future needs, but has been 
spent on other social spending programs.
  The young people will tell us, I will take the sacrifice for grandma 
and grandpa, but I really cannot afford it for all of these other 
programs. I expect you to keep a faith with me; you call it a ``trust 
fund.''
  So tonight we are going to honor their commitment, we are going to 
honor their faith and we are going to honor their trust, and we are 
going to say, Mr. and Mrs. Young Adult, worried as you are about your 
own retirement security and sacrificing as you do out of love for 
grandma and grandpa, we honor you, and we make a commitment with this 
thing called the lockbox to take those payroll taxes that you pay that 
are not used today for grandma and grandpa's retirement security and 
lock them away for the future.
  So that when we look at that button on my daughter's lapel and it 
says, ``Who the devil is FICA and why is he taking my money?'' we can 
say FICA is a program of the Federal Government called a trust fund for 
Social Security that asks you to pay your share so we can commit and 
fulfill a commitment to your grandparents. Watch these young people 
applaud us. Finally, they will say, finally somebody keeps the faith, 
honors our parents as we do, respects us, and will keep the trust. And 
to what degree? To the highest possible degree we can manage, every 
dime we can, if we can manage it.
  They should understand this is a bigger, larger, more solid 
commitment than what the President asked in his budget. He asked for 
only 77 percent. We are saying to the absolute very best of our 
ability, we will set aside every bit of that money.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of us. I oftentimes make this 
point. Grandma and grandpa and the grandkids love each other most of 
all. The reason to me is obvious: They have a common enemy. Maybe after 
this vote it will not be we that is the common enemy.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying, so 
that the surplus would be there. Where would the money go?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, in the interim period the money goes to 
buying down the national debt, thereby making that burden of debt lower 
on our children in the future. We, of course, anticipate on our side 
that the President might make good on his promise to advance a serious 
legislative proposal to fix Social Security. We have been waiting for 
two years for the President to take that presidential leadership. He 
has not gotten around to doing that yet, but in the meantime that money 
will, in fact, be committed, as $75 billion is in this fiscal year, to 
buying down the debt and making it less burdensome for those children.
  Mr. HOYER. So essentially, other than the amount of money, the 
gentleman would adopt the proposal that the President made in his State 
of the Union?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, essentially what we would do is do what the 
President has been talking about for two years.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the question before the Congress today is do we want to 
fix Social Security or not? Do we want to take the first test toward 
shoring up one of our most important social programs, or do we just 
want to pretend to do something?
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. Social Security will collapse 
in the year 2034. Today's workers are paying into a program that is 
going to collapse just 35 years from now, and it is our job to fix it 
right now.
  But instead of making the tough decision to do something substantial, 
my Republican colleagues are taking a pass. Instead of acting, they are 
offering this country this point of order which the Democrats already 
enacted some 14 years ago and which merely restates congressional 
policy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is weaker than the existing law.
  In contrast, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), 
along with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Moore), take the first step towards fixing Social 
Security. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, will be offering a 
motion to recommit based on the language of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) to protect all of the resources we need to fix Social 
Security and Medicare. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) says no 
new tax cuts for the rich and no new spending programs for anyone that 
are not paid for until Social Security and Medicare are safe.
  Unlike the Republican point of order, our motion locks up not only 
the Social Security surplus but also the budget surplus. Because, Mr. 
Speaker, until we set about fixing Social Security and Medicare, there 
is no telling what tools we will need to get the job done. And we 
cannot sidestep a point of order by simply calling a proposal Social 
Security or Medicare reform. Unless the Social Security trustees and 
the Medicare trustees declare their programs financially sound, no 
money should be spent that is not offset by simultaneous deficit 
reductions. If our motion to recommit passes, none will.
  Mr. Speaker, this is by far the most important issue facing this 
Congress, and we owe it to the American people to address it. There was 
a time not too long ago when the elderly constituted a large part of 
our poor population in this country. Millions of senior citizens did 
not have enough to eat. They could not pay for rent, they could not 
afford doctors' visits. But since the advent of Social Security and 
Medicare, those times have changed.
  On August 14, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the 
Social Security Act into law. The first Social Security monthly check 
was made out and sent to Ida May Fuller of Vermont for all of $22.54. 
Back then there were 7,620 people in the program. This March there are 
44,247,000 people on Social Security, which averages over $781 apiece 
for the retirees.
  Since the Social Security program began, 390 million Social Security 
numbers have been assigned and, Mr. Speaker, each one of them carries a 
promise to American workers that once they reach that specific age, 
they can count on Social Security to take care of their bills and they 
can count on Medicare to take care of their health problems.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, the majority of American seniors get most of 
their income from Social Security, and nearly every single one of them 
has health insurance, thanks to Medicare. This program is a very 
essential part of our country's promise to take care of its citizens, 
and we need to get serious about ensuring its financial health long 
into the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from

[[Page 11153]]

Florida (Mr. Goss) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to let the gentleman 
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts continue.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I think on occasions like this it is important to ask ourselves, 
individually and collectively, how did we get to this moment? As we 
close the pages on this century, I think it is important to reflect 
upon two very important votes that were cast in this decade in this 
House.
  In 1991, the majority of Members of the Democratic Party voted for 
George Bush's budget. In retrospect, I think it is kind of sad that not 
only did we not have a majority of Republicans, we would have had only 
a small number who would have supported George Bush's budget. In 1993 
we voted for President Clinton's budget, and we ask ourselves tonight, 
where did we arrive after those two critical votes?
  We went from running $300 billion plus deficits in the early part of 
this decade to projected surpluses in the area, and I emphasize the 
word ``projected'', of $4.4 trillion. That is what has allowed us to 
take up this debate.
  Now, while I am pleased that the Republican Party has taken this 
step, I think it is also important to ask, why not tie up or wall off 
the entire surplus until we fix Social Security and Medicare for the 
American people?
  Mr. Speaker, we sometimes speak in distant terms to our constituents, 
but we should remind ourselves today that Social Security is not an 
esoteric issue. It is a lifeline for millions and millions and millions 
of Americans. And even as I speak and Members sit here today, the ghost 
of Mr. Roosevelt hovers around this room, because we can take 
satisfaction from the fact that there has been no greater domestic 
achievement in this century than Social Security for the American 
people, and remind ourselves as well that Medicare is but an amendment 
to the Social Security Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say as forcefully as I can that we are headed 
down the road eventually to another debate over this issue. On the 
Democratic side, I think our position is fairly clear: Wall off the 
surplus, do not do anything until we permanently fix Social Security 
and Medicare.
  But I want to predict this evening with certainty that we are going 
to be back here in the near future voting on a huge tax cut, because 
that is really where the majority wants to go on this issue. They want 
to have a massive tax cut for wealthy Americans who, by the way, to 
their everlasting credit are not even clamoring for a tax cut at this 
time, and that is where the American people are going to have to watch 
as to who defends Social Security.
  The history of Social Security has been one of initiative by the 
Democratic Party, and in addition, we have been its chief and sometimes 
exclusive defenders in this institution, and indeed in this city. We 
know what Social Security means for millions of widows in this Nation. 
We know what Social Security means for retirees. It is the difference 
for many of survival, to have that check from the Federal Government 
but once a month.
  Social Security has worked beyond the expectations of Mr. Roosevelt 
and Mr. Johnson in terms of Social Security and Medicare, beyond the 
wildest expectations of those who at the time opposed it.
  So keep your eyes on what we are going to do about Social Security in 
this Congress. Follow this debate with great care. Because I am telling 
my colleagues, we are coming back to a debate in the near future about 
a massive tax cut that clearly could undo precisely what we are talking 
about today.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Speaker, there are many of us here in my age group that have 
already drawn social security benefits, survivor benefits. We know what 
social security is about. We know how it kept families intact. We know 
how it allowed millions of Americans to finish high school and to go to 
college. Social security is a critical issue. It is intergenerational. 
It is the best guarantee of the whole notion of community.
  What do we mean by community? We mean a place where no one is ever to 
be abandoned and no one is ever to be left behind.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Committee on Rules, which shares 
original jurisdiction over this legislation with the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Ways and Means. Obviously, I very strongly 
support this bipartisan procedural mechanism to lock away the social 
security trust fund. That is what we are here for.
  The nuts and bolts of what we are doing here today are actually very 
simple, but their impact is very, very significant and very reassuring, 
I think, to our senior citizens and to our younger workers.
  What this bill says is that we will completely wall off the social 
security trust fund, so much so that we will not allow a deficit to be 
created in the rest of the budget. That is a major departure from where 
the rules leave us currently. It is big progress.
  The not-so-secret secret about the Federal budget is that when there 
is overspending in the nonsocial security part of the budget, then the 
social security part of the budget is automatically, automatically 
tapped to cover the shortfall. That is how it is. That is how it is not 
going to be anymore, because we are going to fix that.
  This social security lockbox says that from now on, this activity 
will be forced out into the open and will be prohibited by our rules. 
In order to break the lock on the lockbox, Congress is going to have to 
explicitly vote to do so in a publicly-recorded vote. In the other 
body, where recent history suggests to some that spending may indeed be 
out of control, a three-fifths vote will be needed.
  This procedural firewall will remain in effect at least until 
legislation expressly for the purpose of reforming both the social 
security and the Medicare programs is enacted. It is important to note 
that we have taken the extra steps of including Medicare reform in the 
mix. We are opting to err on the side of caution with this added 
cushion to make sure we take care of both programs crucial to the 
retirement security of all Americans.
  In addition to the new point of order created by this proposal, there 
is also the new requirement that the Office of Management and Budget, 
OMB, as we know it here, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and any 
other government agency must exclude social security receipts in their 
displays of budget totals.
  Currently we allow for two sets of totals to be displayed, one with 
and one without counting the social security reserves. That current 
practice in my view and in the view of many others creates the 
temptation for overlap between the general fund and social security. I 
must say, that appears to be a temptation that the Democrat majority of 
the past 40 years could not resist.
  This legislation is designed to remove that temptation once and for 
all. No more raiding social security. Mr. Speaker, to me this is as 
much about accountability and coming clean with the American people as 
it is about locking away social security.
  For too long the Federal bureaucracy has been able to have its cake 
and eat it, too; to talk about social security off-budget, but still 
using the trust fund as a soft landing pillow for the overspending free 
fall.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is the keeper of the gate when it 
comes to our budget process. We manage the points of order that are 
designed to constrain our actions in the budget process. H.R. 1259 adds 
an additional restriction and forces Congress and the President to be 
accountable for locking away the social security trust fund.

[[Page 11154]]

  When we passed our budget resolution this spring, we pledged that we 
were going to implement a real lockbox for social security. Now we are 
here. We are delivering on our promise. That is very good news for our 
seniors, and frankly, it is about time. This is bipartisan and I think 
it deserves our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I have 
nothing but respect for the authors of this legislation, but I do have 
some problems with it. I am going to vote for it at the end if the 
Democratic substitute is not adopted, but this bill really should have 
gone through the committee process, because I think there are a number 
of things that could have been corrected.
  Let me go through just a few points. First of all, this bill, as I 
said, is part problematic and part semantical as well.
  There is one thing we should remember. This bill does not create new 
obligations to social security. Social security, the social security 
surplus, is protected in U.S. Treasury bonds backed by the full faith 
and credit of the government. We have never, the U.S. government has 
never defaulted on our Treasury bonds since Alexander Hamilton became 
the first Secretary of the Treasury. God help us in the day that we do 
default.
  I think that is one thing we have to get across. Second of all, I am 
afraid that this bill sets us up, perhaps inadvertently, for the stage 
of breaking the pay-go rules and the caps that got us into the better 
fiscal condition that we are today.
  Finally, I am afraid that this bill is not constructed in the way 
that even the balanced budget amendment that many of the proponents had 
endorsed would deal with economic downturns.
  I know a lot of us think that the economy is so good now that we are 
not going to see another economic downturn, or that the Clinton 
recovery is going to continue on for many, many years. But I think at 
some point in the future we may get to the end of the business cycle 
and we will see unemployment go up.
  But this bill would put us back to where the Congress was in the 
early 1990s when we were in a deep recession, and the Bush 
administration was opposing extending the unemployment compensation. 
This bill would put that opposition in the hands of 41 Members of the 
other body. I do not think that is something that we really want to do.
  Mr. Speaker, let me talk a little bit about the pay-go situation. 
This bill inadvertently, I believe, while walling off the off-budget, 
the social security and Medicare surpluses, would I think put the on 
budget surplus, to the extent it exists, out there for the taking.
  We have already seen a budget passed by this Congress that would 
impose an $800 billion tax cut on a 10-year projection at great risk to 
the future stability of the economy, and in fact not pay down nearly as 
much debt as the Democrats proposed in their budget, which would be 
probably the best thing we could do for the economy and for social 
security right now.
  So I think this is the first step to getting us back down the road to 
the failure of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and more debt and deficit 
spending. Finally, this budget, this plan, really does not do anything 
for social security or Medicare.
  As I pointed out, the obligation to the trust funds is real. It is 
backed by the full faith and credit of the government; again, a credit 
that we have never defaulted on. This does nothing to extend social 
security. It does nothing to extend Medicare. It creates no legal 
obligation to the extension of those programs.
  What it does do is it creates a huge trap door in the future, because 
it contains a sentence that says that you can get out of this lockbox. 
``For purposes of the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act of 
1999, this Act constitutes social security reform legislation.''
  That is a fairly broad term with no definition, so whoever the 
majority might be in the future if this were to become law could make 
anything that they wanted to be so-called social security reform 
legislation and get into it.
  I presume Members could take a bill that the Republican majority in 
both the House and Senate, like the supplemental appropriations that 
started out at about $6 billion when it came from the White House and 
ended up at about $15 billion, and say it included something to do with 
social security reform, and pass it and eat into the social security 
trust fund.
  This is well-intentioned, it is probably good for press releases, but 
it does not do a whole lot.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this commonsense 
legislation. It is that. This is the effort to protect social security.
  We have made a promise to every American that social security is 
going to be there for them. It is a promise that many of them do not 
think we will ever keep. My own children are in that group. They say to 
me every day, sure, mom, give me a break. It is not going to be there 
for me. I have to take care of myself.
  I understand why they think that way, because Congress has continued 
just over all the years to raise social security to pay for pork barrel 
projects and even transportation projects, just spending. It has been 
an easy pot of money to go to whenever we needed a little extra.
  It is time to stop the foolishness. We are supposed to be responsible 
and dependable, and we are supposed to be here to protect the future of 
our seniors and our kids. This is a real important step in making sure 
that that happens. It is time that social security taxes are used for 
social security.
  We have not been truthful. We are not being truthful if we say we are 
balancing the Federal budget, and it is not balanced because we 
continue to borrow from social security. Let us not pretend that it is. 
It is time for us to exercise true fiscal discipline. We need to pass 
the bill and guarantee that this Congress keeps its promises to save 
social security.
  I strongly support the bill offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger), and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social 
Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999; I like to call it, 
the ``Put the Social Security Money Where Your Mouth is Act.''
  As I travel through the Second District of Kansas, there is a lot of 
skepticism that we in Washington will not be able to actually keep our 
fingers out of the social security cookie jar. They are asking for 
proof, not just political rhetoric.
  That is why I support this bill. It requires us to talk about budget 
numbers and surpluses without using social security money to balance 
the ledger. It also goes beyond mere truth in budgeting. The bill puts 
enforcement mechanisms into place to prevent future Congresses from 
raiding social security without any accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate on this issue cannot be more timely, 
considering the current debate surrounding the appropriations process.
  In April, we passed a budget resolution. We stood in the well of this 
House, in the very place that I am standing now, and we gave our word 
to the American people that beginning with next year's appropriations, 
we would no longer spend social security money.
  We must keep our word to the people we represent. There are some very 
real structural reforms that we can make that will help support and 
bring about the changes for social security and Medicare. This Congress 
must exercise the fiscal discipline to set aside this money for 
requirement security only. We cannot, and I repeat, we cannot commit 
these scarce dollars to new

[[Page 11155]]

spending or we will never be able to make the reforms that are 
necessary.
  I trust that the leadership on both sides of the aisle will agree to 
move forward with the debate on these critical reform issues in the 
very near future. Mr. Speaker, I encourage each of my colleagues to 
support the Safe Deposit Box Act, and it is my hope that the other body 
and the President will do the same.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very important 
legislation. We are well beyond the time to think about the future of 
social security. We are well beyond the time to determine if we can do 
the very first thing that determines whether we are in fact serious 
about the future of social security.
  We hear about having a plan in place. We hear about the importance of 
knowing what we are going to do in 2024 or 2035, or whenever it might 
be.

                              {time}  1715

  The key thing we need to be able to do right now is make a commitment 
to stop spending the Social Security funds that come to the Federal 
Government. That is pretty easy for us to say, but it is awfully hard 
for us to do. In fact, it is so hard for us to do, we have not saved a 
single penny of Social Security until last year for the last 2 years.
  If we cannot put the money aside, if we cannot hold on to those 
resources, it does not matter what kind of reform plan we come up with.
  Our first challenge is this challenge. Our first challenge is to stop 
spending the money. It is to stop calculating the money in the funds 
available to the Federal Government for general spending.
  An important part of this whole concept is quickly moving away from 
even calculating the Social Security funds coming in as income, to stop 
calculating them as income, to stop calculating them as funds available 
to be spent, to truly take them off the table.
  We are not just going to lock them in a box that does not pay 
interest. We are not going to lock them away and not use them in the 
way that we should use those funds for the future of Social Security. 
We are going to lock them away from the spenders in Washington, D.C. 
who have enjoyed the ability since 1969 to spend this money, who have 
enjoyed the ability to make the deficit appear that much smaller, who 
have enjoyed the ability to come up with new programs on top of the 
programs we have had, to act like we had the money available to pay 
those, to not be willing to go to the American people and say we are 
spending your Social Security funds because we were counting those 
funds just like we count any other funds that come in to the Federal 
Government.
  These are not like any other funds. They are Social Security funds. 
They are about the future of this system. They need to be set aside for 
the future of this system. We need to take a critical step to do that 
today. I urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let us get to the reality here. The majority 
party has passed a budget resolution that places this Congress in a 
box, and they do not know how to get out of it.
  So what is the tactic today? It is to bring the so-called lockbox 
here. As to Social Security funds, that is easy to get out of. All 
anybody has to do is bring a bill up here and put a label on it that it 
is Social Security reform, and the lockbox is unlocked.
  The gentleman before me talked about, we must not spend Social 
Security surplus monies. What did my colleagues do within the last few 
weeks? The majority party here loaded onto an emergency bill provisions 
unrelated to emergencies. Where did the money come from? From Social 
Security surplus funds.
  So why are my colleagues so blatant 1 week and so pious the next 
week? The public wants some consistency. That is what it wants. What it 
wants is reform, not a bunch of rhetoric. What it wants is something 
palpable, not political. They will see through this.
  I mean, sure, we are going to vote for this, because this is an 
effort to try to get us into a position of appearing to be preserving 
Social Security, though it really does not do it very well. I heard a 
previous speaker talk about Medicare and how important it was to 
preserve Medicare funds. This lockbox does not do it. When we look 
inside, there is no Medicare money in it, with or without a key.
  So this is the challenge to the majority, to try to get out of the 
box that the resolution on the budget placed us in and to do something 
real about Social Security reform, get a bill in front of the Committee 
on Ways and Means that has the support of the majority leadership, not 
its covert effort to undermine Social Security reform, and let us get 
with it and let us do the same as to Medicare. Let us get with it.
  People do not want devices like boxes, with or without keys. What 
they want is legislation. Let us get with it. Let us do away with the 
tricks, and let us get on with concrete legislation, to do what the 
American people want, preserve Social Security for 75 years, and reform 
Medicare so that my kid and my grandchildren know it will be there for 
them.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the misguided criticisms 
that we have heard from the previous speaker and from speakers prior to 
that one. One, they mentioned that we passed the budget resolution that 
places us in a box. We did pass a budget resolution that places us in a 
box. We did this intentionally. It placed us in a box because we said 
we did not want to see one penny of Social Security dollars going to 
other government programs. We wanted to see every penny of Social 
Security going into Social Security. We passed a budget resolution that 
said we would do just that.
  We are following up now with a lockbox bill, the first step in our 
lockbox efforts to do just that, to stop the phony accounting here in 
Congress that hides the budget deficits by masking the size of the 
budget deficits, by covering it up with the Social Security surpluses.
  This lockbox bill also says this: We are going to make it tougher for 
Congress to pass legislation that raids Social Security. Now we think 
we can go farther, and we in fact want to go farther with this 
legislation. Unfortunately, the White House and the members of the 
other body from the other party are against that. We cannot get it 
passed into law. So we are going as far as we possibly can.
  Another criticism we have been hearing from the other side of the 
aisle is that there is a trap door in this lockbox, that there are some 
keys that magically unlock these funds for use for other purposes. The 
prior speaker also said we need to reform Social Security and Medicare. 
We need comprehensive language to reform Social Security. But before we 
do that, we have got to stop raiding the trust fund, and that is 
exactly what this legislation does.
  So there is no trap door. What this legislation does is say, stop 
raiding the trust fund, put Social Security dollars aside; then we can 
use those Social Security dollars for a comprehensive plan to save 
Social Security. That is the intent of this legislation, stop raiding 
the trust fund, put the money aside. Then after we have stopped that 
raid, we can use those dollars to save Social Security. That is not a 
trap door. That is a lockbox.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this ``Lock box'' legislation 
and congratulate my friend from California for his work on this issue. 
I am a cosponsor of this bill and am glad to be a part of this effort 
to protect the Social Security Trust Fund.
  For years, the Federal government has been raiding Social Security to 
pay for other government programs and to mask the true size of the 
federal deficit. Bringing this to an end is one of my highest 
priorities in Congress.

[[Page 11156]]

  Earlier this year, I introduced similar ``Lock box'' legislation that 
would establish a point of order against any future budget resolutions 
which would dip into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for non-
Social Security programs. I was pleased that my language was included 
in the FY 2000 budget resolution.
  H.R. 1259 expands this point of order to apply to any bill, 
considered in either House, which would dip into Social Security. In 
addition, it prohibits reporting federal budget totals that include 
Social Security surpluses.
  I am committed to exploring every legislative option available to 
protect Social Security. I, along with the chairman of the House Budget 
Committee, Mr. Kasich, have introduced additional ``Lock box'' 
legislation which would establish even more protections for the Social 
Security Trust Fund by implementing new enforceable limits on the 
amount of debt held by the public.
  It is important to note that neither the bill we are considering 
today, nor the bills I just spoke about, will affect current Social 
Security benefits. These bills simply protect the money each taxpayer 
pays into the Social Security Trust Fund.
  H.R. 1259 has the support of various outside groups including: the 
Alliance for Worker Retirement Security; the American Conservative 
Union; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Citizens Against Government 
Waste.
  It is my firm conviction that we must take the first step of 
protecting the Social Security Trust Fund before we can move to make 
wholesale improvements to the system. For those of my colleagues who 
oppose this legislation, I ask you, if we cannot protect the trust fund 
now, how can we expect to make the necessary reforms to the system for 
future generations? Join me in voting yes for this ``Lock box'' 
legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) that one of the points he made is, we can then use 
this money for Social Security. The problem is this money is already 
obligated to Social Security. So we are not saving Social Security with 
something that we already have.
  As I think the gentleman knows, virtually every plan that has come 
out, even the plan by the distinguished chairman of the full Committee 
on Ways and Means, assumes not only the obligated Social Security Trust 
Fund, but additional funds, general revenues, for their Social Security 
plan.
  So it is a little semantical to say we can use it later to save it, 
because we are already obligated to pay it. This is a little bit what 
we would call belts and suspenders. Sounds good. Again, I am going to 
vote for it, but I do not think it does a whole lot.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I 
agree with much of what the gentleman just said.
  This money is obligated to Social Security. Money coming from FICA 
taxes is supposed to go to Social Security. The problem is, we spend it 
on all of these other government programs. We have got to stop Congress 
and the President from spending FICA tax surpluses on other government 
programs. That is precisely why we are trying to pass this lockbox 
legislation.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, two things though, 
again, as I pointed out, these funds are still obligated. They are 
still backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, as 
the gentleman knows. It is a macroeconomic question of how one 
constructs fiscal policy and what is the future ability of how one 
divides the Federal pie as structured.
  But the other point that the gentleman raised had to do with the 
budget that passed. I think our real problem with that is, on the one 
hand, my colleagues passed a budget that would, in effect, consume 
through tax cuts all of the on-budget surplus going forward for the 
next 10 years predicated on 10-year projections, which may well not 
turn out to be true, and at the same time, block anything to do, if 
they miss on their projections.
  So, my colleagues, you put yourself in a real bind at that point in 
time and probably drive up publicly held debt, which I do not think, 
again, is what either party really wants to do.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) each have 
3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, just to make one final point, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) makes good legitimate points. Our 
budget achieves this; remember, in Washington, we are about to see two 
budget surpluses, one coming from Social Security, one coming from a 
large income tax overpayment.
  What our budget achieves is setting all of the Social Security 
surplus aside for Social Security and, in the meantime, paying down 
that publicly held debt that we both seek to pay down.
  Our budget actually pays down $450 billion more in publicly held debt 
than the President's budget. On the on-budget surpluses, the income tax 
overpayment, we think people should get their money back.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me just tell the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), our budget pays down even more debt than their 
budget by, I think, $200 billion over time. So it is not really about 
Republicans versus the President.
  The budget is drawn up here in the House and in the other body, and 
we offered a budget that did more. As the gentleman recalls, in fact, I 
offered an amendment in the committee that would have given all of the 
unified surplus, which may be out, we may not be able to say that in 
the future if this becomes law, but both the on-budget and off-budget 
surplus to paying down debt, staying within the pay-go rules. That was 
defeated overwhelmingly in the committee by Members on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first I include for the Record the following letter:
                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I ask that the Committee on Rules be 
     discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1259, the 
     Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999. As 
     you know, the bill was sequentially referred to the Rules 
     Committee on March 24, 1999.
       Specifically, Section 3 (Protection of Social Security 
     Surpluses), among other things, establishing Budget Act 
     points of order against consideration of a budget resolution, 
     an amendment thereto or any conference report thereon and any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
     report that would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for 
     any fiscal year. The provisions of this section fall 
     primarily within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee.
       It is my understanding that the Leadership has scheduled 
     the bill for floor consideration the week of May 24. To 
     accommodate the schedule, I agree to waive the Rules 
     Committee's jurisdiction over consideration of this 
     legislation at this time. However, in order to assist the 
     Chair in any rulings on these new points of order, I will be 
     submitting an analysis of them into the Congressional Record 
     during the floor consideration of this bill. I have included 
     a copy of this analysis with this letter.
       Although the Rules Committee has not sought to exercise its 
     original jurisdiction prerogatives on this legislation 
     pursuant to clause 1(m) and 3(i) of House rule X, I reserve 
     the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee over all bills 
     relating to the rules, joint rules and the order of business 
     of the House, including any bills relating to the 
     congressional budget process. Furthermore, it would be my 
     intention to seek to have the Rules Committee represented on 
     any conference committee on this bill.
           Sincerely,
     David Dreier.
                                  ____


   Analysis of the Provisions of H.R. 1259, The Social Security and 
    Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, House Committee on Rules

       For the purposes of section 3(a) relating to ``Points of 
     Order to Protect Social Security Surpluses,'' the Chair 
     should use the following information in interpreting these 
     new points of order.

[[Page 11157]]

       The new section 312(g)(1) of the Budget Act creates a point 
     of order against consideration of any concurrent resolution 
     or conference report thereon or amendment thereto that would 
     set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year. For the 
     purposes of this section the deficit levels are those set 
     forth in the budget resolution pursuant to section 301(a)(3) 
     of the Budget Act.
       The new section 312(g)(2) of the Budget Act creates a point 
     of order against consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report if the enactment of 
     that bill or joint resolution as reported; the adoption and 
     enactment of that amendment; or the enactment of that bill or 
     joint resolution in the form recommended in that conference 
     report; would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any 
     fiscal year. For the purposes of this section, the Chair 
     should utilize the budget estimates received by the Committee 
     on the Budget (pursuant to section 312(a) of the Budget Act) 
     in determining whether a bill, joint resolution, motion, 
     amendment or conference report would cause or increase an on-
     budget deficit for any fiscal year. This point of order 
     applies to amendments to unreported bills and joint 
     resolutions.

  Mr. Speaker, I will just make a couple of closing remarks. I think 
that what we have heard here in this opening session of the Committee 
on Rules, to be followed now by the Committee on Budget and then the 
Committee on Ways and Means, 40-minute blocks on this bill, that we are 
trying to proceed in good faith to provide the reassurances that is 
being asked to protect Social Security and Medicare.
  We have heard a lot of discussion that there may be a better way to 
do this, that there are other things that may come down the road. But 
there are a couple of facts here that are sort of poignant.
  First of all, we are living up to the promise that we made to make a 
good-faith attempt to protect Social Security and Medicare. That is a 
fact.
  Secondly, this is not just a procedure. This is going to be a law; it 
is going to have to be obeyed. It is not just something that is going 
to disappear when we want it to.
  It is, I think, a serious effort; and I honestly believe that if we 
look over the past 40 years, the temptations were too great on 
spending, and Congress overspent. I think we know that. I think in the 
consequence of that overspending, we saw that taxes went up, and there 
are some who say benefits went down.
  So the concern I have as I listen to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) describe a motion to recommit, which we may 
or may not hear later, is that sometime in the next 75 years, there is 
going to be reform enacted.
  But until that time, in order to get along with the proposal to 
protect Social Security, they are going to have to raise taxes, or they 
are going to have to cut benefits.
  I cannot honestly believe that anybody on either side of the aisle 
wants to be involved with programs such as their motion to recommit, if 
they offer it, will include, raising taxes and cutting benefits.
  We are not involved in raising taxes on hardworking Americans, and we 
certainly are not involved in trying to take away benefits from our 
seniors. In fact, what we are trying to do is protect them.
  So I would suggest that even though my colleagues may not agree this 
is the most perfect legislation, it is good, bipartisan legislation 
that protects Social Security and Medicare. It makes it law. It 
provides the reassurances that people want. I believe that this is a 
very good-faith effort on both sides of the aisle.
  I congratulate again the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for the fine work that they 
have done, and many others, the committee work that has gone on on this 
subject generally. I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time allocated under the rule to the 
Committee on Rules has expired.
  It is now in order to proceed with the time allocated to the 
Committee on the Budget. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, protecting Social Security is one of the most important 
challenges this Congress will face. Social Security is facing a crisis. 
By the year 2014, the amount of benefits provided to our seniors will 
exceed the amount of payroll taxes taken in.
  Mr. Speaker, current and future beneficiaries, after years of hard 
work, deserve the independence that comes from financial security, and 
that financial security ought to be the one thing they can count on. 
Every penny that is taken out of Americans' paychecks for Social 
Security should be locked up so it can only be used to pay for Social 
Security benefits. This legislation will help ensure precisely that.
  This legislation represents a continuation of our commitment to save 
Social Security as outlined in the budget resolutions passed by both 
the House and the Senate last month. This lockbox legislation that is 
shown here will protect the Social Security surpluses through several 
mechanisms.
  First, H.R. 159 protects Social Security surpluses by blocking the 
consideration of any budget resolution or legislation that dips into 
Social Security. This bill creates a new point of order in the House 
and requires a supermajority for passage in the Senate for measures 
that attempt to use Social Security surplus funds.
  Secondly, it ends the deceptive practice of masking deficits and 
inflating surpluses by prohibiting the Congressional Budget Office and 
the President's Office of Management and Budget from reporting Federal 
budget totals that include Social Security surpluses. This bill stops 
this budget shell game and allows only non-Social Security surpluses or 
deficits to be reported.
  Thirdly, H.R. 1259 locks up the Social Security surpluses and only 
allows them to be used for Social Security and Medicare reform.
  The first step toward saving Social Security is to stop spending it 
on non-related government programs. Once this legislation does that, we 
as a Congress can continue to move forward on real Social Security and 
Medicare reform, and may use the money in the Social Security Trust 
Fund only to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has a unique opportunity to 
help protect Social Security and place ourselves on the path to 
substantial Social Security and Medicare reform. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting for this most important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the people sent us here to do a 
job. They sent us here to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and 
that is exactly what the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 
1999 seeks to do.
  The lockbox raises the bar for protecting Social Security and the 
Medicare trust funds. The bill requires that all spending be fully 
offset until solvency has been extended for Social Security by 75 years 
and Medicare by 30 years. We must save Social Security and Medicare 
first, before squandering any of the Social Security surplus, the 
Medicare surplus, and any other government surplus.
  The Social Security and Medicare lockbox is the only alternative that 
seeks to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund. The Holt-Lucas-
Moore lockbox is the only measure that locks the safe and throws away 
the key. The lockbox requires that all surpluses be reserved until 
solvency has been extended by 75 years for Social Security and by 30 
years for Medicare.
  Paying down the Federal debt is the truly greatest gift that we can 
give our children and our grandchildren. Paying down the Federal debt 
means lower interest for our working families, more capital available 
for small businesses and a brighter future for our children.

[[Page 11158]]

  Social Security and Medicare are vital for protecting the quality of 
life of our senior citizens. More than three-fifths or 60 percent of 
senior citizens depend on Social Security for a majority of their 
income. Social Security is not just retirement. For some families it is 
insurance that many of the disabled, the widows and the elderly of our 
community depend on just to get by.
  With something this important, we simply cannot afford sleight-of-
hand tricks from Washington. For too long we have promised to save 
Social Security and Medicare. To my colleagues I say it is time we put 
our money where our mouths are. It is time to support the Social 
Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 1999.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 
1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999.
  First, I want to thank my fellow committee member and fellow 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for his tireless 
work to protect the Social Security Trust Fund.
  One of the previous speakers said people do not want devices like 
boxes. I disagree. Obviously, some people would prefer to continue 
using illusion. It is time to stop the campaign rhetoric. We need to 
make sure no one, I repeat, no one, not the President, not the 
Congress, not anyone steals the Social Security money in the future.
  I urge all the Members of the House to join us in protecting Social 
Security by supporting this safe deposit box. The safe deposit box 
follows up on the commitment this House made with the budget resolution 
by walling off Social Security from the rest of the United States 
budget.
  It prohibits future budget resolutions by allowing spending that 
would dip into Social Security. It prohibits that. It blocks 
legislation that would spend Social Security surpluses and requires the 
Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office to 
report Social Security revenues separate, not included in the budget, 
as we have done in the past.
  If we really want Social Security trust funds to be off budget, if we 
want the Social Security Trust Fund to be protected, if we want to put 
aside the entire $1.8 trillion for Social Security and Medicare over 
the next 10 years, if we want Social Security to be there when current 
and future seniors need it, if we are serious about Social Security 
reform, then we will pass this Social Security measure, and I encourage 
everybody to vote for it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, Social Security is a bedrock on which more than 40 
million Americans rely. We have an opportunity in this Congress to make 
it more secure than ever. It is an opportunity that we have not had in 
the past because in the past we have had annual deficits, and over the 
last 10 years we have been able to eradicate those deficits. We have 
positioned ourselves now to where we can deal finally with the security 
of Social Security.
  We had a proposal in our budget resolution which would have created a 
lockbox for Social Security, would have required the treasurer to do 
what he does today; every time he gets excess payroll taxes, to remit 
those funds to the Social Security administrator in the form of bonds 
issued by the Treasury, and then to take the proceeds and not spend 
them, not use them to offset tax cuts, but buy up outstanding public 
debt so that we buy down the public debt, and therefore make the 
Treasury more solvent and able in the future to meet the obligations of 
the Social Security System. It was rejected by the majority when we 
brought our budget resolution to the floor.
  What the other side has brought here is weaker than existing law. It 
huffs and it puffs. It talks about Social Security, but in the end, the 
product it presents is weaker than existing law.
  What does it provide for enforcement? A point of order. If we send up 
here something that breaches the provisions of this bill, there is a 
point of order. We all know in the House, although they may not know in 
the rest of the country, that points of order are mowed down by the 
Committee on Rules in this House every week; waived all the time.
  Because they are so routinely waived by Rules, when we passed the 
unfunded mandates bill several years ago we said at least to have a 
mandate pass that will be incumbent upon local government and will 
increase their obligations, at least we should have a vote on the House 
floor, an overt vote. A Member has to go out and declare themselves 
ready to override the mandate. This rule does not even do that. It 
allows the rule to include a waiver of the point of order. Nobody will 
know it. It will be completely swept out of the way.
  So this is a sham when it comes to a rule, but it even goes further. 
As if the overriding of a point of order was too much, it provides in 
section 5 a waiver. And that waiver says if we get the magic words 
right, if we say this bill is about the reform of Social Security, this 
bill is about the reform of Medicare, abracadabra, all of the 
restrictions in this bill disappear. This lockbox falls apart. It does 
not even apply any more.
  This is absurd. A lot of us will vote for this because we do not want 
to explain why we did not vote for something like this, but we can do 
something better. We offer something better in the form of our motion 
to recommit. If Members are really serious about a lockbox, vote for 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is really incredibly misleading, if not completely incorrect, to 
say that this legislation is weaker than current legislation. That is 
clearly not the fact. The budget resolution that passed is only for 
this budget. What we are doing is putting into law the fact that we 
cannot spend this; that before we do, Members are going to be held 
accountable in their districts for knowing that they actually spent 
Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, all across Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley where I come 
from, I have heard one message loud and clear, and that is to stop 
spending our Nation's Social Security funds on other programs, and this 
is the measure that will enable us to do just that.
  My constituents are right, and they are right for many reasons but I 
want to emphasize two. The first is that this is the honest thing to do 
in budgeting. And let us face it, Congress has been engaged in 
misleading and deceptive budgeting for decades. The American people are 
told their payroll tax goes to Social Security. In fact, it goes to 
many other places as well.
  Now, some Members of Congress want to oppose this, and they, like the 
President, would rather be able to grab some of that Social Security 
money and spend it on other programs. And I would suggest if these 
other programs are so important, so vitally important that they are 
worth spending Social Security for, then I suggest that my colleagues 
make the case for these programs to the taxpayers and raise the taxes 
necessary to fund them. If that fails, I would suggest rethinking the 
programs and the overall level of spending. The American taxpayers 
deserve honest, transparent, straightforward budgeting, and this helps 
us to get there.
  The second reason, Mr. Speaker, is that the retirement security of 
baby boomers, my generation, my kids and my grandchildren, absolutely 
depends on saving this money. Social Security, as currently structured, 
is simply not sustainable. The system is fundamentally flawed and it 
will go bankrupt if we do not make fundamental reforms and 
restructuring.
  We need to give workers the freedom to take a portion of their 
payroll taxes and invest that money so that it will grow and provide a 
retirement benefit

[[Page 11159]]

and security greater than what Social Security promises. But the fact 
is, Mr. Speaker, that transition to that system will cost money. The 
sooner we start, the less it will cost.
  But whenever we start, it will cost the Social Security surplus. So 
we cannot squander those funds on anything other than providing the 
retirement benefits to the seniors that we have promised and providing 
for a retirement future for future generations.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, a lot of my colleagues have come to the 
floor and indicated that, Well, friends, last week it was okay to spend 
$9 billion for an emergency supplemental bill out of the Social 
Security trust fund. But now we have got religion today and, my Lord, 
what we did last week, it was wrong. We should have never done it.
  But none of the Republicans would admit to that. I have yet to hear 
one of my colleagues from the majority party say, ``Yes, that was 
wrong. We should not have done it. But now we are going to amend our 
ways.''
  The difference there, my friends and colleagues, is last week's $9 
billion was for defense. Okay? And that is not spending. That is okay. 
But now we have to stop what is going on.
  Let me back up and share with the House what the current system is. 
Right now, and since 1983, we are collecting more in Social Security 
receipts than we need for benefits. So what do we do with it? Do we 
give it to the Secretary of the Treasury to put under the mattress? No. 
Those excess dollars are invested in treasuries, interest-bearing 
treasuries. The interest income goes back into the trust fund.
  It is just like us taking our dollars, our hard-earned dollars, and 
putting them in a bank. We can go back the next day and say, ``I want 
to see those dollars again that I deposited'' and the bank is going to 
say, ``they are not there anymore.''
  Did they squander them? No. They lent them out. That is what banks 
do. And anytime we come to withdraw those funds, the bank will have 
other revenues, other mortgage payments, other loan payments to give us 
our money back. And that is what the current system is doing.
  Should we deficit spend? Clearly not. To say those treasuries that 
are in the Social Security trust fund are worthless, that is false. If 
they are worthless, every savings bond this Government has ever issued 
is worthless, all the public debt held by corporations and institutions 
and individuals is worthless. And that is not the case.
  The truth of the matter is the full faith and credit is behind that 
debt to the Social Security trust fund, as well as all other debt.
  How does this lock box work? Before I came down here, I went to the 
Republican side and I said, I need a lock box. Do you have one hanging 
around? And thank God they did. Here is a Social Security lock box. And 
here is what this proposal would do.
  We are going to collect surplus Social Security trust fund money and 
we are going to put it into the box. Well, when the majority leader was 
talking earlier in the debate, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
said, Well, what are they going to do with this money. Just let it sit 
around? Are they going to invest it. What are they going to do with it? 
The majority leader indicated, we are going to take this money and pay 
off a part of the national debt.
  So now, after we go through hours of debate how Congress is stealing 
the money blind, how the administration is spending it, we are going to 
find out at the end of the day that this is the lock box. My friends, 
the money is gone. It went back to pay off the national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what the lock box is all about. The money is 
going to come in, the money is going to drop out to go pay the national 
debt. When we need the money because these folks before me are going to 
retire, we are going to use other revenues coming into the Government. 
Hopefully, and I think we all are going to work to that, there are 
going to be surplus revenues. But the money is not going to sit around 
under someone's mattress.
  This is the lock box we are talking about. Talk about trap doors. 
Talk about phoney issues. This is one of them, my friends.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to take issue with my friend and colleague from 
the great State of Wisconsin. That is simply not the case. The debt we 
owe to Social Security is also a part of our national debt.
  What our budget resolution does is take Social Security dollars away 
from Social Security and put it towards Social Security by buying down 
debt. What happens when those Social Security IOUs come due is that 
that debt is converted into national publicly held debt.
  What our lock box does is pay off the publicly held debt so we can 
pay the Social Security bills.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the distinguished vice chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, throughout my home State of Georgia and 
all cross America there is a common concern among many citizens. 
Apparently, my friend from Wisconsin who just spoke really does not 
understand this concern. But the concern is that Social Security is not 
going to be there for them when they retire. And that concern is real. 
It is not unfounded, as American seniors have witnessed the raiding of 
Social Security over the last several generations.
  I have got two children. One of them is in the workforce as we speak. 
The other one just graduated from college and is going into the 
workforce. I also have got the pleasure of having two beautiful 
grandchildren. I want to make sure that Social Security is going to be 
there for those children and grandchildren when they become of age.
  After years of hard work, the independence that comes from financial 
security ought to be one thing that our Nation's seniors and our 
Nation's young people can count on. The Social Security and Medicare 
safe deposit box to be considered by the House today goes a long ways 
towards restoring that ideal.
  Every penny that is taken from the paychecks of America's hard-
working men and women should be locked away and can be locked away in a 
safe deposit box and used only for retirement benefits. And that is 
what this bill does. Quite simply stated, it is the right thing to do.
  Social Security and Medicare safe deposit boxes before us establishes 
honesty and accountability in the Federal budget process and takes the 
next step in securing and ensuring retirement security, not just for 
this generation but for generations to come.
  I congratulate my colleague and friend from California, who is a 
member of the Committee on the Budget along with me, for his tireless 
efforts for promoting honest budgeting and encourage my colleagues to 
support this common sense legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. 
This bill before us endorses a position that we have been advocating 
for years.
  I have come to this well many times to argue that we should not even 
talk about budget surpluses until we truly have taken Social Security 
off budget and balance the budget without counting the Social Security 
surplus. For the last several years, I have joined with my Blue Dog 
colleagues to offer budgets that incorporate that philosophy.
  Thus, I congratulate the House leadership for seeing the wisdom of 
the Blue Dogs' position on this issue today. Although I must say, I 
wish they had seen the light a little earlier and supported some of our 
budgets over the last 2 or 3 years, particularly the last

[[Page 11160]]

budget a little earlier when we had an opportunity to pass a real 
budget which would have actually helped us do that which we talk about 
today.
  I am glad, though, to see that we have reached a point where everyone 
agrees with the principle that we should wall off Social Security. The 
real test will be whether we can follow through with our rhetoric as we 
go through appropriations and tax cutting processes. I hope we can do 
so, but history is not encouraging.
  The budget which we passed just a few weeks ago set up a virtual 
guarantee of failure because of its unrealistic numbers. Already, with 
this year's first appropriations bill, the Agriculture Appropriation 
has been on the floor for 2 days and we have seen nothing constructive 
happening. The victim of this unreasonable budget is not only 
inadequate agriculture funding but also funding for other programs and 
ultimately Social Security. The pressure created by an unrealistic 
budget translates into vulnerability for Social Security.
  If the House had shown the foresight to follow a path more along the 
lines of the Blue Dog budget, we would have invested in priority 
programs such as defense, agriculture, veterans, education, and health. 
At the same time, our budget did protect all of the Social Security 
surplus fund over a 5-year period while using 50 percent of the on-
budget surpluses to reduce our debt and 25 percent to provide a tax 
cut. This plan reflected a reasonable balance, but that is not what we 
passed.
  Last year the majority, though, passed an $80 billion tax cut that 
would have been funded entirely from the Social Security trust fund 
that we lock up today. And just last week, we voted to spend $15 
billion from the Social Security trust fund, we did that, by the same 
folks that today say this is going to be a magic bullet and is going to 
save Social Security.
  We should not kid ourselves and pretend that this legislation does 
anything to deal with the long-term problems of Social Security. 
Walling off Social Security surplus is a good start, and that is why I 
support it. But it is not a solution. A true solution will require us 
to roll up our sleeves and do some heavy lifting to deal with the tough 
choices facing Social Security. It would be a terrible mistake if we 
let passage of this legislation be the end of the discussion of Social 
Security. Our vote today should be the beginning of a bipartisan 
process to honestly address financial problems facing Social Security.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that while the party of my good 
friend from Texas was in control for some 40 years before we took over, 
there was not a single dime of Social Security that was saved. At least 
now we are taking that first step to begin saving Social Security. And 
it is something that I would urge all of us to begin doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Fletcher), my good friend, a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this 
resolution. I thank the gentleman from California for the work he has 
done on the Committee on the Budget.
  I stand amazed that we hear such criticism from the other side when 
they have had 40 years previously to do this very thing that we have 
done here this day. And I find a great deal of hypocrisy when my 
colleague stands up and talks about a box that came from a Republican 
that really will not hold the money when we are here to secure with a 
lock box the Social Security money that has been paid in FICA taxes by 
the people of the United States.
  So finally, after 30 years of spending Social Security for more and 
bigger Government, we are locking away the Social Security and 
protecting both Social Security and Medicare. I am proud to play a role 
in securing and guaranteeing retirement and Medicare security for our 
seniors.
  The Social Security and Medicare lock box law will lock away $1.8 
trillion of the budget surplus to pay down the national publicly held 
debt. I support this resolution because it really stops the raid on 
Social Security that puts the burdens of IOUs on our children's and our 
grandchildren's back. We need to stop that, and this is an important 
move to begin in that direction.
  This lock box provision prohibits the passage of future budgets that 
will raid Social Security and Medicare fund. It blocks the passage of 
legislation including spending initiatives or tax cuts that would spend 
the people's Social Security money. And it requires all budgets from 
the President and Congresses to include the Social Security surplus 
from budget totals and it unlocks the funds only for the purpose of 
Social Security and Medicare preservation legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis), my colleague, for yielding me the time.
  I want to take a little bit of exception to the fact that some people 
think we are just kind of up here giving them a hard time about this. 
Quite frankly, I am going to support this legislation. I do not think 
it does a whole lot. It does not take a rocket scientist, at least from 
my standpoint. Every month out of my paycheck my employer and myself 
send up 12.4 percent into the Federal Government. It is going to be 
saved for me.
  Quite frankly, we have not not paid a Social Security check. We have 
expanded and extended Social Security to 2034. I mean, everything is 
kind of going along. It is just that we are getting into this debate 
over the surplus. The fact of the matter is I am going to support this. 
I think we ought to lock this up. I think that is what we should have 
been doing anyway.
  But on the other side of this, I want to make it clear that we are 
doing something I think to this country and scaring people. This floor 
is talking about, oh, we are going to not pay our debts on Social 
Security. We are not going to have the money. That is not so. We are 
solvent until 2034.
  I would say to my colleagues, though, on the other side, they have an 
opportunity to do something beyond just this lock box. They have an 
opportunity to secure not only the Social Security surplus but the non-
Social Security surplus until we can make sure that the system is 
solvent.

                              {time}  1800

  That is what we have all been working for. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) has a piece of legislation that says he thinks we can do 
that for 75 years. Let us have that discussion. Let us lock this all up 
until we get to that solvency of 75 years, or whatever year we come to. 
I think that is very important.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I agree with what the gentlewoman is saying. I 
certainly support the lockbox, but with all of you people who are 
working so hard to develop this, would you sometime during this process 
work to find a solution to the notch baby problem?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I would be glad to do that. I probably have more notch 
baby folks in my district than you do.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Responding to the comments of the gentlewoman from Florida, her 
comment was that Social Security is good until the year 2034. The fact 
is we begin losing money, we begin spending, paying out in Social 
Security more than we are bringing in, in the year 2014. Not 2034, but 
2014. After that, we begin pulling out the IOUs that have been written, 
the bonds that have been written.

[[Page 11161]]

How is that paid? That is not money off a tree. That comes from 
taxpayers. Our young people are going to have to pay for that.
  So we are in a problem, and we are beginning to address it. This is 
only the first step. As you mentioned, we have other steps we are going 
to have to take after that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, we teach our children about the story of the 
ant and the grasshopper, in which the ant works hard in the summer 
laying up supplies for the winter while the grasshopper plays the 
summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed, but the 
grasshopper has no food and starves.
  While we expect our children to understand the moral of this story, 
the government itself cannot seem to set the example of saving for the 
future, which is why I strongly support the Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Act, legislation which locks away 100 percent of 
the budget surplus attributed to Social Security and Medicare to ensure 
the long-term solvency of these two vital programs.
  Passage of this legislation represents a commitment to today's 
workers that tax dollars being set aside for Social Security and 
Medicare will be there for them when they retire. It also represents a 
commitment to older Americans that their golden years will be marked by 
peace of mind, not uncertainty, when it comes to the future of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  The wisdom of the ant and the irresponsibility of the grasshopper 
teach our children an important lesson, Mr. Speaker. I hope Congress 
will have the wisdom to embrace the fable's meaning and pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who is the prime 
sponsor of the motion to recommit on the bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for 
yielding me this time. I would like to talk about the importance of the 
motion to recommit. We are talking about the fundamental programs of 
Social Security and Medicare, the two great accomplishments of the 
Federal Government in the 20th century that have removed the fear of 
destitution from old age and have made a major difference in the lives 
of the people of this country. We have before us now a lockbox that we 
cannot debate fully and that is imperfect, with a hole in the bottom.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Moore) and I have proposed a stronger lockbox that would preserve 
Social Security and Medicare. Let me point out that I have just 
received, addressed to the gentleman from Kentucky Kentucky, the 
gentleman from Kansas and to me a letter from the Concord Coalition 
saying, and I quote:
  ``The Concord Coalition,'' watchdogs of budgetary sanity, ``is 
pleased to endorse the motion to recommit on H.R. 1259 which would add 
to that bill the protections of your bill''--that is, our bill--``H.R. 
1927. With this bill you have raised an important issue in today's 
Social Security lockbox debate.''
  They go on to say:
  ``The Concord Coalition is very concerned that these `on-budget' 
surpluses, which are now mere projections, will be squandered before 
they even materialize.
  ``Doing so would waste an important opportunity to prepare for the 
fiscal burdens of the baby boomers' retirement by increasing savings, 
that is, paying down our national debt. Worse, it would risk a return 
of economically damaging deficits if the hoped-for surpluses fail to 
materialize.
  ``The nature and extent of the surpluses to be locked in the box is 
thus a very necessary debate and we commend you for raising it in the 
form of your motion to recommit.''
  That, I say to my colleagues, would give us an opportunity to really 
accomplish what my colleagues say they want to accomplish, and that is 
to really preserve Social Security and, I would add, Medicare.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, who mentioned how the Concord Coalition was endorsing his 
legislation, I would like to mention that the Concord Coalition is also 
endorsing this piece of legislation as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious occasion. 
Somehow I wish we could holler a little louder and shout about the fact 
that there is a greater interest in saving Social Security.
  I brought with me three bills, one from 1995, one from 1997 and one 
from 1999, all of which take Social Security off the budget. That is 
what this bill does, too. I think that is a good point. I hope your 
recommit bill does the same thing and says from now on at least we are 
not going to talk and use the Social Security surplus to mask the 
deficit, because that is what we have been doing. For most every year 
for the last 40 years, we have been spending the Social Security 
surplus and in our eagerness to brag about a balanced budget, we have 
used Social Security to mask the deficit.
  At least this is a beginning. This is saying we are not going to do 
it anymore, we are going to make an effort to say that we are going to 
take the surpluses, that amount that is coming in from the Social 
Security tax that is in excess of what is needed for Social Security 
benefits and we are going to put it aside.
  This side has said, ``Well, look. It's not perfect.'' That is right. 
Fifty perecent of the Members can change the rule. It is all going to 
depend on how much guts we have got. It is going to depend on how much 
intestinal fortitude we have to say, ``Look. We're going to live within 
our means. We're not going to spend Social Security for other 
government programs and expand the size of government.''
  I compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), I compliment the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), an early mover in trying to solve Social Security. The fact 
is that this does not solve the Social Security problem, but it gets a 
little more public awareness.
  If we can pass this legislation and stick to it, if we can say, look, 
we are not going to spend the Social Security surplus for other 
government programs. And if there are things that are so blasted 
important, we are going to either cut down on other spending someplace 
else or we are going to increase taxes. Let us not pretend anymore by 
spending the Social Security surplus, but, look, let us decide here and 
now that we have got the will power to move ahead with real solutions 
for Social Security.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this resolution today even though 
I'm not convinced it is needed. Early this morning many of us got up 
and we had a nice early morning meeting with outgoing Secretary of the 
Treasury Robert Rubin. He has been showered in recent weeks with 
accolades, given his impending retirement, based on his management over 
the years of our economy and how well it has been going.
  He gave us one piece of advice that he drove home so clearly today as 
policymakers. If we do one thing in this United States Congress to 
ensure long-term prosperity for this country, it is to use the 
projected budget surpluses to download our $5.6 trillion national debt. 
We do not need gimmicks and fake legislation like we have here today to 
do that. What is required is some fiscal discipline and coming together 
in a bipartisan fashion to maintain fiscal discipline and download the 
debt, instead of dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund for new 
spending programs as what happened last week with the supplemental 
appropriation bill, or by offering fiscally irresponsible, across-the-
board tax cuts.
  That is the same message that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, delivers to us every day. We

[[Page 11162]]

do not need legislation like this. What we need is political courage to 
do it.
  I have two sons, Mr. Speaker, Johnny and Matthew who are probably 
going to be living throughout most of the 21st century. If there is 
anything that we can do to ensure a bright and prosperous economic 
future for these two little boys, it is by delivering some political 
courage, practicing some fiscal discipline, making the tough choices 
that we are capable of making to preserve Social Security, Medicare and 
pay down our national debt instead of offering legislative gimmicks 
like the one we are debating here today.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
This is not a gimmick. I guess the question is, why have we not done 
something before? Is this going to solve the whole problem? No. But at 
least it is a beginning. It is a first step.
  I also have a picture I just pulled out of my eight children, I care 
about them, one grandchild. This is really for those who are coming 
after us as well as those who are seniors today. We have to begin 
sometime. Why not now?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan), my good friend on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to wrap up this issue. We have heard from a 
lot of Members from both sides of the aisle, from Members on this other 
side of the aisle that although they have all these criticisms, they 
are going to end up voting for this bill.
  We can work together on this. I do believe that this should be a 
bipartisan issue, not a partisan issue. We have heard a lot of partisan 
spats back and forth. We have heard a lot of criticisms. At the end of 
these criticisms just about every speaker has said, ``But I'll be 
voting for the bill.''
  Let us work together on this thing. We all are saying we want to stop 
the raid on Social Security. We all are saying we believe FICA taxes 
should go to Social Security, period, end of story. So let us put this 
partisan talk aside and work on this.
  This legislation is necessary. If we thought the discipline was there 
to make sure that all FICA taxes went to Social Security, we would not 
need this legislation. However, for over 30 years Congress and the 
White House, Republicans and Democrats, have been raiding Social 
Security. That is a fact. That is why we are addressing this issue with 
this lockbox legislation.
  This legislation gives us the necessary tools to fight in Congress 
for stopping the raid on Social Security. It empowers us with the 
ability to, when any piece of legislation comes up which seeks to raid 
Social Security, it gives us the ability to stop that legislation. That 
is what this legislation achieves. It also stops the smoke and mirrors 
accounting by stopping from masking the deficit with Social Security 
trust funds.
  Can we go farther? Absolutely. Will we go farther? I hope so. But is 
this a gimmick? Absolutely not. This is real legislation that helps us 
stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. This is a bipartisan 
issue. We should work on this together. We should stop these partisan 
spats. Because if you are going to go vote for the bill, then applaud 
the bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we all support protecting Social Security. I totally 
support placing Social Security outside of the budget process. But the 
larger issue is how we are going to strengthen Social Security and 
Medicare for the future.
  Unfortunately, this lockbox becomes a gimmick when it does not add 
one dime to the Social Security Trust Fund or one day to the solvency 
of the Social Security Trust Fund, let alone Medicare. It becomes an 
empty box without a commitment to have the entire surplus focused on 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare for the future. That is what 
we are talking about.
  The motion to recommit really does the job. That is what we really 
want to have from our colleagues, is a commitment that we will join 
together to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the future. 
Without that commitment, we do not in fact have anything but a gimmick.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, we have to work together. As the gentlewoman 
from Michigan said, the only way we are going to solve this problem is 
by both sides of the aisle working together. I would like to urge us 
today to allow this to be the first step in doing that, in working 
together on this. Could we do more? Sure. But this is a first step and 
the next step will be a little more.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Speaker, this debate is very simple. This House has an 
opportunity today to make it much more difficult to spend the Social 
Security surplus. We have a choice before us. We can take the almost 
$1.8 trillion of Social Security surplus and spend it as we have been 
doing for the last 40 years, or we can take that same $1.8 trillion and 
protect it, put it in a lockbox so it can only be used to save Social 
Security and Medicare.
  No matter what some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle 
may say about this bill, they would be hard pressed to say it does not 
make it dramatically more difficult to spend Social Security surpluses. 
Let us lock it away as a first step. Then we can move on to reform 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important 
first step of saving and preserving Social Security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time allocated under 
the rule to the Committee on the Budget having expired, it is now in 
order to proceed with the time allocated to the Committee on Ways and 
Means. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to express my support 
for H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act of 
1999.
  Today Social Security protects 44 million Americans. Social 
Security's core features: risk-free, lifetime benefits, progressivity, 
inflation protection and family and disability benefits are 
particularly important to women and to our lower-income people.
  In fact, Social Security is the main and only source of income for 
about one in three seniors today. Thanks mostly to Social Security, 
poverty among seniors has dropped 69 percent since 1959, making seniors 
today the least likely group in America to be poor.
  Yet despite its success, Social Security will not be able to pay 
promised benefits in the future. The reasons are simple. We are living 
longer and retiring sooner and having fewer kids. By 2014 Social 
Security will spend more than it receives in taxes. That is right, by 
2014. By 2034, the trust fund will be empty, and only about two-thirds 
of the benefits will be payable.
  In the past the answer has always been to cut benefits or raise 
payroll taxes, but today these traditional fixes are not acceptable. 
Social Security is the largest tax most workers pay today, and we must 
not increase that burden. We must avoid benefit cuts like COLA cuts and 
retirement age hikes that harm today's seniors or tomorrow's seniors.
  That means our only choice is to save and invest, to save Social 
Security as provided in the Social Security Guarantee Plan the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have proposed. This plan 
converts Social Security surplus into personal retirement savings for 
every American worker to help save Social Security. At retirement, 
workers' savings guarantee full Social Security benefits and are paid 
without cuts or payroll tax hikes. The

[[Page 11163]]

plan even creates new inheritable wealth for many workers who die 
before retirement after ensuring that full survivor benefits are paid. 
And the plan eliminates the Social Security earnings limit so seniors 
can work without further penalties.
  But most importantly the Social Security Guarantee Plan saves Social 
Security for all time. Full promised benefits are paid, and the Social 
Security trust funds never go broke. In fact, the Social Security 
Administration has said the guarantee plan eliminates Social Security's 
long-range deficit and permits payment of full benefits through 1973 
and beyond, and that is a quote. In the long run there are budget 
surpluses and the first payroll tax cuts in the program's history.
  Passing H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act 
of 1999 will be a first critical step in this progress. This 
legislation, for the first time in history, locks away Social Security 
surpluses in a safe deposit box, only to be opened to save Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Today there are no rules to protect the Social Security surplus. In 
contrast, H.R. 1259 sets new rules to protect those surpluses. If a 
measure does not pay for itself, either the House Committee on Rules or 
a supermajority of 60 Senators will have to agree to use Social 
Security surplus to pay for it.
  So while the budget resolution made it out of order for the Congress 
to spend Social Security surpluses this year, this bill goes further to 
protect Social Security surpluses for as long as it takes to save 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Consider what a difference that will make. For 30 years Federal 
budgeteers have included Social Security surpluses in their reporting 
to cover up what was really going on in the rest of the Federal budget. 
This safety deposit box stops the government from hiding behind Social 
Security surpluses to claim that its budget is balanced. In the future, 
all official budget documents must include the Social Security surplus 
in determining the government's budgetary bottom line. That is a solid 
foundation for legislation that will finish the job and really save 
Social Security for 75 years and beyond.
  I encourage all Members to support this bill, and I must say this 
bill does not include the remedy to save Social Security for all time. 
It puts in place a discipline upon this House of Representatives, upon 
the Senate and upon the White House to live within our means without 
raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it was about January or February 
of this year that we had a resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a new Member of Congress, who spoke earlier. In 
that resolution he basically said we should save Social Security. We 
all voted for that. That was about 5 months ago. And now we have this 
proposal, this so-called lockbox proposal.
  We have been debating this now for about 4 hours. Mr. Speaker, do our 
colleagues not think it would be better if we just went to a markup and 
starting marking up a piece of legislation?
  We have a real problem on our hands with respect to Social Security. 
Over the next 35 years benefits paid out will exceed revenues coming in 
by 25 percent even if the Social Security money is set aside. We have 
to come up with a solution. We should not be playing around with 
resolutions and with little gimmicks about setting aside money. We 
should go to a markup.
  And I have to say, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer) are really trying. They have come up with a bill 
that maybe I might disagree with, but it is credible. Why do they not 
just go to a markup with that bill? Why do they not put it in 
legislation?
  The problem is that their Republican leadership and Mr. Lott on the 
Senate side do not support it, and as a result of that, we are now 
playing around. We are not going to come to any resolution of this this 
year because the polling data that the Republicans showed says that we 
should not do Social Security because it is too difficult.
  But I tell my colleagues the American public wants Social Security 
done, but if we are going to do a lockbox, we ought to do it right 
because the legislation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) does a deal with just 62 percent 
of the Social Security surplus. They actually use general fund 
surpluses in order to make sure that the benefits in this, revenues 
coming in on Social Security over the next 35 years, balance out.
  So what we are going to do is we are going to say, ``You have got to 
set aside the Social Security surplus, but the surplus that is on 
budget we can spend. Well, in the Archer-Shaw bill, one has to use that 
to save Social Security, so there is an inconsistency in what we are 
doing now.
  I just want everyone to know that we are going to vote for this, but 
we are going to vote for this on the basis that, why not, it does not 
do any harm, just like the gentleman from Wisconsin's resolution 
earlier in the year did no harm. But I have to say that when the day is 
over, we are not going to extend Social Security by 1 day, or we are 
not going to actually increase any more revenues or cut expenditures on 
Social Security. We are not going to do anything.
  We are really misleading the American public and pretending, and this 
Congress has to finally come to grips with the fact that we have been 
brought here to do the people's business. We probably will not even get 
an appropriations bill out this week. We will probably leave for the 
Memorial Day recess without getting one appropriations bill out, even 
though three were promised, and now we are talking about Social 
Security on Wednesday night after 3 hours, and we are not going to do 
anything. It is not going to make one senior citizen or one member of 
the work force feel any better.
  And so let us not kid ourselves. Let us pass this, but let us not 
tell anybody that this is really going to save Social Security. It is 
going to set aside money, it is not going to do anything; and we know 
it and you know it and everyone else knows it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would answer the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), who is the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security, that I look 
forward to working with him. We do need legislation that is actually 
drawn up so we can actually look at it. Our conceptual model has been 
out there for some time, and people are looking at it, and I know the 
gentleman from California has just recently reviewed this, reviewed the 
documents that we have supplied, and is becoming knowledgeable and 
becoming familiar with what it is that we are trying to do.
  I also understand that the President will be submitting some 
legislative language, and this is a positive step. So we do need to get 
together. This has to be a bipartisan solution, and this is what I 
think is so important in this whole process.
  The gentleman is right. This lockbox is not the solution, but this 
lockbox does make it more difficult for this Congress to go ahead and 
continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and that is a 
fact of life, and that is what this does, and this is why I am 
supporting this particular bill.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this is just for a question, because if he 
plans to do this this year, why do we need a lockbox? We can just do 
it. I mean, we only have 3 more months in the year. Why do we not try 
to get this done?
  Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, both processes are going forward, and 
this lockbox simply puts an impediment in front of the Congress to 
continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund while we are trying to 
come together on a solution.

[[Page 11164]]

  I may be one of the few Members of this House on Capitol Hill that 
really believes we are going to produce something this year, but I do, 
I have confidence in the process, I have confidence that the President 
wants to cooperate, I have confidence that there are a sufficient 
number of Democrats and Republicans that want to get together and put 
together a good bill that will solve the situation, and I am confident 
that we will do it.
  But in the meantime, as we are going through the appropriation 
process, as we will be going through tax cuts and what not, I think 
that the decision has been made to hold this money aside, this surplus 
aside, and I think it is a positive step.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here talking about this 
issue.
  I really do not think it is playing around. This is an honest debate, 
and it is a good debate, and I applaud the basic concept of the 
lockbox. Since Vietnam, we have been digging into the Social Security 
fund. It does not make any sense. It is not right. It has got to be 
stopped. This is one method to stop it.
  I just do not happen to agree with it, and I know my associate on the 
other side of the aisle says, we are going to vote for it. But why not? 
I think there is a real distinction here, and I would like to tell my 
colleagues why I am going to vote against the bill.
  The goal is valid, and we have got to reach that goal, but we have 
got to reach it honestly. The thing I fear is that we are so driven by 
a concept that we will not think through what it means, and this is a 
pretty exact piece of legislation. It requires that all Social Security 
receipts, all of them in excess of cost, paying Social Security checks, 
be set forth separately and immediately into the House and Senate 
budget resolution.

                              {time}  1830

  There are no exceptions for emergencies, and it requires a point of 
order in the House, and 60 votes of the Senate to act otherwise.
  Now, there is going to be a surplus, but there is not a surplus now, 
and with the supplemental emergency dollars just approved for Kosovo 
and the military buildup and other natural disasters, we are, as we 
have in the past, using a part of that Social Security excess.
  Now, if we do not, then we have to borrow that money because we do 
not have that money, and we all want to stop that practice. Now, we 
have borrowed enough, so all we need to do is to avoid borrowing, or if 
we do not want to do that, we can wean ourselves away from using Social 
Security funds.
  These are worthy goals. We are within sight of achieving both of 
them, but we are not there yet, and I think we will be in three years, 
but we are not today.
  So if we insist on passing this lockbox legislation, I predict with 
almost certainty that before the year is out we will be violating our 
promise. I cannot believe this is a sound way of approaching our budget 
and, therefore, I am going to vote against the measure.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me this time. I agree with the point that the gentleman made, 
and that is that it would be a lot better if we were talking about a 
bill that would actually help the people on Social Security, that would 
extend the solvency of the program. We have been here now for many 
months, and it is time for us to use the regular legislative process of 
committee hearings and markup to start taking up legislation.
  So rather than spending so much time on this lockbox, I wish we would 
spend the time debating how Social Security should be strengthened and 
how we should deal with the long-term solvency.
  I also agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) in that 
this bill is one that we should vote for because it does contain some 
provisions that, if we adhere to them, would be good. Why am I 
skeptical about that? Because we have current budget rules in effect 
that do pretty much everything that is in this bill, but every time we 
waive those rules or find ways of getting around it. Just look what we 
did with emergency spending. We found ways to get around the budget 
rules. I am afraid that what is contained in this particular 
legislation, it will be very easy for Congress to get around it.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues my problems, though, with the 
lockbox itself. We normally think of a lockbox that we put in there 
what we need in order to deal with the problem and we have a strong 
lock on it in order to make sure it is only used for that purpose. 
Well, that is not the case in the legislation we have before us. We 
have not put into this lockbox what we should; that is, all the 
surplus. We should not be spending the surplus until we have fixed 
Social Security first. I thought that was the commitment that we made 
on both sides of the aisle, that both leaderships said we are going to 
fix Social Security first. Yet, we do not put into the lockbox the 
resources that will be needed in order to deal with that. That is the 
first major flaw.
  But perhaps even more significant is that there is no lock on this 
lockbox. All we need to do is pass legislation that says that we fixed 
the problem and we can spend the money. Let me read the language in the 
bill. I know we rarely do that around this place, but let me read what 
we are asked to vote on.
  It says the term ``Social Security reform legislation'' means a bill 
or a joint resolution that is enacted into law and includes a provision 
stating the following: ``For the purposes of the Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, this act constitutes Social 
Security reform legislation.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is no lock on this lockbox. There is no 
requirement that we extend solvency of Social Security even one day 
before we can spend the money that we say that we are locking up for 
Social Security.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity to cast a 
really significant vote, and that significant vote will be on the Holt-
Lucas-Moore proposal. It will be in the motion of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) to recommit. That will be a real vote. Why do I 
say that?
  First, it will put into a lockbox all of the surplus and say that we 
cannot spend that until we have dealt with Social Security and 
Medicare. But it goes a second step and puts a lock on the lockbox. It 
puts a lock on the lockbox by defining what is Social Security reform, 
defining what is Medicare reform.
  We do not do that in the legislation before us. We do not even allow 
an amendment for the legislation before us. We have a closed rule. We 
cannot even bring forward suggestions to improve the bill. That is not 
the democratic process and the bipartisan cooperation that my 
colleagues are asking for, when they will not even give us a chance to 
really debate the issue before us today.
  But the motion to recommit, the Holt-Lucas-Moore proposal actually 
does define what we need to do in order to be able to spend the money 
in the lockbox: seventy-five year solvency for Social Security. We all 
agree on that. Let us put it in the bill. We do not do that. But we 
will have a chance.
  Vote for the motion to recommit. It does not delay the process. It 
brings the resolution immediately back for passage, but says that we 
have to deal with the 75-year solvency of Social Security, which we 
should do. And then on Medicare we say we have to have at least 30-year 
solvency in Medicare. That makes sense. Then we would really be putting 
this money aside and putting a real lock on the lockbox to make sure 
the money, in fact, is not spent until we have, in fact, dealt with the 
solvency of both Medicare and Social Security.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we are being asked for bipartisan cooperation. We 
agree with that. We do not have any chance

[[Page 11165]]

to amend the bill. Vote for a motion to recommit so that we can have a 
true lockbox.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this 
legislation. Its time has come. This is legislation that is a seminal 
first step in ensuring that Social Security's retirement safety net 
will be there for our seniors when they need it. By putting all of the 
Social Security surpluses into a lockbox, we ensure that Social 
Security surpluses are not diverted into new spending or new programs 
by Congress.
  Under this legislation Congress could only use non-Social Security 
surpluses, real surpluses, for spending increases and tax cuts. In 
effect, it ends the smoke and mirrors of the budget process by not 
allowing the Social Security surpluses to be invaded.
  This legislation commits Congress to setting aside $1.8 trillion for 
Social Security and Medicare over the next 10 years. These resources 
are an essential component of any viable proposal to rescue Social 
Security. I urge the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I find some difficulty in this debate in that evidently 
this House is planning to adjourn after this vote takes place and leave 
for the Memorial Day weekend and recess. It seems odd that we would be 
leaving, having heard that in the Senate chamber, after a great deal of 
debate and quite a bit of strenuous deliberation, the Senate passed 
legislation that would deal with crime issues. Whether we agree with 
every aspect of it or not is not the point. The fact remains that there 
is a bill on the Senate side sitting, waiting for House action, that 
would deal with the issue of crime and youth violence, and there it 
sits.
  Here on the House side, we bring up legislation that talks about a 
so-called lockbox, legislation that did not go through committee, 
because the people that are debating and sitting on the Committee on 
Ways and Means, including the Members that are here right now, the 
committee that has jurisdiction, and asked for a chance to have this 
bill debated to get the substance out, to really discuss what could be 
done on Social Security, and, in fact, if we could improve it, to add 
amendments to it, but rather than go through the normal legislative 
process where we would have a hearing in committee to discuss and 
debate the merits of the proposal, we are going straight to the floor 
of the House, never having gone through the committees of jurisdiction.
  We could do that with this bill. And, as we have heard, the bill 
really does not do anything, because current law already requires that 
we do these things. But yet legislation that would deal with crime and 
youth violence and try to address the concerns of many Americans when 
it comes to the safety of their children in schools, sits right now 
awaiting action on the part of the House, and yet we are getting ready 
to adjourn without having taken any action on that crime legislation. 
Yet we are willing to pull something straight out from earth without 
ever having given it a chance to be debated and heard and the merits be 
discussed in committee the way we would normally do so on something as 
important as crime.
  Why is it that on crime we have to let it sit and go through the 
whole committee process and wait who knows how many months before it 
can come to the House when the Senate has already passed it, when on 
Social Security, when we are not doing anything that is not already in 
existing law, we have to rush it through? I do not understand, but let 
us continue with the debate.
  On the merits of this legislation, one, as we have heard, we could do 
nothing with this bill and the law would require we do what this bill 
claims it does, and that is to reserve Social Security surpluses for 
Social Security. Secondly, if we truly intend to send a message to the 
American people that we want to act on Social Security, then we would 
do as others have said as well. We would really lock up the surpluses, 
because everyone knows that if we lock up just what is considered a 
surplus in the Social Security fund, that that will not be enough to 
resolve the issues of long-term solvency for 75 years.
  But this bill does not do it, nor are we being given a chance to 
amend the legislation to allow it to do that, so we really can send a 
meaningful message to the American people that we really want to do 
something on Social Security.
  If this is all we are going to do on Social Security for the year or 
for the term, we are in real trouble, because at the end of the day we 
can tell the American people we did nothing more than already existed 
in current law. We could have been absent for the entire two-year 
session as Members of Congress, and Social Security would be in as good 
a shape as if this bill passed and quite honestly as bad a shape as it 
could be if we do not do anything over the next two years.
  So here we are in a situation where we are being told this is a way 
to remedy part of the Social Security problem. In a way, it is a feel-
good proposal that maybe makes people believe that we are going to now 
begin to lock monies up. So in that sense, okay, let us vote for this 
thing. But the reality is, if we are going to deal with the long-term 
solvency issues of Social Security, we have to deal with what the 
President said.
  The difficult question is to get us the last 20 or so years of 75 
years worth of solvency. This does not do any of that. This does not 
even come close to doing what the President said would be the easy part 
of saving the Social Security surpluses, because at the end of the day 
the President committed that we save part of our surpluses for 
Medicare. This does not help in that regard.
  We really need to get to work. If we are going to do something, let 
us make it meaningful, and certainly if we are going to rush it 
through, then let us deal with the crime bill as well, because that is 
just as important as this because this does not really get us anywhere.
  I urge the Members to consider doing something meaningful before we 
move on.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentleman from California, who I do not believe 
was here when his party was in the majority, that it was rare that a 
motion to recommit was offered to the minority side when the 
Republicans were in the minority. So I think this is a very Democratic 
process. The gentleman can come forward with his bill. Many of his 
Members have already argued in favor of his motion to recommit, so I 
think the process going forward is very good.
  I would also remind the gentleman that but for the grace of God and 
six Members, you would be in the majority today. Nothing is precluding 
the gentleman and Members from his side from coming forward with their 
own plan. As a matter of fact, I think we are also looking for one from 
the White House, and I think there is a certain amount of cooperation.
  So I am not slamming this side for it, but I think also when the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have come forward with a plan 
before the Committee on Ways and Means and are working that plan and 
talking to the Members, briefing the Members, and the gentleman from 
California was at the briefing that we had the day we unveiled it, I 
think this is important progress. We are making progress. However, it 
is a slow process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
for yielding me this time.
  It is interesting to listen, and our goal is, of course, a bipartisan 
solution to this challenge of Medicare, and this lockbox simply sets 
aside all of the funds designated for Medicare and Social Security to 
that purpose. It is different, if we want to get technical,

[[Page 11166]]

from what was done in 1990 that dealt with direct reductions.
  What we have heard throughout our districts, whether we are 
Republicans or Democrats, and I know there is a temptation to deride 
any effort made in good faith as some sort of gimmick, but what we have 
heard, not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans, is that we 
need to deal with this problem, devote Social Security surpluses to 
Social Security, keep the trust fund intact.
  I listened with interest to my friend the ranking member from 
California, who encouraged our side to bring forth legislation, and of 
course my good friend from Florida, the chairman of the full committee, 
had brought forward a plan; others folks have, too.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, in fairness, my friend, the gentleman from California, 
also asked that the Treasury Secretary designee, Mr. Summers, where the 
administration plan was.
  I think it is important that we work on this. As we know, a journey 
of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This is a profound step. 
It is not a gimmick.
  The motion to recommit will be akin to double secret probation. The 
other side is entitled to do that, but Americans want a rational, 
reasonable response, and locking up of this fund. That is what it does. 
It is simple. It is practical. This House should do it.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out to the gentleman from Arizona that even though 
the gentleman only has a 6-vote majority, he is a majority. We cannot 
bring a bill to the floor of the House, we cannot bring a bill to the 
committee and get it marked up. Only the people in the majority can.
  The gentleman's side is in the majority. They have the obligation to 
mark up a piece of obligation. We are 6 months into this year without 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me introduce myself. My name is Hillary 
Clinton. I say that because I see that we have a bill before us today 
which says that a bill may in the future declare itself to be whatever 
it wishes to declare itself. I thought since the majority seems to take 
that seriously, I would see how seriously they took me if I introduced 
myself as Hillary Clinton.
  Let me simply say that if Members look at this bill, what it says is 
that no point of order will lodge against a bill if it declares itself 
to be social security or Medicare reform. Boy, there is really some 
protection, is there not?
  I remember that their leader 2 years ago said that social security 
should be allowed to wither on the vine. I know that their existing 
floor leader has said that, as far as he is concerned, there should be 
no room for a program like Medicare in a free society.
  I would simply say that letting legislation written by people like 
that self-declare itself to be reform legislation is a little like 
asking John Dillinger to pretend that he is Mother Teresa. It may be 
believable to some people, but it certainly would not be believable to 
me.
  What this bill says, and man, it has muscle, what it says is this 
Congress will put every dollar on the books into social security unless 
it votes not to. That is what this wonderful lockbox says. It is just 
wonderful, what the Congress can do to pass its time when it is not 
being serious about real legislation.
  I would simply suggest to my friends on the majority side of the 
aisle that if they are serious about saving social security, then I 
would urge the Members to quit promising the American public that we 
can provide $1.7 trillion in tax cuts in the next 15 years and still 
protect social security and still protect Medicare. We all know that 
that is not possible, and we can get on with serious legislation as 
soon as everybody in this place admits it.
  I have a simple suggestion. We were sent here not to adopt gimmicks, 
we were sent here to deal with our problems in serious legislative 
ways. If Members want to save social security, bring out a bill that 
saves social security. Do not bring out something which ought to be 
labeled the number one legislative fraud of the year.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), I know Hillary Clinton, and he is not Hillary Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me, and for the opportunity to say a few words in support of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, let me ask this House a very basic question. My friends 
on the other side of the aisle have been claiming that existing rules 
and existing laws already protect the social security trust fund.
  If that is the case, then, let me ask Members of this House, why do 
the social security trustees report that this Congress over the last 30 
years and the President have raided the social security trust fund to 
the tune of $730 billion?
  Obviously, the so-called protections that they claim are in place are 
not really there. That is why this legislation is so important as we 
take the steps to save social security for future generations, not just 
today but for the next three. The first step, the important step, is to 
lock away 100 percent of social security for social security; not part 
of social security, but all of social security.
  I represent a diverse district, the South Side of Chicago, the south 
suburbs, in Cook and Will counties, a lot of bedroom and rural 
communities. Whether I am at the union hall, the VFW, the grain 
elevator, the local coffee shop on Main Street, I am often asked a 
pretty basic question: When are you guys, when are you politicians in 
Washington, going to stop raiding the social security trust fund? 
Because they have been watching Congress and the President do that now 
for 30 years, to the tune of $730 billion.
  This legislation is important because we set aside $1.8 trillion of 
social security revenues, 100 percent of these revenues, for social 
security and Medicare. That is a big victory, because when we compare 
that with the alternative, and I point out, this is an important first 
step as we work to save social security for the long-term.
  I would like to point out the alternative here. If we look at why 
this is the centerpiece of this year's budget, 100 percent of this is 
for social security.
  On this chart I have here, in this coming year $137 billion is the 
projected social security surplus. With the lockbox, we set aside $137 
billion, the entire social security surplus, over the next year. The 
Clinton-Gore Democrat alternative sets aside only 62 percent, 
continuing the raid on social security. In fact, the Clinton-Gore 
budget would spend $52 billion of the social security surplus on other 
things.
  That is why this legislation is so important. We want to wall off the 
social security trust fund. We need measures that work. Obviously the 
current rules, the current laws, do not protect the social security 
trust fund. That is why the Medicare, social security and Medicare safe 
deposit box is so important.
  Let us give it bipartisan support. Let us take this important first 
step as we work to save social security.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, rarely has a government program caused so 
much confusion and misled so many people and perhaps bedeviled so many 
of us here in Congress, so it is appropriate tonight that we establish 
this lockbox and go ahead and pass this legislation.
  I might point out to my colleagues who are complaining that this did 
not go through a committee, I have been here 10 years. As the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui) knows, there are often times that the 
Democrats brought legislation that was good without going through the 
subcommittee or the full committee.

[[Page 11167]]

  So I think this has wide support. It will pass. I think it is 
appropriate that we bring this before the committee.
  Lastly, I would say that it is a great accommodation for us to be 
debating and completing this tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us would create a lockbox to 
ensure that Social Security surpluses be dedicated solely for the 
purpose they were intended to pay seniors their benefits.
  Today we can make history by standing up for not only what we believe 
to be right but what is absolutely necessary. If we are to make good on 
our promise to our country's seniors that we will protect the Social 
Security program, this can be achieved by putting future surpluses into 
a lockbox that could not be used to perpetuate the tax and spend 
policies of the past. In other words, the Social Security surpluses 
could not be used to pay for new spending projects or for tax cuts.
  Right now the Social Security Trust Fund is running a 126,000,000,000 
surplus and it is used to mask the deficit. The Social Security Trust 
Fund's surplus shouldn't be used to fund other programs. And it should 
not be used to mask our Nation's deficit.
  Added to that is the irony that this very same fund is scheduled to 
go bankrupt soon after the baby boomers start to retire.
  And so this trust fund which will soon go bankrupt is now in surplus, 
hiding the true state of the Federal budget.
  Rarely has a Government program caused so much confusion, mislead so 
many people, and bedeviled so many policy makers.
  We have been very zealous in cutting wasteful spending and reducing 
the size of our Government's bureaucracy. We should keep up our efforts 
and continue to cut out unnecessary spending. Whatever surplus we may 
have is a result of lower taxes and less government spending.
  What would happen if the economy should start to falter? How would 
that affect the budget process if the surplus were to shrink--keeping 
in mind that the true state of our budget surplus is dubious at best.
  We can through the passage of H. R. 1259--finally stop this practice 
which started when President Johnson unified the budget in 1969. It was 
then that Social Security, and the other Federal trust fund programs, 
were first officially accounted for in the Federal budget.
  The ``Safe Deposit Box Act'' establishes the submission of separate 
Social Security budget documents by excluding outlays and receipts of 
the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Program under the Social 
Security Act thereby preventing Social Security surpluses being used 
for any purpose other than for retirement benefits.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a valued 
member of the Subcommittee on Social Security.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security for yielding time to me.
  I want to also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Wally 
Herger) for bringing this legislation before us tonight. It is my view 
that the next logical step toward fiscal sanity in this town. The first 
step was through a Republican majority to actually get a balanced 
budget in terms of a unified budget, all the receipts in, income taxes, 
payroll taxes, other fees, and all payments out of the Federal 
Government; for the first time in 30 years, we now have a unified 
balanced budget.
  But it is time now to ensure the integrity of the social security 
system by taking those payroll taxes and requiring that they indeed go 
to the trust fund and to the social security system. That is what this 
does, by walling it off. It is not the last step. It is the next 
logical step.
  The next step is actually to take those funds and put them to work 
for the American people so that financial security and retirement is 
ensured. That is why I want to compliment the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for coming forward with a plan that does that 
over the requisite 75-year period.
  That is the challenge of this Congress. It does not mean this step is 
not important, because it is the foundation upon which real social 
security reform must be built.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), because I think he and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
have attempted to come up with a piece of legislation conceptually that 
at least deserves not only a hearing, but perhaps even a markup.
  What I really would suggest we do now is go to a markup. We are 6 
months into this year. We had a White House summit or conference last 
December. It appears to me now that now is the time to mark up a bill.
  We have essentially 3 months left, probably 25 to 30 legislative days 
left this year, and if we run out of time we are going to get into the 
year 2000, and everyone can see we probably will not take social 
security up in an election year, Democrats and Republicans. It is not a 
partisan observation.
  So we have a slight window. That means this window is probably within 
the next 20 or 30 days at the very most, and this issue is too critical 
to put off with resolutions, as we saw in January, or this so-called 
lockbox, which will do no harm but do no good.
  As a result of that, we should begin the markup. We are going to be 
25 percent short of paying out benefits over the next 35 years, 25 
percent short. As a result of that, we have an obligation to deal with 
this problem now. We should not be fooling around with gimmicks like 
lockboxes and resolutions. We should take this issue seriously.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, I compliment the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I take what he 
says as reaching out to Republicans and wanting to work together to 
solve this terrible problem that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about the year 2035. The real problem is going 
to start in 2014, when the fund starts to run out of money. That means 
that the FICA taxes will not be sufficient to take care of the 
benefits. That means that those baby-boomers that are getting into the 
retirement system at that time are going to require either a decrease 
in their benefits, which would be terrible, or an increase in the 
payroll taxes for the people that are already overtaxed, and 
particularly the people of low income.
  That would be terrible to do that. So let us not kid ourselves, we do 
not have until 2035. The problem starts at 2015, and the disaster 
happens at 2035.
  Just 2 weeks ago our ninth grandchild was born to Emily and to me, 
little Casey Carter, a beautiful little girl. And I cannot help but 
think, and all of us think as we look into our children's eyes, our 
grandchildren's eyes, just go out front and look into the eyes of the 
young people around this Capitol, we are handing them a hand grenade, 
pulling the pin, and say you hold it, it is your problem.
  We can solve it now, and we do need to solve it now. If we do not 
solve it now, it would be the biggest, biggest curse on this House and 
the Senate and the White House.
  We can work together. There is a way to do it. We have put down a 
plan. The President is going to be putting down a plan. I hope the 
Democrats will come out with a plan that they can support. We need to 
work together. We need to come together and solve this situation.
  We can do it now without in any way interfering with the benefits 
that our seniors rely upon and without increasing the taxes on our kids 
and our grandkids. But this may be the last Congress that can do this 
with as little pain as we can put into it.
  So let us work together, and I think this has been a very 
constructive, constructive session. I accept a lot of the criticism 
that has been given, and I hope that Members will accept a lot of the 
criticism that has come from this side. Together we can work together 
to solve the social security crisis in this country.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today I will reluctantly vote in 
favor of the Republican ``lock box'' proposal. I do so with reluctance 
because Democrats were not allowed to offer a far better alternative 
which would have truly

[[Page 11168]]

extended the life of both Social Security and Medicare.
  I am disappointed that, for all their rhetoric, the Republican 
leadership cannot come up with a real Social Security reform proposal 
that truly protects and extends the life of our nation's retirement 
security program.
  H.R. 1259 fits into a pattern of Republican-controlled congresses to 
pass harmless legislation that make political points instead of taking 
the tough steps necessary to solve our nation's problems. The bill in 
front of us was not even considered by the committees that have 
jurisdiction over Social Security. We need real action on Social 
Security and Medicare, not just procedural bills that do not address 
the heart of the matter.
  The heart of the matter is that 44 million people currently receive 
Social Security benefits, and Social Security has kept millions of our 
seniors out of poverty. Without Social Security, a staggering 42% of 
our seniors would be in poverty. But now due to the pending retirement 
of the baby boom generation and the very positive fact that people are 
living longer today, we need to take steps to provide for the long-term 
health of Social Security.
  Democrats are very clear about this--we want to reserve the budget 
surplus for the long-term health of both Social Security and Medicare. 
We have a basic difference of opinion with Republicans, who would like 
to use a significant percentage of the budget surplus for tax cuts 
which would benefit the richest Americans at a time when the economy is 
performing superbly.
  So while the bill today does no harm, neither does it do any good. 
Let's take the politics out of this debate about Social Security, roll 
up our sleeves, and get down to work on realistic and lasting reforms 
that will extend the life of Social Security and Medicare for 
generations to come.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democratic 
motion to recommit H.R. 1259 so that it can go through the normal 
Committee process and we can actually save the budget surplus for 
Social Security and Medicare.
  This bill appears to protect Medicare and Social Security from the 
cavalier spending of Congress, but it merely creates shelter for 
Congress when our constituents ask us why Social Security and Medicare 
are facing financial failure. Let's be honest with the American people. 
We must devise an honest approach to financing and strengthening the 
two systems.
  This bill did not go through the normal legislative process so it 
does not have the enforcement provisions it could have had if the Ways 
and Means Committee was allowed to debate and amend it. Furthermore, we 
must stop blaming the President and take responsibility for enacting--
or avoiding--responsible legislation. Not one dollar of taxpayer funds 
can be spent by the President unless Congress approves it. Finally, we 
must take this opportunity as a first step in real debate to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare.


         I. Let's Take A Look At Process So Far with H.R. 1259

  H.R. 1249 did not go through the regular Committee process. It was 
pulled from the Committees with jurisdiction and brought directly to 
the House floor without any normal deliberation.
  The Republicans avoided sending H.R. 1259 through Ways & Means so the 
Committee was not able to debate or amend the bill prior to coming to 
the floor.
  Had we used the normal legislative process, today's bill might have 
the enforcement measures needed to address Medicare and Social 
Security's insolvency problems. The Speaker promised to meet us half 
way when he took office. He also promised to play by the rules. Neither 
promise has been honored in this case. Clearly, we will move back to 
regular order only when it is convenient to do so.
  Had the Ways and Means Committee considered the bill, I would have 
offered an amendment to more clearly define what would qualify as 
``Medicare reform''. H.R. 1259 makes the ``lockbox'' provisions of the 
bill effective until Medicare and Social Security are saved. However, 
it does not define ``saved.'' This allows Congress to raise the age of 
eligibility, to force people into HMOs, and to reduce benefits as the 
means of ``extending'' the financial life of the program. Medicare is a 
vital program for our nation's seniors and disabled populations. In my 
mind, reform cannot include reductions in benefits like some would like 
to achieve. Some Members may believe that this is an adequate 
definition of ``saved'' but I don't. We cannot sacrifice the health and 
well-being of the American workers for the sake of balancing the books.


         II Congress--not the President--raids the Trust Funds

  I might point out that Social Security has already been taken ``off-
budget'' by three separate public laws: by the Social Security 
Amendments of 1983; by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985; and once more by the Budget Enforcement Act of 
1990. If Congress has been able to circumvent the spirit of the law for 
this long, what makes us believe that anything will change this time 
around?
  The GOP has been blaming the President for raiding the Social 
Security trust funds. This is simply not the case. This body is 
responsible for passing all spending bills. Just last week, we spent 
$12 billion for Kosovo in the Emergency Supplemental bill. Congress 
spent twice as much as the President requested for a war that the GOP 
refused to authorize.
  This is a clear case of hypocrisy. On the one hand, Congress doesn't 
want to authorize the war, but on the other hand they'll spend an 
exorbitant amount on pork for the mission. On the one hand, Congress 
claims they want to save the budget surplus for Medicare and Social 
Security but right after, they spend it on a war they don't support.
  Let's be honest. Congress controls the spending and we have always 
been able to control whether it goes for needed programs like Social 
Security and Medicare or programs like the National Missile Defense 
system.


              III. Strengthen Social Security and Medicare

  I agree that there should be a lockbox for Social Security and 
Medicare. But I want all surpluses to be used for these programs. First 
and foremost we must strengthen Social Security and Medicare and ensure 
their solvency. Before any tax bills are brought to the floor of the 
House, we must guarantee the American people that their Old Age, 
Survivors and Disability Insurance is as strong as they need it to be 
for a happy and healthy retirement. We must guarantee them that their 
health care needs will be met with quality in their golden years.
  We must lock up all of the budget surpluses until these two systems 
are strengthened through bipartisan legislation. The big tax cut for 
the wealthy must be postponed until the American worker is assured that 
his or her health and retirement insurance is safe for years to come.
  The only way to do this is by giving this bill some teeth. We must 
send this bill back to committee and give it the enforcement provisions 
it needs. Let's really lock up the surplus until Medicare and Social 
Security are solvent for the long-term.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, the best way to stop the politicians from 
spending the taxpayers' money is to take it away from them before they 
can waste it. Today we have the chance to take Social Security and 
Medicare's money away from the politicians.
  The Congressional Budget Office has projected a surplus of $1.55 
trillion over the next ten years. Of that amount, $1.52 trillion--98 
percent--is Social Security reserves, which consist of the payroll tax 
payments made by employees and employers during the next decade and 
interest earned on the Social Security Trust Fund during that period.
  Clearly, the surplus is not extra money which Congress can spend on 
any worthy cause. Every one of those dollars will be needed to honor 
our commitment to future retirees. Social Security is sound today, but 
we in Congress have a responsibility to worry about tomorrow.
  We must ensure that Social Security and Medicare will continue to 
provide the benefits promised to those who have paid into the system. 
No one should have to worry that one day Social Security will not be 
there for them. Our children and our grandchildren deserve to know that 
Social Security and Medicare will be there when they need it. We can 
give them that guarantee by voting for H.R. 1259, the ``Social Security 
and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act.''
  This bill:
  Removes Social Security surpluses from all budget totals used by 
Congress or the President, so they can no longer be used to mask 
deficits or inflate overall budget surpluses.
  Blocks budgets that spend excess Social Security money by requiring a 
supermajority (60) in the Senate for passage and allows for a point of 
order against any legislation in the House--including all spending 
initiatives or tax cuts.
  Creates a safe deposit box shielding Social Security surpluses that 
can only be opened for Social Security and Medicare reform.
  Using Social Security dollars to pay for anything other than 
retirement benefits would be an act of political larceny. The victims 
would be those hard-working men and women who are counting on Social 
Security to protect them in their retirement years.
  Save Social Security and Medicare for future generations, vote for 
this bill.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
deep concerns about

[[Page 11169]]

the rhetoric that surrounds this bill. I am deeply concerned that some 
members have stated that this budget will ``lock away the Social 
Security and Medicare surplus.'' I am puzzled as to what this means. Is 
the money going to be stuffed under a mattress at the Department of 
Treasury. Will there be a huge safe with armed guards at the Bureau of 
Public Debt stuffed full of stacks of cash? Obviously not.
  When you peel back the rhetoric, you find out that what the bill 
really does is to use the Social Security Trust Fund Surplus to pay 
down publicly held debt. This does absolutely nothing to address the 
long-term problems of Social Security. As a matter of fact, if Congress 
leaves current law as it is, all of the surplus from all of the trust 
funds, and any unified budget surplus, will be used to pay down the 
publicly held debt. When was the last time you heard seniors in your 
district telling you that they want FICA taxes to be used to pay for 
Congress' voracious spending during the 1980's and 90's?
  While paying down the publicly held debt may be a laudable goal, 
let's not say it does something to ``Save Social Security.'' All paying 
down the publicly held debt does is allow the government to pay down 
publicly held debt now, so that when all of the IOU's in the Social 
Security Trust Fund come due in 2014 we can take out more debt. I am 
puzzled why it is good policy to pay down debt now so that we can take 
out massive amounts of debt in the future.
  My colleague, Mr. Markey, and I have introduced legislation which 
will actually do something to save Social Security. Our legislation 
will add six years to the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. 
Our bill does this by authorizing the investment of a portion of the 
Social Security Trust Fund in broad-based index stock funds, just like 
every pension manager in the country does. We have included extensive 
provisions to protect the fund from political manipulation. By having a 
private sector fund managers invest in the market, our bill will 
finally get a portion of the trust fund out of the hands of a spend-
happy Congress in Washington, and simultaneously grow the assets in the 
trust fund. This is almost identical to the investment strategy that 
has been employed by the highly successful Thrift Savings Plan. Most 
importantly though, our bill will add at least six years to the 
solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Whie I intend to vote for this bill, let's be honest with the 
American people. This bill does nothing to ``Save Social Security.'' 
And if we tell the taxpayer otherwise we are doing them a disservice.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support 
of H.R. 1295, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 
1999. We must move this bill forward. For decades politicians in 
Washington have voted to spend the Social Security surplus on new and 
larger government programs.
  When Republicans took control of the Congress in 1994, we promised to 
put a cap on government spending and to protect Social Security. We 
were submitted to a relentless attack by those who wanted to expand the 
size and scope of government. But our efforts have paid off and the 
American people are better off because we have a real balanced budget 
for the first time in decades. When we take all of the Social Security 
Surplus money and set it aside in the lock-box, we still have a few 
dollars left over.
  Social Security is much safer today that it was four years ago 
because we have balanced the budget. Had we not presevered in our 
efforts to balance the budget no one would be here today talking about 
a Social Security Trust Fund lock-box. This debate would be impossible.
  I am pleased that the Republican Budget Resolution that we passed 
earlier this year committed us to passing a lock-box. We are doing that 
today with the passage of H.R. 1295.
  The greatest objections to this bill are coming from those who have 
voted over the past years to use the Social Security Trust Fund money 
to pay for larger government. They know that after today it will be 
more difficult to do so because they can no longer secretly dip their 
hand into the Trust Fund to pay for their new program.
  The bill will force fiscal discipline on Washington. In order to 
create a new federal program, politicians who propose new Washington 
programs will have to say how they are going to pay for their new 
program because they can no longer dip into Social Security for the 
money.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1259, the 
Social Security Lock Box bill. For too long, our Nation's seniors--and 
tomorrow's seniors--have been faced with uncertainty. It's an 
uncertainty about the promises they've been made, that the Social 
Security benefits they earned will be there for them when it's time for 
retirement.
  Our legislation locks away 100 percent of all Social Security 
surpluses. It locks them away from Congressional big spenders who'd 
rather break tomorrow's promises and fill the Social Security Trust 
Fund with IOUs, to spend for budget-busting federal spending today. 
With passage of our bill today, we can ensure that any new federal 
spending does not come at the expense of Social Security beneficiaries.
  Today, we make the guarantee for future beneficiaries and current 
Social Security recipients, that their benefits will be there. When 
they step toward retirement, they won't find IOUs in their Social 
Security accounts. Instead, they'll find their full benefits, and a 
promise kept.
  Let's put ``security'' back in Social Security. Support the Social 
Security Lock Box bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired. Pursuant to House 
Resolution 186, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rangel moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1259 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:

       Redesignate sections 4 and 5 as sections 5 and 6, 
     respectively, and insert after section 3 the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 4. SURPLUSES RESERVED UNTIL SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE 
                   SOLVENCY LEGISLATION IS   ENACTED.

       (a) In General.--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) Surpluses Reserved Until Social Security and Medicare 
     Solvency Legislation Is Enacted.--
       ``(1) In general.--Until there is both a social security 
     solvency certification and a Medicare solvency certification, 
     it shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or 
     the Senate to consider--
       ``(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget, or 
     conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would 
     use any portion of the baseline budget surpluses, or
       ``(B) 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 use any portion of the baseline budget surpluses.
       ``(2) Baseline budget surpluses.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `baseline budget surplus' means the sum of the on- and 
     off-budget surpluses contained in the most recent baseline 
     budget projections made by the Congressional Budget Office at 
     the beginning of the annual budget cycle and no later than 
     the month of March.
       ``(B) Baseline budget projection.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `baseline budget projection' means 
     the projection described in section 257 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 of current 
     year levels of outlays, receipts, and the surplus or deficit 
     into the budget year and future years; except that if outlays 
     for programs subject to discretionary appropriations are 
     subject to statutory spending limits then these outlays shall 
     be projected at the level of any applicable statutory 
     discretionary spending limits. For purposes of this 
     subsection, the baseline budget projection shall include both 
     on-budget and off-budget outlays and receipts.
       ``(3) Use of portion of the baseline budget surpluses.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, a portion of the baseline budget 
     surpluses is used if, relative to the baseline budget 
     projection--
       ``(A) in the case of legislation affecting revenues, any 
     net reduction in revenues in the current year or the budget 
     year, or over the 5 or 10-year estimating periods beginning 
     with the budget year, is not offset by reductions in direct 
     spending,
       ``(B) in the case of legislation affecting direct spending, 
     any net increase in direct spending in the current year or 
     the budget year, or over such 5 or 10-year periods, is not 
     offset by increases in revenues, and

[[Page 11170]]

       ``(C) in the case of an appropriations bill, there is a net 
     increase in discretionary outlays in the current year or the 
     budget year when the discretionary outlays from such bill are 
     added to the discretionary outlays from all previously 
     enacted appropriations bills.
       ``(4) Social security solvency certification.--For purposes 
     of this subsection, the term `social security solvency 
     certification' means a certification by the Board of Trustees 
     of the Social Security Trust Funds that the Federal Old-Age 
     and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund are, taken together, in actuarial 
     balance for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent 
     annual report of such Board of Trustees pursuant to section 
     201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(c)(2)).
       ``(5) Medicare solvency certification.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `Medicare solvency certification' 
     means a certification by the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that such Trust Fund is in 
     actuarial balance for the 30-year period utilized in the most 
     recent annual report of such Board of Trustees pursuant to 
     section 1817(b) of the Social Security Act.''.
       (b) Super Majority Requirement.--(1) Section 904(c)(1) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (as amended by section 
     3) is further amended by inserting ``312(h),'' after 
     ``310(g),''.
       (2) Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (as amended by section 3) is further amended by 
     inserting ``312(h),'' after ``310(g),''.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for 5 minutes in support of 
his motion.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is merely a parliamentary maneuver. It 
does not mean too much as it relates to whether or not this Congress or 
this House deals with Social Security. It takes the so-called Social 
Security surplus, puts it into a lockbox, and gives the key to that 
lockbox to the majority.
  I suppose that this is supposed to send a positive message to America 
that we do recognize the serious nature of the crisis that will face 
the next generation as they look forward to receiving the benefits that 
they rightly deserve.
  We on this side say that the President has tried to put pressure on 
the Congress by saying, let us do Social Security first. Let us do 
Medicare first.
  In order to put additional pressure on us, it is suggested, not only 
by the President, but by this stronger lockbox provision, which is 
identical to H.R. 1927 introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), and the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore), that says why restrict ourselves just to the Social 
Security surplus? Why not take the on-budget surplus? Why not take the 
monies that we will have, and as some people say, while the sun is 
shining, that is the time to fix the roof?
  Why not say that we are going to attempt to work in a bipartisan way, 
not to see who can outscore each other on points? Because when this 
motion is analyzed by those who study the work of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, it is going to be clear to everybody that we have not locked 
anything in. As long as there is a majority in this House, that box can 
be unlocked. There is no lock on it.
  But if we did say that we were going to work together, not as 
Democrats and Republicans, but as committed Members of this House, it 
would seem to me that we would start now in trying to cooperate with 
each other and not bring motions out on the floor without having full 
debate in the Subcommittee on Social Security and the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  No one has worked harder to achieve a bipartisan approach to this 
than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I think that our chairman 
and my President would like to be able to say that on their watch, they 
have been able to tackle this very serious problem.
  But this problem is not going to be resolved by Republicans, and it 
is not going to be resolved by Democrats. It is not going to be 
resolved by demagoguery. It is not going to be resolved by rhetorical 
motions and amendments.
  It can only be done when the leadership of this House decides that it 
is going to talk with the leadership on the other side, and they agree 
that we are going to work together, not to make points, but to make 
history.
  These things could have been discussed in the committee, but then 
again, if we do that, we have debate, and God knows we do not want any 
of that anymore.
  It seems to me that now is the time for the leadership to be a little 
more outspoken, not in terms of lockboxes, but in terms of leadership 
in saying that they have met, they have decided, and they have talked 
with the President, and they would like to resolve this problem. That 
way, we will not spend a lot of time pointing at each other for what we 
have not done, but we can spend more time taking care of the people's 
business.
  This motion to recommit, those who are voting for it are saying we 
make this a priority. If it is going to be a lockbox, let us lock up 
the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats and put them in a room 
and say they cannot get out of that room until they come up with a 
Social Security reform package. But my colleagues know and I know, if 
this is not done this year, it is not going to be done in this session.
  So we can bring out these amendments, we can talk about it, and we 
can move to recommit, but so far, we have no bill.
  I just want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for having 
the courage to put his name at least on the talking paper when his 
colleagues could not see fit to put their name on a bill.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand what is going 
on here. H.R. 1259 saves 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, 
$1.8 trillion over the next 10 years or $100 billion more than the 
President proposed in his budget for saving Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Under our safe deposit box, none of that money can be spent on 
anything else until we actually save Social Security and Medicare. For 
those who say that is not enough, Mr. Speaker, not enough, the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Shaw) have already offered a proposal to save Social Security 
for 75 years and beyond, that costs far less than the $1.8 trillion 
over the next decade, leaving hundreds of billions of dollars for 
Medicare reform.
  But in their zeal to prevent any tax relief for American people, the 
Democrat proposal would also freeze budget surpluses that have nothing 
to do with Social Security and Medicare. Apparently what that means is 
that the fiscal policy of the House Democrat leadership is that hard-
working Americans who have paid too much in income taxes cannot get any 
of their money back. It all has to stay trapped in Washington until the 
government agrees on how to save Social Security and Medicare. The 
longer that takes, the less money there is to return to the taxpayers.
  This proposal does not just prevent excess taxes from being returned 
in the form of income tax cuts, it also blocks the money from being 
spent on building a stronger military, improving public schools, or 
protecting the environment.
  The President said in his State of the Union address, we need to use 
the surplus wisely, including for such purposes. Is the Democrat 
leadership now telling the country those important goals do not matter? 
Or are the Democrats saying that, to the degree that issues other than 
Social Security and Medicare matter, we have to raise taxes to pay for 
them? Or are they suggesting we cut current government spending to pay 
for any new spending?

[[Page 11171]]

  I seriously doubt it.
  Finally, the Democrats' motion states any legislation opening the 
safe deposit box must save Social Security for at least 75 years. I 
welcome their use of this standard which the Social Security 
Administration says the Archer-Shaw plan achieves. Since the 
President's plan the Democrats are drafting falls short of this 75-year 
standard, saving Social Security for only about 55 years, I look 
forward to hearing how the Democrats would fill in those final 20 
years.
  Until then, we should defeat the Democrat motion and get on with 
saving the Social Security surplus, to strengthen Social Security and 
Medicare without tying the rest of the government in knots.
  In closing, our H.R. 1259 saves $100 billion more than under the 
President's budget for Social Security and Medicare. My colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle were in power here in the House for 40 
years, and guess how much money was set aside for Social Security? 
Zero. Nada. Not a single penny.
  Mr. Speaker, this lockbox in H.R. 1259 is good legislation. It is 
good for Social Security. That is why H.R. 1259 is supported by the 
United Seniors Association, the Seniors Coalition, the 60 Plus 
Association, the Concord Coalition, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, last month the House and Senate passed the fiscal year 
2000 budget resolution which committed to locking up 100 percent of 
Social Security. Now it is time to put that commitment into law.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to recommit and vote 
yes on H.R. 1259 and lock up Social Security for current and future 
generations.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit 
with instructions. The language contained in the instructions, which 
was introduced yesterday by my colleagues, Mr. Holt, Mr. Lucas, and me, 
offers the strongest lockbox of the proposals before us today.
  The Holt-Lucas-Moore language improves upon H.R. 1259 in two 
respects. First, it protects all unified budget surpluses, not just 
those attributed to Social Security. Second, it allows the Trustees of 
the Social Security and Medicare programs to be the arbiters of those 
programs' long term stability, not Congress and the White House.
   Mr. Speaker, we need to protect all budget surpluses until we've 
solved the problem of Social Security and Medicare solvency. The 
Clinton Administration and Congress, throughout this decade, have 
worked hard to bring us to the verge of a budget surplus. H.R. 1259, 
however, would allow us to exploit the surpluses through a loophole 
described as Social Security or Medicare ``reform.'' But the word 
``reform'' is never defined. Let the Trustees of the Social Security 
and Medicare programs make these decisions--not Congress. We cannot 
allow politics to wreck Social Security and Medicare.
  Don't just take my word for it, though. I am including in the Record 
a statement released today by the nonpartisan Concord Coalition. These 
budget watchdogs ``give extra credit to Congressmen Rush Holt, Ken 
Lucas, and Dennis Moore for their proposal to protect the entire budget 
surplus, over and above the Social Security surplus, until real 
entitlement reform is enacted.''
  Many of us are in Congress today because we pledged to our 
constituents that we would make the tough choices necessary to preserve 
and protect Social Security and Medicare. I made the same promise and 
adoption of the motion to recommit is an essential step toward keeping 
our faith with our constituents. Our responsibility to future 
generations of Americans remains.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to 
recommit, and I thank Mr. Rangel for offering it on our behalf.

                         The Concord Coalition


Concord Coalition Applauds Social Security Lock Box Proposals But Warns 
                       They Are Not Tamper Proof

       Washington.--The Concord Coalition today commended the 
     sponsors of Social Security lock box proposals, specifically 
     bills H.R. 1259 and H.R. 1927, for their efforts to lock away 
     the Social Security surplus.
       ``Both bills would make it more difficult for Congress to 
     pay for new spending or tax cuts by dipping into the Social 
     Security surplus. While structured somewhat differently, 
     either bill would provide an extra measure of protection for 
     the Social Security surplus. I applaud the sponsors of both 
     bills for their commitment to this issue and give extra 
     credit to Congressmen Rush Holt, Ken Lucas and Dennis Moore 
     for their proposal to protect the entire budget surplus, over 
     and above the Social Security surplus, until real entitlement 
     reform is enacted,'' said Concord Coalition Policy Director 
     Robert Bixby.
       While encouraged by the lock box proposals, the Concord 
     Coalition cautioned that their enforcement measure--a budget 
     point of order--is not tamper proof. ``Both lock box 
     proposals make attacking the Social Security surplus subject 
     to a budget point of order requiring additional votes. 
     However, we only have to look at the number of yes votes for 
     last week's emergency supplemental legislation to see that 
     this enforcement mechanism is not tamper proof,'' Bixby said.
       For example, the Senate requires a supermajority of 60 
     votes to override a budget point of order. Last week's 
     emergency spending legislation received 64 votes, more than 
     enough votes to waive a budget point of order.
       ``The Social Security lock box proposals have raised the 
     important question of how we can best preserve budget 
     surpluses for entitlement reform. However, we cannot let 
     these proposals overshadow the need for real reform. We hope 
     Congress and the President will turn to this task next,'' 
     Bixby said.

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democratic 
motion to recommit H.R. 1259 so that it can go through the normal 
Committee process and we can actually save the budget surplus for 
Social Security and Medicare.
  This bill appears to protect Medicare and Social Security from the 
cavalier spending of Congress, but it merely creates shelter for 
Congress when our constituents ask us why Social Security and Medicare 
are facing financial failure. Let's be honest with the American people. 
We must devise an honest approach to financing and strengthening the 
two systems.
  The bill did not go through the normal legislative process so it does 
not have the enforcement provisions it could have had if the Ways & 
Means Committee was allowed to debate and amend it. Furthermore, we 
must stop blaming the President and take responsibility for enacting--
or avoiding--responsible legislation. Not one dollar of taxpayer funds 
can be spent by the President unless Congress approves it. Finally, we 
must take this opportunity as a first step in real debate to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare.


         I. Let's Take A Look At Process So Far with H.R. 1259

  H.R. 1259 did not go through the regular Committee process. It was 
pulled from the Committees with jurisdiction and brought directly to 
the House floor without any normal deliberation.
  The Republicans avoided sending H.R. 1259 through Ways & Means so the 
Committee was not able to debate or amend the bill prior to coming to 
the floor.
  Had we used the normal legislative process, today's bill might have 
the enforcement measures needed to address Medicare and Social 
Security's insolvency problems. The Speaker promised to meet us halfway 
when he took office. He also promised to play by the rules. Neither 
promise has been honored in this case. Clearly, we will move back to 
regular order only when it is convenient to do so.
  Had the Ways and Means Committee considered the bill, I would have 
offered an amendment to more clearly define what would qualify as 
``Medicare reform''. H.R. 1259 makes the ``lockbox'' provisions of the 
bill effective until Medicare and Social Security are saved. However, 
it does not define ``saved.'' This allows Congress to raise the age of 
eligibility, to force people into HMOs, and to reduce benefits as the 
means of ``extending'' the financial life of the program. Medicare is a 
vital program for our nation's seniors and disabled populations. In my 
mind, reform cannot include reductions in benefits like some would like 
to achieve. Some Members may believe that this is an adequate 
definition of ``saved'' but I don't. We cannot sacrifice the health and 
well-being of the American workers for the sake of balancing the books.


         ii. congress--not the president--raids the trust funds

  I might point out that Social Security has already been taken ``off-
budget'' by three separate public laws: by the Social Security 
Amendments of 1983; by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985; and once more by the Budget Enforcement Act of 
1990. If Congress has been able to circumvent the spirit of the law for 
this long, what makes us believe that anything will change this time 
around?
  The GOP has been blaming the President for raiding the Social 
Security trust funds. This is simply not the case. This body is 
responsible for passing all spending bills. Just last week, we spent 
$12 billion for Kosovo in the Emergency Supplemental bill. Congress 
spent twice as much as the President requested for a war that the GOP 
refused to authorize.

[[Page 11172]]

  This is a clear case of hypocrisy. On the one hand, Congress doesn't 
want to authorize the war, but on the other hand they'll spend an 
exorbitant amount on pork for the mission. On the one hand, Congress 
claims they want to save the budget surplus for Medicare and Social 
Security but right after they spend it on a war they don't support.
  Let's be honest. Congress controls the spending and we have always 
been able to control whether it goes for needed programs like Social 
Security and Medicare or programs like the National Missile Defense 
system.


              iii. strengthen social security and medicare

  I agree that there should be a lockbox for Social Security and 
Medicare. But I want all surpluses to be used for these programs. First 
and foremost we must strengthen Social Security and Medicare and ensure 
their solvency. Before any tax bills are brought to the floor of the 
House, we must guarantee the American people that their Old Age, 
Survivors and Disability Insurance is as strong as they need it to be 
for a happy and healthy retirement. We must guarantee them that their 
health care needs will be met with quality in their golden years.
  We must lock up all of the budget surpluses until these two systems 
are strengthened through bipartisan legislation. The big tax cut for 
the wealthy must be postponed until the American worker is assured that 
his or her health and retirement insurance is safe for years to come.
  The only way to do this is by giving this bill some teeth. We must 
send this bill back to committee and give it the enforcement provisions 
it needs. Let's really lock up the surplus until Medicare and Social 
Security are solvent for the long-term.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device will be taken on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 222, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 163]

                               YEAS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--222

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Kasich
     Pelosi
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1930

  Messrs. HORN, RAHALL, and SMITH of Michigan changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. Peterson of Minnesota and Mr. BLUMENAUR changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 12, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               YEAS--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert

[[Page 11173]]


     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--12

     Dingell
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Houghton
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Rahall
     Sabo

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Kasich
     Pelosi
     Scarborough
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. LOFGREN changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 164, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________